"Anti-maskers" portrayed as irrational and unstable, even possibly dangerous

[midnight rambler]

I know some other folks besides myself who won't wear the commie muzzle and not a single one can be considered irrational and/or unstable.

https://www.lmtonline.com/business/article/Anti-maskers-put-shops-businesses-on-edge-15406410.php

[Hitch]

If people think that masks actually work and protect them from the Covid, they should not be upset about people not wearing masks. After all, they are wearing a mask themselves and protected. They are saved. By their mask.

If they are mad at others, then they really don't believe masks work. Their life sucks and it's all the non-masker's fault. When people feel they have lost control over their lives, they lash out at others. This is what we are seeing going on today.

[keehah]

LOL

"What happens when the live TV broadcasting of politicians calling for the continuation of mask mandates starts earlier than expected..."
https://twitter.com/i/status/1437835477000749056
(20s video clip)

[midnight rambler]

LOL

"What happens when the live TV broadcasting of politicians calling for the continuation of mask mandates starts earlier than expected..."
https://twitter.com/i/status/1437835477000749056
(20s video clip)


LOL

Politicians caught with their masks down.

[mamboni]

This video documentary is really well done and will red pill even the slowest amongst us. The power elite control our money, our governments, our police and militaries and our infrastructure. The only way to stop our slow slide into tyranny and dictatorship is for each of us to wake up to what is being done to us by them, one person at a time. Instead of watching football, or reality TV, or some pointless escapism movie, watch this. It could literally save your life. If you have been postponing facing reality up until now then I have to ask: considering all that is happening in our society now vis-a-vis mandated injections, restricted freedoms, and a crumbling economy if not now, when?

2030 UNMASKED DOCUMENTARY CONNECTING COVID19, MASKS, VACCINES, THE BANKING SYSTEM & THE GREAT RESET
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MbxHfhVExfKg/

[keehah]

LOL

Dr. Fauci gives medical advice for the 2019 cold and flu season.

David Rubenstein: "to prevent getting an infectious disease and having to have you as my Doctor is what? Umm, wearing a mask..."

Dr. Fauci: "No no no no (laughs). You avoid all the paranoid aspects and do something positive. A good diet. B [don't smoke and drink]. Get some exercise... Get good sleep. I think that the normal low tech healthy things are the best things that you can do"


Anthony Fauci on the David Rubenstein show May 22, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEb37ZywwgM
45s

[Steal]

Trust the scientist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGhu1mUx6XU&t=18s

Dear Unvaxxinated


https://www.bitchute.com/video/5ywUxwVNuxVV/

[keehah]

TWO FUCKING YEARS after there was enough data to conform COVID-19 was no worse than the flu.

And this is one of the BEST POLITICIANS we've got in all of the west?

What FUCKED UP POLITICAL SITUATION!

ctvnews.ca: Florida Gov. DeSantis berates kids for wearing masks (https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/florida-gov-desantis-berates-kids-for-wearing-masks-1.5804054)

March 3, 2022
TAMPA, FLA. -- A visibly annoyed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis admonished a group of high school students for wearing face masks at an indoor news conference Wednesday, saying it was time to stop what he called “this COVID theatre."

The Republican governor approached the students and asked them to remove their masks as they waited for him at the press event at the University of South Florida in Tampa. The college is located in an area where the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends indoor masking due to high COVID-19 risk.

“You do not have to wear those masks. I mean, please take them off. Honestly, it’s not doing anything. We’ve got to stop with this COVID theatre. So if you wanna wear it, fine, but this is ridiculous," he said, letting out an audible sigh and shaking his head...

DeSantis' office did not immediately return an email seeking comment. His spokesperson, Christina Pushaw, has tweeted defences of the governor's comments, writing “I mean, someone had to say it, after 2 years of propaganda that terrified and manipulated young people. Breathe free, feel safe and be happy.”

[keehah]

This European data analysis indicates wearing a mask does not reduce infection rates (the study even showed a small positive correlation!), and wearing a mask is significantly correlated with increased rate of death. With a majority (60.9%) of the population in the study wearing mask, any effect of self selection of more vulnerable peoples to the mask wearing cohort should be reduced.

israelnationalnews.com: Face mask usage correlates with higher death rates (https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/326734)

01.05.22
A new peer-reviewed study entitled: "Correlation Between Mask Compliance and COVID-19 Outcomes in Europe" has demonstrated that use of face masks, even widespread, did not correlate with better outcomes during the COVID epidemic, based on data from 35 European countries with populations of over one million people each, encompassing a total of 602 million people...

The study noted that the average proportion of mask usage in the period investigated (October 2020 until March 2021) was 60.9% ± 19.9%.

"Positive correlation between mask usage and cases was not statistically significant," the study also found, "while the correlation between mask usage and deaths was positive and significant (rho = 0.351, p = 0.039)." That is to say, more mask usage correlated with a higher death rate.

