It begins: Die-off of the vaccinated

You haven't said one damn thing backed by anything other than propaganda media.

@chic-cardinals

 I wish I had your insight. 

Time to roast a pig in the streets of Ottawa. 

Wearing a mask all the time will infect your lungs. Then when you get sick,it will be worse.

Bacterial pneumonia.  Blocking your mouth Poisons your own blood. Oxygen levels etc 

This happened with the spanish flu and polio.

  @ The three blind mice (D-Up, PB & Stump). They can't scratch & sniff anything that isn't baked in MSM corruption. If it smells like MSM shit, that's when they know it's time to eat. And truth seekers know these three are full of shit.

When ever you see all three of them together clamoring for the same thing, you can rest assured that the truth has been spoken. And remember what the theme song for The Three Stooges was? Yep, Three Blind Mice.

@mctrap

 All I asked you to do was post a link. I was interested in what you were saying. I've barely participated in this thread, and I really don't give a damn about any of this. For the record, you can't simply call something "MSM" simply because you disagree with it. You don't know shit about where guys get their news. And in my case, I wasn't even disagreeing with it. I simply asked for a link. Maybe you couldn't provide one so instead you made this whiny bitch post, because that's what you do. That's what you are.

This is all I posted. You can't help it though. You want there to be drama. You want to create these internet enemies, that really only exist in your own head. It makes you feel validated. Sorry, but we aren't rivals. There aren't sides on covers. These aren't clicks. I'm just a guy simply asking you to post a link.

@chic-cardinals

 Did you forget to log out and back into your mctrap username??? 

I'm asking mctrap , not you....We've already long  established  that talking to you is a waste of time....

@mctrap

 So you still don't have a credible source ...

Please post a source...

He posted several credible sources, all in invisible hocus pokus font color just like the clownshow college teaches their students   

You if anything , is the fake , childish account.

Just more distraction and contradiction. Just fear based govt worship crap.

Wearing a mask all the time will infect your lungs. Then when you get sick,it will be worse.

Bacterial pneumonia. Blocking your mouth Poisons your own blood. Oxygen levels etc 

This happened with the spanish flu and polio.

Says who, you?

Do you have any invisible font links too?

I have a theory that the only people constantly complaining about mask mandates are poor people with menial service industry jobs requiring them to wear masks for 8+ hours a day. For example, I just got off a plane. Hadn't worn a mask in days. Wife drops me off at the airport, mask goes on. Takes me a few minutes to get through security because I have to PreCheck AND Clear, few minutes and I'm in the club, drink in hand, mask off. I put it on to board and fly. It comes off as I exit the airport to meet my ride. Meeting friends for drinks, mask will go half on to enter the bar and come immediately off. It won't go on much for the entire weekend save for running into a store or such. And I have both business and social plans. Masks won't affect any of them. If you're crying about masks, it's because you've been forced to wear one, which means you're a worker bee and not a boss. Either that or you're sitting at home bitching for the sake of being a bitch.

Doctors and dentist wear masks all day, do they not? Is there a high incidence of pneumonia in those professions.

"....Poisons your own blood. Oxygen levels, etc."

These are the ramblings of a guy who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And we all know it. Most of us know people like you in real life. You aren't original.

I often train wearing an altitude mask. If a fake ass cloth paper mask is dropping your O² levels, then the mask isn't the problem. And for the record, I have never supported make mandates. I just know that guys like chic talk out of their arse. Call them on something, ask them to answer a question or post a link and they food like a cheap lawn chair, which about equals their worth to society. Cheap lawn furniture.

I have addressed this in a couple of the other Wuhan Flu-related threads.  People of all backgrounds are upset about the mask mandates.  Because they see it as a politically-driven agenda instead of a science-backed policy.  It continues to amaze me that so many people just follow along with this and assume it is scientific.  Nowadays, everyone can look up scientific studies and see the data for themselves.  But people blindly accept so much from the media and politicians.  People, that do not believe that masks hinder them, should try running up stairs with a mask and without a mask.  Then decide if there is a notable difference.  But it is so easy to look at the studies -- especially from before this pandemic -- and see the infections and oxygen-lowering issues with them.  So many good ones from H1N1 and post-SARS to look at.  This has actually been studied quite a bit on whether masks even help the patients all that much. 

For example, when the numbers increase with this current pandemic even after implementing mask mandates -- instead of decreasing -- something is obviously wrong.  But folks are not able to think for themselves or just choose to go along with the crowd.

I know that the average person will not understand some of the complex studies and not know how to interpret the data.  But some are really pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

Background: Due to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, medical face masks are widely recommended for a large number of individuals and long durations. The effect of wearing a surgical and a FFP2/N95 face mask on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity has not been systematically reported.

