? masking ?

Post all political posts here.

Moderators: Hobie, AmBraCol

Forum rules
The rules are simple...
- no advocation of violence to anyone
- no cursing

Violation of the rules will result in deletion of the topic.
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 27696
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by AJMD429 »

I can’t cite every source I’ve read and all that, but I can tell you my impression is that it is correct to say that the mRNA Vaccines are not designed to modify the DNA or cause any permanent genetic change. Having said that, the possibility that they would inadvertently do those things certainly exists. The vaccines have not been used in humans yet and I’m not sure to the extent they have been studied in animals, because I just haven’t had time to research that. Anyway the gist of it is that they are a new type of vaccine to be given to humans, and seem theoretically safe. So far...

On the other hand, consider that there have probably been about 100 vaccines on the market over the past 50 years, and we’ve had four or five taken off the market because of safety issues. That’s a risk of 4 - 5%. Granted, some were taken off the market because there were alternative vaccines with less safety issues, but the truth is there are safety issues that turn up after a few years with vaccinations at a 4 to 5% rare. That needs to be taken in consideration when vaccinating people who were going to live more than a few years. Vaccinating a 92-year-old in a nursing home is quite different from a risk standpoint than vaccinating a 42-year-old otherwise healthy person.

Government has no business mandating vaccines, and any employer or private entity that wants to mandate a medical treatment for the employees needs to be held strictly and severely liable for any and all consequences of that treatment whether it’s a mandated surgery mandated medication or mandated vaccine.

As several have stated, the other thing to take into consideration when thinking about pros and cons of vaccination is not only the safety and effectiveness of that vaccine as juxtaposed to the risk of whatever is being vaccinated against, but also what alternative treatments exist. There is pretty clear evidence that near-100% effectiveness is obtained in preventing COVID-19 from even becoming symptomatic if one follows the I-MASK+ protocol or other similar ones that have been tested over the past year.

Especially for people under the age of 60 or 70, it makes a lot more sense to look at protocols like that where we are dealing with medications with long track records and very well documented safety, versus a vaccine with short-term data showing effectiveness and short-term data showing reasonable safety, but an absolute complete absence of any long-term safety or effectiveness data.

The bottom line at this point is that I recommend a vaccine for people who are over 90, or over 70 and frail, and anyone else who has read thoroughly about them and feels they want to take the personal risk. I recommend zinc and vitamin D for pretty much everyone, although of course I need to discuss it with her personal physician. Quercetin and melatonin and budesonide Clearly have rules for people with respiratory compromise, or people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 already. Anticoagulants, whether it be aspirin or Xarelto or something in between, or a complex matter that certainly needs discussed with a personal physician. Although the data finally got acknowledge to show that hydroxychloroquine was indeed not only safe but effective when used properly, I think the data on ivermectin has been more compelling. I think anyone who has a high exposure risk, is over 50 years of age, or has any pre-existing frailty, I want to consider taking one of those agents prophylactically as well.

All that is subject to continuous an ongoing modification as we learn more about the virus more about the mutations more about the vaccines and more about the drug regimen is designed to treat and prevent COVID-19.

Unfortunately, our reliance on the news media and the government to tell us what to do only Generate hysteria and stampedes people towards whatever solutions line the right pockets. All of us should be careful in our decision making to make sure we are getting our information from trusted sources, and even then verifying it and discussing it with trusted individuals in the medical profession or pharmaceutical profession.

I think what a horrific tragedy would result if we give a couple hundred million American citizens a new type of vaccine, only to find out that 45 years later they start developing auto immune diseases, as has happened with other vaccines in past years. We could destroy our nation in a decade. Unfortunately, that something that quite a few progressive liberals would be quite happy to see happen.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
vancelw
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3701
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:56 pm
Location: 90% NE Texas and 10% SE Montana

Re: ? masking ?

Post by vancelw »

Amen, Doc
"Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one less scoundrel in the world." - Thomas Carlyle
User avatar
KWK
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:31 am
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by KWK »

AJMD429 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:28 pm
... a new type of vaccine, only to find out that 45 years later they start developing auto immune diseases, as has happened with other vaccines in past years.
Interesting observation. Which class of vaccines fell into that category?

It's a curious thing to hijack cell chemistry to make antigens, but viruses hijack our cells every year. Also, the number of cells hijacked by the vaccines is clearly limited by the dosage.

One must wonder: How do the spikes produced affect the cells doing the producing?, and are spikes free floating around inside your body more dangerous than the spikes of viruses that might come your way? Millions of people are finding out, and they don't seem to be dropping like flies.

It would be nice to have a chat with a biochemist some day. A cousin's daughter is studying to be one, so maybe I'll have that chance. I'm still amazed with what they are able to understand and manipulate with the fundamentals of cell chemistry.
Bullard4075
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:14 pm
Location: Billings, Montana

Re: ? masking ?

