Any virologist worth his salt already knows that the mask can't keep out most viruses. Viruses are notoriously small and using those masks is like using a deer fence to try to keep out fruitflies. The holes in masks are too large to keep viruses out. My husband is a virologist/immunologist of many decades and worked in Public Health Dept. of PA - those are the folks who know all about how to manage epidemics and advise the public on how to manage them. Their job is to know about diseases.
I just got an email from Royal Bank of Canada telling me they "continue to follow provincial public health guidelines and monitor the COVID-19 situation." Currently, that means they advise the wearing of masks but do not require them of customers or staff. I just have to ask: What the heck is the province using to justify the continuing advice to wear masks? And why would Canada's largest bank follow a stupid harmful guideline that makes no sense?
Captain obvious says. Of course masks don't work for viral transmission. How would you test for "transmission" anyhow, a PCR test or an Antibody test? Neither of them look for "virus's". "There is no evidence of transmission of HIV" - Anthony Fauci, 1988 https://www.bitchute.com/video/TEPbjQMTqddZ/
Justin, there is a small problem with your new infographic: Abaluck (2022) did not conclude "no statistical difference". In fact, in the final publication the authors claim a statistically significant (just barely!) effect of 9.5% reduction in symptomatic seropositivity. You or I might read the study, and the Jefferson et al. criticisms, and decide: "no statistical difference, really". But that is NOT what the authors said, so you should not report it that way.
Scientific studies were done in the 1920's after the Spanish Flu Pandemic and the conclusion then were masks didn't work. 100 years later the pseudo-scientists like Fauci ignored that evidence, (but not at first), and claimed they worked. That was our first clue he was crooked.
What was poured over the study? Pancake syrup? Honestly. The phrase should be "pored over the study". It's hard to concentrate on the very good message when running across a major error in the first sentence.
The evidence has been in for over 100 years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/04/02/everyone-wore-masks-during-1918-flu-pandemic-they-were-useless/
Amazing what it takes to prove what we already knew to be true. But the MSM and the medical industrial complex will never acknowledge they were wrong.
First, these clowns would have had to prove that masking makes any kind of difference. That has never been shown.
I've come to believe the masks are used as punishment in the hospital for anyone who refuses a shot (flu/covid).
Any virologist worth his salt already knows that the mask can't keep out most viruses. Viruses are notoriously small and using those masks is like using a deer fence to try to keep out fruitflies. The holes in masks are too large to keep viruses out. My husband is a virologist/immunologist of many decades and worked in Public Health Dept. of PA - those are the folks who know all about how to manage epidemics and advise the public on how to manage them. Their job is to know about diseases.
I just got an email from Royal Bank of Canada telling me they "continue to follow provincial public health guidelines and monitor the COVID-19 situation." Currently, that means they advise the wearing of masks but do not require them of customers or staff. I just have to ask: What the heck is the province using to justify the continuing advice to wear masks? And why would Canada's largest bank follow a stupid harmful guideline that makes no sense?
Have been saying it for years, that they don't protect you from grems!!
Of course they don't work.
There is no 'virus', and germ theory is a fraud. Duh!
Captain obvious says. Of course masks don't work for viral transmission. How would you test for "transmission" anyhow, a PCR test or an Antibody test? Neither of them look for "virus's". "There is no evidence of transmission of HIV" - Anthony Fauci, 1988 https://www.bitchute.com/video/TEPbjQMTqddZ/
Justin, there is a small problem with your new infographic: Abaluck (2022) did not conclude "no statistical difference". In fact, in the final publication the authors claim a statistically significant (just barely!) effect of 9.5% reduction in symptomatic seropositivity. You or I might read the study, and the Jefferson et al. criticisms, and decide: "no statistical difference, really". But that is NOT what the authors said, so you should not report it that way.
Scientific studies were done in the 1920's after the Spanish Flu Pandemic and the conclusion then were masks didn't work. 100 years later the pseudo-scientists like Fauci ignored that evidence, (but not at first), and claimed they worked. That was our first clue he was crooked.
What was poured over the study? Pancake syrup? Honestly. The phrase should be "pored over the study". It's hard to concentrate on the very good message when running across a major error in the first sentence.
Covid was a bioweapon.
The covid death shots are bioweapons.