The study used a variety of statistical methods to study correlation but "none of these tests provided negative correlations between mask usage and cases/deaths ... Surprisingly, weak positive correlations were observed when mask compliance was plotted against morbidity (cases/million) or mortality (deaths/million) in each country."

The study also noted that the public may have gained the impression that masks could be helpful due to the fact that mandates were usually implemented after the first peak of COVID cases had passed. However, it became evident that masks were not in fact helpful later that same year, when widespread mask usage does not appear to have mitigated the severity of the COVID wave of winter 2020.

"Moreover," the study concludes, "the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences."
Edit to add direct link to the study:
researchgate.net: Correlation Between Mask Compliance and COVID-19 Outcomes in Europ (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359230925_Correlation_between_mask_compliance_and_ COVID-19_outcomes_in_Europe)e

Positive correlation coefficients were found between mask usage and cases (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.14) or between mask usage and death (Spearman's correlation coefficient =0.36) were found. The correlation between masks and death was considerably higher in the West than in Eastern European countries (0.6 and 0.2 respectively).

[keehah]

Pooled data study shows Medical/surgical masks have NO effect (relative risk of 1.01 vs no mask) reducing spread of acute respiratory viruses.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation))

Cochrane (previously known as the Cochrane Collaboration) is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide. Cochrane has approximately 30,000 volunteer experts from around the world.

The group conducts systematic reviews of health-care interventions and diagnostic tests and publishes them in the Cochrane Library.

cochranelibrary.com: Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full)

30 January 2023
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses...

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission...

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks...

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks... Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (Relative Risk [ comparing the likelihood, or chance, of an event occurring between two groups] 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence)....

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks...

We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings...

Hand hygiene compared to control

Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta‐analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and laboratory‐confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low‐certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low‐certainty evidence)...

Authors' conclusions...

There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness... Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

[woodman]

Pooled data study shows Medical/surgical masks have NO effect (relative risk of 1.01 vs no mask) reducing spread of acute respiratory viruses.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation))


cochranelibrary.com: Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full)



I sterilize my hands after going shopping in the towns near me. I've been doing so for about 5 years, long before the Covid insanity. It seems to help me stay bug free. I noticed a direct correlation some years back between my trips into town and getting sick. When I am shopping or doing errands I try to keep my hands away from my face/nose/mouth/ears. I just seem to get sick less this way. Masks are ridiculous.

[Neuro]

I sterilize my hands after going shopping in the towns near me. I've been doing so for about 5 years, long before the Covid insanity. It seems to help me stay bug free. I noticed a direct correlation some years back between my trips into town and getting sick. When I am shopping or doing errands I try to keep my hands away from my face/nose/mouth/ears. I just seem to get sick less this way. Masks are ridiculous.

I hope it won’t make your immune system long term weaker through lack of exercise?

[woodman]

I hope it won’t make your immune system long term weaker through lack of exercise?
I have wondered about this also. There is some speculation that in our modern age with kids being kept so antiseptic and protected that their immune system doesn't reach full potential. Being older, I may have a fully developed immune system that has been zeroed in on most classes of disease. Maybe not though. The claim is that the Native Americans could not fight off the diseases of the Europeans. The stories of the purposefully infected blankets are probably false as viruses typically can't be infective after a day outside the human body; or so I have read. It is also interesting to wonder wether or not a person can be infected with two different flu or cold viruses at one time. Why not?

Of course, if I simply stayed away from People it would be the same as sterilizing my hands.

[keehah]

The communist-corporatist fake news journalists are reinterpretating the Cochrane analysis in two ways to conclude (in their illogical but ideological minds) masks still work.

simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

In statistics, a null hypothesis, often written as [Ho], is a statement assumed to be true unless it can be shown to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt. The idea is that the null hypothesis generally assumes that there is nothing new or surprising in the population. The most common null hypothesis is the "no-change" or "no-difference" hypothesis

The null hypothesis is that masks don't work. Studies then would attempt to prove with a 90-95% confidence interval (that any particular study should be right 18 or 19 times out of 20) that masks work.

The meta-data review then concluded that there is no evidence that masks work. As the kid reporter at the Toronto Star points out, it is technically incorrect to conclude there is evidence or null hypothesis proof that masks don't work. What these reporters omit is that also technically one should then be assuming masks do not work until proven otherwise.

thestar.com: How the Cochrane Review went wrong. Report questioning COVID masks blows up, prompts apology (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2023/03/10/how-the-cochrane-review-went-wrong-report-questioning-covid-masks-blows-up-prompts-apology.html)

By Alex Boyd (https://muckrack.com/alex-boyd) Staff Reporter Fri., March 10, 2023
The Cochrane Review has apologized for an evidence review that led many to conclude, inaccurately, that masks don’t work.

