We are debating this issue on different levels. You act as if all studies are neutral and "scientific" but the business of science is skewed by who funds any particular study. Medicine and science took different paths years ago. The point is that "scientists" can't agree whether masks are effective or not, depending partly on where their funding comes from. The pseudopandemic has exposed a great deal of the corruption of science. Science never has a single conclusion, in any case. It is a healthy competition between hypotheses.You could line up two panels of scientists who could come to opposing conclusions but where is their bread buttered? There is no absolute certainty, for instance, that viruses exist. There is still a germ theory vs terrain theory debate. "Science" is continually changing its mind. And so it should. Whatever the scientific debate says about masks, politicians did an U turn because they saw that, in conjunction with lockdowns, they could start the sort of political control that can lead to a subservient population controlled by digital means. You and I are debating about whether deckchairs work when the Titanic has already hit the iceberg.
I think we both know that masks are ineffective against aerosolised virus fragments. There are many more studies than the three quoted. The thing is that, if the flawed and corrupt regimes that are governing us adopted regulations for masks after they were first declared ineffective by their own "experts", the subsequent regulations are about political control and not epidemiological effectiveness. If you are going to make millions wear masks -- and damage their mental and physical health -- there is a massive onus on those decreeing this useless policy to show that masks actually work. Despite an unprecedented propaganda campaign and censorship programme, that fact that there is still debate about whether masks are ineffective is telling. You can be as intellectual as you like and analyse evidence to death (ironic metaphor) but, if you are stuck in 3D consciousness, you are missing something right in front of your nose.
We are debating this issue on different levels. You act as if all studies are neutral and "scientific" but the business of science is skewed by who funds any particular study. Medicine and science took different paths years ago. The point is that "scientists" can't agree whether masks are effective or not, depending partly on where their funding comes from. The pseudopandemic has exposed a great deal of the corruption of science. Science never has a single conclusion, in any case. It is a healthy competition between hypotheses.You could line up two panels of scientists who could come to opposing conclusions but where is their bread buttered? There is no absolute certainty, for instance, that viruses exist. There is still a germ theory vs terrain theory debate. "Science" is continually changing its mind. And so it should. Whatever the scientific debate says about masks, politicians did an U turn because they saw that, in conjunction with lockdowns, they could start the sort of political control that can lead to a subservient population controlled by digital means. You and I are debating about whether deckchairs work when the Titanic has already hit the iceberg.
https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-150-comparative-studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/
I think we both know that masks are ineffective against aerosolised virus fragments. There are many more studies than the three quoted. The thing is that, if the flawed and corrupt regimes that are governing us adopted regulations for masks after they were first declared ineffective by their own "experts", the subsequent regulations are about political control and not epidemiological effectiveness. If you are going to make millions wear masks -- and damage their mental and physical health -- there is a massive onus on those decreeing this useless policy to show that masks actually work. Despite an unprecedented propaganda campaign and censorship programme, that fact that there is still debate about whether masks are ineffective is telling. You can be as intellectual as you like and analyse evidence to death (ironic metaphor) but, if you are stuck in 3D consciousness, you are missing something right in front of your nose.
Are you on the WEF payroll?