Methods: This prospective cross-over study quantitated the effects of wearing no mask (nm), a surgical mask (sm) and a FFP2/N95 mask (ffpm) in 12 healthy males (age 38.1 ± 6.2 years, BMI 24.5 ± 2.0 kg/m). The 36 tests were performed in randomized order. The cardiopulmonary and metabolic responses were monitored by ergo-spirometry and impedance cardiography. Ten domains of comfort/discomfort of wearing a mask were assessed by questionnaire.

Results: The pulmonary function parameters were significantly lower with mask (forced expiratory volume: 5.6 ± 1.0 vs 5.3 ± 0.8 vs 6.1 ± 1.0 l/s with sm, ffpm and nm, respectively; p = 0.001; peak expiratory flow: 8.7 ± 1.4 vs 7.5 ± 1.1 vs 9.7 ± 1.6 l/s; p < 0.001). The maximum power was 269 ± 45, 263 ± 42 and 277 ± 46 W with sm, ffpm and nm, respectively; p = 0.002; the ventilation was significantly reduced with both face masks (131 ± 28 vs 114 ± 23 vs 99 ± 19 l/m; p < 0.001). Peak blood lactate response was reduced with mask. Cardiac output was similar with and without mask. Participants reported consistent and marked discomfort wearing the masks, especially ffpm.

Conclusion: Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

Background: Safety in medical work requires eye protection, such as glasses, and protective facial masks (PFM) during clinical practice to prevent viral respiratory infections. The use of facial masks and other full personal protective equipment increases air flow resistance, facial skin temperature and physical discomfort. The aim of the present study was to measure surgeons' oxygenation status and discomfort before and after their daily routine activities of oral interventions.

Methods: 10 male voluntary dentists, specializing in oral surgery, and 10 male voluntary doctors in dentistry, participating in master's courses in oral surgery in the Department of Oral Surgery of the University of Chieti, with mean age 29 ± 6 (27-35), were enrolled. This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of wearing a PFM on oxygenation status while the oral surgeons were actively working. Disposable sterile one-way surgical paper masks (Surgical Face Mask, Euronda, Italy) and FFP2 (Surgical Face Mask, Euronda, Italy) were used and the mask position covering the nose did not vary during the procedures. The FFP2 was covered by a surgical mask during surgical treatment. A pulse oximeter was used to measure the blood oximetry saturation during the study.

Results: In all 20 surgeons wearing FFP2 covered by surgical masks, a reduction in arterial O saturation from around 97.5% before surgery to 94% after surgery was recorded with increase of heart rates. A shortness of breath and light-headedness/headaches were also noted.

Conclusions: In conclusion, wearing an FFP2 covered by a surgical mask induces a reduction in circulating O concentrations without clinical relevance, while an increase of heart frequency and a sensation of shortness of breath, light-headedness/headaches were recorded.

Keywords: COVID-19; FFP2 respirators; N95; SARS-CoV-2; personal protective equipment; protective face masks; severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus; surgical mask.

Abstract

It has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections. On the contrary, a 50% decrease has been reported after omitting face masks. The present study was designed to reveal any 30% or greater difference in general surgery wound infection rates by using face masks or not. During 115 weeks, a total of 3,088 patients were included in the study. Weeks were denoted as "masked" or "unmasked" according to a random list. After 1,537 operations performed with face masks, 73 (4.7%) wound infections were recorded and, after 1,551 operations performed without face masks, 55 (3.5%) infections occurred. This difference was not statistically significant (p greater than 0.05) and the bacterial species cultured from the wound infections did not differ in any way, which would have supported the fact that the numerical difference was a statistically "missed" difference. These results indicated that the use of face masks might be reconsidered. Masks may be used to protect the operating team from drops of infected blood and from airborne infections, but have not been proven to protect the patient operated by a healthy operating team.

Another trial Anderson mentions is a 2015 study that directly compared cloth masks to surgical masks. Its 1,100 participants, each of whom was a healthcare worker, were instructed to wear their masks at all times on every shift for four weeks. The study found that those who wore cloth masks were 13 times more likely to develop an influenzalike illness than those who wore surgical masks. But even the surgical masks were found to be “poor” at preventing the penetration of particles, and cloth masks were “extremely poor.” Surgical masks let through 44% of particles. Cloth masks let through 97%.

Anderson concludes:

In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless — whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone — or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.

In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless — whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone — or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.

This is important because an honest conversation about masks requires taking a hard look at the scientific evidence backing them. And if Anderson is right and the CDC's observational studies are as sloppy and inconclusive as they appear to be, that's a problem. Millions of people have been led to believe that the only way they can protect themselves against this virus, besides getting vaccinated, is by strapping a piece of cloth around their noses and mouths. Social media giants and everyday busybody scolds have shamed and punished anyone who questions this guidance.

