Posted on 04/17/2021 2:35:49 PM PDT by rxsid
Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid
The diapers most of us are wearing on our face most of the time apparently have no effect at stopping Covid-19. This explains a lot.
Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19? No? It was posted on the the National Center for Biological Information government website. The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health, so one would think such a study would be widely reported by mainstream media and embraced by the “science-loving” folks in Big Tech.
Instead, a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely.
He was quoting directly from the NCBI publication of the study. The government website he linked to features a peer-reviewed study by Stanford University’s Baruch Vainshelboim. In it, he cited 67 scholars, doctors, scientists, and other studies to support his conclusions.
The sentence Cortes quoted from the study’s conclusion reads: “The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks.”
Vainshelboim drew many conclusions from the vast information he compiled, but arguably the biggest bombshell in it can be found in the “Efficacy of facemasks” section [emphasis added]:
According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask
And of course, this say's nothing about eye protection.
Scientists or lab techs don't walk into a "bio" lab where they do do work on contagious pathogens wearing only a piece of cloth over their mouth and nose.
If this virus were as dangerous as they say it is, there would have been a mandate to wear an N99/N100 properly fitted mask along with proper eye protection beyond glasses/sunglasses.
Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid
But it does prove your fealty to our government overlords. Trust the all knowing Fauci the Magnificent..
Hoping enough people see this and this idiocy ends
So many grammatical and spelling errors. Was this really peer-reviewed?
Conclusion
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects:Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
- hypoxia
- hypercapnia
- shortness of breath
- increased acidity and toxicity
- activation of fear and stress response
- rise in stress hormones
- immunosuppression
- fatigue
- headaches
- decline in cognitive performance
- predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses
- chronic stress
- anxiety
- depression
Like using a chain link fence to stop humming birds.
I hope that the quote from the report citing mask “thread diameter” is just a misleading choice of words. I wouldn’t think it would be the diameter of the threads that matters, but rather the diameter of the gaps or holes between the threads. Of course, trying to visualize how that would look at the microscopic level, I suppose wider threads would leave wider gaps, kind of like trying to weave together a bunch of logs versus a bunch of toothpicks. Maybe that’s what they meant.
The article about the study, or the study itself?
I think they left one negative effect of mask-wearing off the list: Substantial increase in smugness.
It's a great analogy. Updated with a more accurate comparison (mosquitos being closer to the "1000 times smaller" data point).
This caught my eye...
the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm, while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm, which is more than 1000 times larger. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material...It is the pore size that matters, not the thread size. You can have larger threads that are woven closely resulting in small pore size. The author seems to have little knowledge of filtration. The "1000 times smaller" usage is common these days, but drives me nuts. It suggests that a lay person is writing, not a technical person. Lastly, what in the world is "cotton sweeter material"? Is that a misspelling of "sweater"? If that is the typo, why would he look at cotton sweater material instead of the thousands of other cotton fabrics.
While I agree with the conclusions, it is a bit of an odd paper. I also do not see any author information other than his current affiliation.
Yes, that graphic/table contains important information. Thanks for posting!
Yes! This can be fun. I'd say it's like a soccer net to stop BBs. As I recall, the study observes that the masks people use have gaps between threads that, at their smallest, are 1000 times larger than a vireon--the part of the virus that flies through the air to infect people.
More like a fruit fly going through a farm field fence with 6"x6" openings. "more than 1000 times larger"
The author is in Palo Alto where smugness is off the charts. He is steeped in it, so he cannot observe it.
Viruses don’t have “wings” so actual virus size is mostly irrelevant to the mask argument. Viruses “ride” on saliva and “snot” (mucus excretions)...masks of any type reduce “ballistic” droplet (larger) transmission and the different but related “aerosol” transmission (very small droplets)...yes, N95, N100, etc. masks the best, but nothing short of a “positive pressure hazmat suit” is 100%.
The study was actually published in November 2020. So it has been on the NIH web site for at least five months - ignored for five months.
The author ignores the fact that masks are comprised of multiple layers of fibers, not individual layers. It's not like throwing a golf ball at a chain link fence, it's like throwing a golf ball at a hundred layers of chain link fence. And, for that matter, the virus is transmitted via droplets that are more like the size of a baseball being thrown at a hundred layers of chain link fence.
And; furthermore, multiple studies have shown that facemasks do not, in fact, cause hypercapnia or hypoxia. here's one that's so clear, even a caveman can understand it.De. Bunked.
Here are multiple videos demonstrating that facemasks do, in fact, reduce the transmission speed, distance and "hang time" of droplets.
Schlieren Imaging mask vs no mask
Mask no mask petri dish experiments
Laser imaging of droplet emission through no mask vs various styles of masks
Then the author cites the following study as evidence that wearing facemasks is pointless: 26) Leung N.H.L., Chu D.K.W., Shiu E.Y.C., Chan K.H., McDevitt J.J., Hau B.J.P. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks
This is the actual conclusion of that particular study:
I think we're done here. This isn't even a study. It's straight up BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