Post by Bullard4075 »

Gosh I love this place. :D :D :D
"Any man who covers his face and packs a gun is a legitimate target for any decent citizen"
Jeff Cooper
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 27696
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by AJMD429 »

KWK wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:42 pm
As this trapped moisture evaporates, does it leave viral particles trapped behind, or can moisture in the mask be blown off carrying it's "payload?" I haven't seen the answers to these and other questions.
Yep. That's the question, and from what I've seen, what evidence there is, is that the virus will be in amongst the droplet-turned-aerosol. It may be moot however, as the virus spreads AROUND the masks unless they are extremely tight fitting, PLUS spreads on surfaces and whatnot.

Far better to get the immune system in shape, keep it supplied with the materials it needs (zinc, vitamin D and so on), and add the virus to the catalog of other viruses we are immune to, instead of pretending we can keep it away from us forever. The "flatten the curve" concept made sense, but we are past that point epidemiologically.

There is a book called "Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness" by Thomas Cowan, MD, that makes some very interesting arguments for the connective tissue diseases being not just worsened, but perhaps even initiated, by the fundamental way that vaccines stimulate only part of the immune system. I don't buy into everything he says, but some of his stuff is hard to argue with.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: ? masking ?

Post by Grizz »

Good synopsis Karl,
The effects of masking are clearly not easy to discern. I haven't found what I consider solid proof either way, but until I do, I'll defer to the people paid to look into this--while keeping in mind the Incompetence Factor.
I see masks littering the ground all over the place. So if your view is correct, then the little pitri masks are sitting around, in places in Texas, in droves, waiting for contact opportunities when a curious child picks them up, or a gust of wind elevates the aerosols into the air, or the dog brings one home and deposits it in your easy chair. For a mask-mandate to actually deter that virus the mask itself would have to have a chip in it to certify that it was used properly, disposed of properly after a max of 6 hours, whatever, and there would have to be double entry bookkeeping on every mask to determine whether compliance is certified. Otherwise those masks are just little hotspots waiting for the careless or unlucky to aquire its virus load. My wife keeps her compliance mask in her purse. I hand her the hand sanitizer when she gets back in the car from the store, after she redeposits the mask in her purse. At this point masks are nothing more than virtue signaling, and obesience to illegal mandates, a topic i am starting to document.

I am studious about cleaning my hands because it's something proactive that works.

And I am proactive in consuming immune system strengtheners such as the protocol Doc mentions.

I added a number of links not directly on the masking topic that I hope you will read or watch. I'd like to hear your responses, it helps me understand your POV...
Grizz
User avatar
KWK
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:31 am
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by KWK »

AJMD429 wrote:
Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:28 pm
... a new type of vaccine, only to find out that 45 years later they start developing auto immune diseases, as has happened with other vaccines in past years.
An explanation of the possible mechanisms for a long term auto-immune response is available in the article "Vaccination and autoimmune disease: what is the evidence?" in Lancet in 2003.

At least as of 2015, one group of researchers concluded: "... there are several case reports of autoimmune diseases following vaccines, however, due to the limited number of cases, the different classifications of symptoms and the long latency period of the diseases, every attempt for an epidemiological study has so far failed to deliver a connection." Since auto immune type reactions are recognized, no doubt the search for longer term such effects continue.

It sounds as if most such reactions occur within 2 months, which sounds familiar, as in I recall reading the test subjects for the Covid vaccines were at a minimum to be watched for that amount of time.
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: ? masking ?

Post by Grizz »

the image is the current box score as of yesterday, thursday.....
regardless of any minutia of any details of any response, the total count of the damage done by the cccrud is miniscule compared to the havoc and mayhem rampaging against the other 5,974,000,000 people on the planet who are currently victims of the mini-dictator policies inflicted against them.
Screenshot (5804).png
the response against the cccrud is far worse for people than it is for the virus, which can be prevented or cured with simple, cheap, availabe drugs.

the response is a crime against humanity.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
KWK
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:31 am
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by KWK »

I got around to looking for reports on the effectiveness of masking. Several have led me to conclude it's a Good Idea.

Back in 2011, well before the issue became politicized, an article titled "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses" was published, likely in response to SARS-1. They went back through over 100 papers on the topic, dating from 1955 to 2010. Due to differences in methods, the results weren't always the same, but that's the way it is with such studies. However, the authors concluded: "Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive supportive measures... Implementing barriers to transmission, such as isolation, and hygienic measures (wearing masks, gloves and gowns) can be effective in containing respiratory virus epidemics or in hospital wards. We found no evidence that the more expensive, irritating and uncomfortable N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks."