The sociologist that first got Karla in Cochrane management to apologize for the science and scientists works for the New York Times. To summarize her revisioning of unacceptable truth: The original report that masks don't work is technically incorrect because in the real world additionally mask use don't work.

nytimes.com: Here’s Why the Science Is Clear That Masks Work (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html)

OPINION ZEYNEP TUFEKCI March 10, 2023
“Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane review shows that ‘masks don’t work,’ which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor in chief of the Cochrane Library, said in a statement.

“The review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses,” Soares-Weiser said, adding, “Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.”

She said that “this wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize,” and that Cochrane would revise the summary...

The flawed summary — and further misinterpretation of it — set off a debate between those who said the study showed there was no basis for relying on masks or mask mandates and those who said it did nothing to diminish the need for them.

Michael D. Brown, a doctor and academic who serves on the Cochrane editorial board and made the final decision on the review, told me the review couldn’t arrive at a firm conclusion because there weren’t enough high-quality randomized trials with high rates of mask adherence...

So what we learn from the Cochrane review is that, especially before the pandemic, distributing masks didn’t lead people to wear them, which is why their effect on transmission couldn’t be confidently evaluated...

Why aren’t there more randomized studies on masks? We could have started some in early 2020, distributing masks in some towns when they weren’t widely available. It’s a shame we didn’t. But it would have been hard and unethical to deny masks to some people once they were available to all...

So how should we evaluate an interview in which the lead author of the Cochrane review, Tom Jefferson, said of masks that the review determined “there is just no evidence that they make any difference”? As for whether N95s are better than surgical masks, Jefferson said, “makes no difference — none of it.” ...

So the evidence is relatively straightforward: Consistently wearing a mask, preferably a high-quality, well-fitting one, provides protection against the coronavirus

Easy-peasy revisioning as if reality and science are but mere objects for journalistic womipulating:

abcnews.go.com: Masks are effective but here's how a study from a respected group was misinterpreted to say they weren't (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/masks-effective-study-respected-group-misinterpreted/story?id=97846561)
March 14, 2023

justthenews.com: 'Thrown under the bus': Research collaborative caves to media pressure on mask meta-study (https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/thrown-under-bus-research-collaborative-caves-media-pressure-mask-meta)

March 17, 2023
Apublic-private campaign to discredit a mask meta-study by one of the world's most respected research collaboratives has prompted that organization to mischaracterize the study's findings, according to doctors, scientists and journalists supporting the lead researcher.

Cochrane may have violated Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) protocol by preempting the post-publication debate process with Editor-in-Chief Karla Soares-Weiser's March 10 statement deeming the study's results "inconclusive," overriding the authors' interpretation and framing.

"Cochrane has thrown its own researchers under the bus again" by giving "little workable notice" before purporting to speak in their name, University of Oxford epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, who has led the oft-updated mask meta-study since 2006, told medical scientist-turned-journalist Maryanne Demasi in a lengthy interview.

"It sends the message that Cochrane can be pressured by reporters to change their reviews," he said, citing a March 10 New York Times column by sociologist Zeynep Tufekci that explained why "the science is clear that masks work" and put Cochrane on the defensive for Jefferson's portrayal of the findings.

The dozen authors agreed to present their grievances to Cochrane about Soares-Weiser circumventing the "tried and tested way of handling criticisms" through back-and-forth with commenters on the review page, Jefferson said.

Without naming Cochrane, COPE told Demasi that publishers may not change the "interpretation and conclusions" of papers without getting the "input and approval" of the authors.

"Open season on scientists" is how Jefferson and Carl Heneghan, both of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, described Cochrane's response to external pressure in their newsletter.

Jefferson previously accused the British charity, often labeled the "gold standard" of evidence-based medicine, of withholding his international research team's spring 2020 update for several months as COVID-19 pandemic policy was developing because it lacked the "right answer."

Published in January in the Cochrane Library, the update immediately drew attacks from prominent proponents of masking. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky minimized the findings before Congress because they were based on RCTs [Randomized controlled trials], rather than the uncontrolled observational studies the CDC favors.

"No doctor had ever said that in modern existence," Yale University epidemiologist Harvey Risch told "Just the News, No Noise," referring to Walensky's dismissal of RCTs as insufficient evidence,

The CDC's "cherry-picked" mask studies stand in contrast to "more than 150 studies that show that masks are useless for viral respiratory infections" as opposed to, say, "construction dust," the original purpose of N95 masks, he said.

Public health authorities "rang this bell of panic and fear" to get Americans to wear primarily cloth masks with no evidence of benefit and "continue to cling to ideas that really had been discredited in the scientific community" before COVID, Stanford medical professor Jay Bhattacharya told JTNNN regarding the Cochrane study.

"Behavior manipulation by public health," not scientific thinking and results, are what drive continued masking, he said.