But the data cited by Anderson suggests that not only was this guidance wrong but that public health officials knew it was wrong and rolled it out anyway.

Even when studies show they are not that effective, it is always striking how they couch the ineffectiveness with lack of knowledge of proper use, reasons for use, lack of use with other measures, etc.

For example, about the Spanish Flu:

Did masks prevent the spread of influenza? Experts reviewing evidence from 1918 concluded that flu masks failed to control infection. In December 1918, the American Public Health Association recommended that the “wearing of proper masks” should be compulsory for medical staff, occupations such as “barbers, dentists, etc.,” and “all who are directly exposed to infection.” The committee also found, however, that the evidence “as to beneficial results consequent on the enforced wearing of masks by the entire population at all times was contradictory,” and thus the committee did not recommend “the widespread adoption of this practice.” The committee did recommend that persons “who desire to wear masks” should be “instructed as to how to make and wear proper masks, and encouraged to do so.”

In 1919, Wilfred Kellogg’s study for the California State Board of Health concluded that mask ordinances “applied forcibly to entire communities” did not decrease cases and deaths, as confirmed by comparisons of cities with widely divergent policies on masking. Masks were used most frequently out in public, where they were least effective, whereas masks were removed when people went inside to work or socialize, where they were most likely to be infected. Kellogg found the evidence persuasive: “The case against the mask as a measure of compulsory application for the control of epidemics appears to be complete.”

In a comprehensive study published in 1921, Warren T. Vaughn declared “the efficacy of face masks is still open to question.” The problem was human behavior: Masks were used until they were filthy, worn in ways that offered little or no protection, and compulsory laws did not overcome the “failure of cooperation on the part of the public.” Vaughn’s sobering conclusion: “It is safe to say that the face mask as used was a failure.”

In 1927, Edwin Jordan’s definitive study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association as a series of articles and then as a book, determined that masks were effective when worn by patients already sick or by those directly exposed to victims, including nurses and physicians. Jordan also acknowledged, however, that “masks are uncomfortable and inconvenient, as anyone who has worn them can testify” and require a great deal of “discipline, self-imposed or other.” Jordan came to a more guarded conclusion: “The effect of mask wearing throughout the general community is not easy to determine.”

"A study in the Great Lakes, however, did not find such beneficial results. Mask wearing by hospital corps did not have an effect on the incidence of disease as 8% who used the mask developed infection while only 7.75% of non-mask wearers did (JAMA, Vol. 71, No. 26). Despite these results, the masks were commonly used by many in an effort to avoid the pandemic influenza disease."

You will even see this pre H1N1 with SARS, back to Russian Flu, etc.

I contend a lot of it is fright, looking to 'experts' and 'leaders' for help, and lack of other measures. But I think a lot of it is lack of what else to really do that is effective.  Sometimes, the 'experts and leaders' do not really know what to do -- so they just key in on one thing, whether it works or not.

When you look at studies that show an increase in some of the things that are thought to be prevented, like infections -- you really should try to look at the overall picture of what is happening.

At any rate, there are many well-educated people that will say that masks are not that effective.  A lot of medical people will also say this and they are backed up by studies before, and during, this current pandemic.

But folks will tend to believe something that seems plausible on its face -- especially, when it is pounded into them on a non-stop basis every day.

It is very hard to change folk's minds when they have them made up.

Like they say -- you cannot reason someone away from something, when reason is not what took them there in the first place.

I do want to add one more thing that is interesting.  My contention is other things may be better.  One of them is the hand-washing -- which I really think the studies back this up.  I think there may be something to the folks that are more apt to wear a mask also being more fastidious about other things that help even more.  Thus, making the masks seem to help more than they might help.  But this study looked for a connection:

No, they don't wear them all day, and they don't wear the over the counter ones or cloth ones. And they aren't huffing and puffing manual labor with a boss that may bitch if it ain't in their face.

Lol, youre trying too hard. All you're govt approved data above. 

It's real simple. If you wear a mask and keep touching your face to put it on or move it etc.

You're more likely to catch something. And you can't tell me I'm wrong about cloth face masks obviously. 

It's pointless ,stupid and ridiculous since everything has already said they prevent nothing. No politicians / leaders are wearing any. No celebrities and most at SB didn't.

No one in the history of mankind has ever caught va flu virus because something was floating in the air from someone else.

If that were true you'd already be dead or ill. 

I worked in a mall in a department store for 10 years , that includes 10 Christmases.

Never caught anything that kept me from work. It's simple.. I never touched my face. If I felt the need to wipe, scratch my nose or something, I used my shirt. I touched a million doorknobs and passed a million people. 

Germ theory is bogus and the idea of a virus is falsified or skewed as well. Masks do nothing beneficial and obviously the elite ar not wearing them. So unnecessary, unneeded.