Last summer, The Lancet published an article "Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis". They had looked back at over 200 studies, and could write "... the best available evidence that current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing are associated with a large reduction in infection, and distances of 2 m might be more effective. These data also suggest that wearing face masks protects people (both health-care workers and the general public) against infection by these coronaviruses, and that eye protection could confer additional benefit. However, none of these interventions afforded complete protection from infection..."

Also last summer, the University of Iowa published a paper "Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US". Here they looked at rates of infection in the population, comparing states with mask mandates to those without. The comparison was for the weeks before a mandate went in to a few weeks after. They concluded that, despite many (most?) people not wearing masks, that mandates dropped overall infection rates by 2%. Now, while 2% is small, and Merritt would no doubt dismiss it as insignificant, one must remember this disease compounds weekly. After three months, 2% would result in a drop in cases of about 20%.

Other than some fool in the CDC who claimed the pandemic could be ended within weeks if only people wore masks, none of these studies I looked at claimed masking will stop the pandemic, only slow it down. Given all the dying, it seems prudent to do so.

I mentioned earlier the peculiar claim by Merritt that masks will raise your CO2 levels yet let out all the much larger Covid aerosols. Walking in a store today, I took in a sudden, deep breath and heard my US made level 2 procedural mask make a noise as it collapsed against my face. Obviously, it had puffed out but held my breath to some extent. It occurred to me this could represent a small amount of air richer in my exhaled CO2 than the surrounding air. It then dawned on me, that if I'm breathing back in some of my exhaled breath, then I would also be inhaling water aerosols I had just exhaled. This lead me to wonder if I had an answer to a question I posted above: If your mask gets wet, where does the rest of the water go? It doesn't keep getting wetter and wetter. Perhaps it simply gets recycled in me, held by the mask on exhale and then released as I inhale the drier surrounding air.
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: ? masking ?

Post by Grizz »

nice write-up. right up until
Perhaps it simply gets recycled in me, held by the mask on exhale and then released as I inhale the drier surrounding air.
dang. a virus rebreather. exactly what i don't want, and exactly what our immune system doesn't need. :lol: :lol: :lol:

anyway, i'm happy for you if wearing a mask makes you happy. as long as you don't presume to enforce your predilection on anyone else.

re-reading the conversation, is it possible that you are overthinking the situation?

https://archive.org/details/ivermectin-pierre-kory

Regards
Last edited by Grizz on Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
mickbr
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: ? masking ?

Post by mickbr »

I noticed a lot of government offices, gyms, and shops seem to be rolling out a bunch of changes around me. Checking the news the 30x 1st world countries in fact are all tabling changes to everything from the length of workdays, holidays, banking, finance, education, congregation, privacy, security and surveillance. A lot being rushed in under the guise of covid. This is the new world our kids will inherit.
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 27696
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by AJMD429 »

Stuff like this may be 'off the wall' and probably is not true, but I enjoy reading it and think it is always good to think about "what-if's" - otherwise we can go down a wrong path pretty far before we realize we screwed up.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/01 ... ple-dying/

Honestly I think the whole 'masking' and 'social distancing' stuff could be ELIMINATED, and the vaccine could be limited to far more restrained and sensible use if we actually used Ivermectin -

https://lbry.tv/@Dryburgh:7/Ivermectin_Pierre_Kory:b
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: ? masking ?

Post by Grizz »

yeah. i notice that NO ONE in the liar liar media ever mentions Sweden

wondering what anyone thinks of that
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: ? masking ?

Post by Grizz »

piller
Posting leader...
Posts: 12206
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: South of Dallas

Re: ? masking ?

Post by piller »

More money and Governmental power for our self styled masters if we must take the vaccine.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
mickbr
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: ? masking ?

Post by mickbr »

yea its at the point it doesnt matter how bad the virus really is the damage by the economic lockdowns and this open slather law changes is going to be its own beast.. The whole idea of constitutions and protecting a way of life is willingness to die, in large number if need be, before you go changing anything. All our laws took a lot of spilt blood to create. And Im talking right back to old Europe, who we base our laws on.Some random woman who wouldnt give up her rebel sons under torture, the guy who refused to denounce his neighbour as a witch, the fella who stood up to a baron and said no he cant just walk in and grab his daughter. Millions died to get us where we are. The laws were earnt, not awarded. They stood the test of time through famine, war and depressions. I dont see a need to change a single one over the "1% killer virus of 2020"..
User avatar
KWK
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:31 am
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by KWK »

The CDC has been running some tests with aerosol generators. It seems a properly fitted mask does a good job at reducing aerosol exposure, up to 96% compared to no masks at all. It's not proof that infection rates will follow exactly, but it's nothing to sneeze at, so to speak.
User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: ? masking ?

Post by Grizz »

the kill rate is under 1% . you are making excuses for the marxists who stampeded mankind into a panicked hysteria? what percentage of the less than 1%, most of whom are dying a natural death, what percentage change in their outcome could you effect if your most ardent mask dreams came to pass? I'm curious about how you would classify and quantify the effect you would need to achieve, if your mask theory is correct, to satisfy your self that you saved someone, if that's your goal...

elsewhere I explained that truth is binary, an either/or choice. what you think about masks and what I think can't probably in all likelyhood be proven beyond doubt. but the fraudulent election does have unimpeachable evidence that would stand in a court of law, if there were an honest and just court left in America to adjudicate the issue. in that case there is only true or false, not an opinion based on whatever.

People panick about death because they don't know what happens after they die, and they are afraid to find out. But there is absolute true truth with absolutely trustworthy unimpeachable evidence. I am not afraid of what happens to me after I die. I know for certain that I will be with Jesus. I can trust and believe because Jesus is God in flesh, and God cannot lie. And the weight of the evidence for Christ's resurrection is compelling and cannot be unmade by wiki. God's love is so rich and massive and overflowing with trust and peace... and so easy to say "yes" to.

Christ offers the gift of eternal life to whomsoever will come to him and trust his promise. Are you there yet?
User avatar
KWK
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:31 am
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by KWK »

That's a fair question. The flu typically kills about 0.1%, and people live with that. Covid is killing about 6 times that, and the reaction has been quite strong. This response is undoubtedly killing people who wouldn't have died had the disease been allowed to run like the flu, in the form of suicides or diseases diagnosed too late. Of course, had the disease run unchecked, hospitals would not have been able to treat many they were able to save. Tough call. When a flu hit a century ago with a death rate of 2.5%, people in the US took measures to combat it, to useful effect. On the other hand, that one tended to kill the young, people with a lot of life ahead of them, while this one is mostly killing people with little life ahead of them.

I do think the shutdowns have been excessive, but I can't imagine why people get their panties in a knot over wearing a mask to reduce the death rate. From what I can find, the evidence in favor of masking goes back well over a decade.
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 27696
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by AJMD429 »

Strange that the same masks would stop different sizes of droplets (or not) depending on which virus was in the droplets; that just doesn’t make sense.

....found the study....

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591- ... /figures/1

Hmmm....looks like only FOUR patients actually had coronavirus and did both masked and unmasked samples in that study; not sure how confident I’d be in the results...

“...A subset of participants provided exhaled breath samples for both mask interventions (coronavirus, n=4; influenza virus, n=8; rhinovirus, n=14)...”

Regardless of the ‘mask issue’ the elephant in the room since December is why are we debating masks and shutdowns and vaccines when ivermectin seems to have nearly 100% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 ...???. At a minimum the so-called authorities should be encouraging people to take ivermectin. If it pans out to be less effective than we thought it still would make a huge dent in the deaths.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s really been about reducing death all along; I think it has been about manipulating and controlling people. That’s really sad.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
KWK
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:31 am
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: ? masking ?

Post by KWK »

Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets.
When I posted that summary a few days ago, the same thought had occurred to me: Why did the type of virus matter? Note that the authors didn't claim water emissions changed, only the detection of the virus RNA in the water. This goes back to an earlier question I posted, what happens to the water caught by a mask? It doesn't keep getting wetter after all; some sort of equilibrium is reached. At that point, is the water being sucked back in by wearer, or does it blow on through, or perhaps evaporating off the outer surface of the mask? If the latter, is it carrying viral particles? Assuming the results presented are representative, one must wonder about the effect of the mask material. Some are designed to generate an electrostatic charge; might this affect different viruses differently? Beats me; obviously there is more to learn.

I haven't read much about invermectin, other than I read recently that the FDA is slowly changing its opinion of it, based on some trials from South America I think it was. I assume they'll give it a proper shake, but clearly they have pinned their hopes on the vaccines.

As for the Power Trip theory, I could agree it explains people like Cuomo, but I still think that with the CDC and the FDA, Incompetence is more likely to explain actions than Power Trip.
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5960
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: ? masking ?

Post by jeepnik »

No expert but if you slow the rate of infection you’ll likely lengthen the time span the infection remains active. It’s the herd immunity thing.

Remember small pox was around a long time. It became an issue many times suddenly showing up. Sometimes from seemingly no where.

We didn’t defeat it until we had vaccinated several generations worldwide. Of course once defeated we stopped immunizing. What a wonderful bio weapon that would be today. It would make the current one look like a case of the sniffles.

One must wonder if, like the flu of 1918 this virus would already be burning itself out. And if the death count might have been lower. No one can predict what would have happened. We only know what has happened.

There’s no basis to point at current infection levels and claim to have reduced them.
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferably in the dark" The old Sarge (he was maybe 24.
"Freedom is never more that a generation from extinction" Ronald Reagan
"Every man should have at least one good rifle and know how to use it" Dad
Post Reply