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.
Congratulations for ridiculing yourself by posting the very link which I posted at the beginning of the article, showing everyone that you didn't read my article nor the 150 papers cited by the Brownstone article.
If you actually read my article, you would have discovered that the studies cited in the Brownstone article you linked ACTUALLY INDICATE THAN N95 WORK.
Will you read my article and/or the content of the articles you post, or will you keep ridiculing yourself by posting knee-jerk replies that demonstrate you know nothing?
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.
You wrote, "there are many more studies than the three quoted"
If you actually read what I linked to, you would have known that I point to more than 12 studies. But you probably do not care about what the facts are, you are just reacting from an emotional point of view.
So, stop lecturing me on "missing something right in front of my nose" if you're not taking the time to find out what the facts are.
If you could find "facts" that prove without any shred of doubt that masks are totally effective in preventing the spread of aerosolised viruses, then you might have some credibility.
(That said, masks are not "totally effective", they are "quite effective", but again, if you had read the papers, you would know it.)
Please refrain from further commenting until you've read the studies on N95 masks; otherwise, you're just reacting from your emotions and/or your brainwashing.
Do you always default to ask people if they are on someone's payroll when they present data supporting conclusions you don't like, or do you sometimes actually care about the data?
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.
James, I examined studies from a link that YOU cited and that belongs to an organization that has been promoting the idea that masks are ineffective.
These studies that YOU cited report that N95 masks work.
If they were biased why did you cite them?
https://brownstone.org/articles/more-than-150-comparative-studies-and-articles-on-mask-ineffectiveness-and-harms/
Congratulations for ridiculing yourself by posting the very link which I posted at the beginning of the article, showing everyone that you didn't read my article nor the 150 papers cited by the Brownstone article.
If you actually read my article, you would have discovered that the studies cited in the Brownstone article you linked ACTUALLY INDICATE THAN N95 WORK.
Will you read my article and/or the content of the articles you post, or will you keep ridiculing yourself by posting knee-jerk replies that demonstrate you know nothing?
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.
You wrote, "there are many more studies than the three quoted"
If you actually read what I linked to, you would have known that I point to more than 12 studies. But you probably do not care about what the facts are, you are just reacting from an emotional point of view.
So, stop lecturing me on "missing something right in front of my nose" if you're not taking the time to find out what the facts are.
If you could find "facts" that prove without any shred of doubt that masks are totally effective in preventing the spread of aerosolised viruses, then you might have some credibility.
You still haven't read the papers, have you?
(That said, masks are not "totally effective", they are "quite effective", but again, if you had read the papers, you would know it.)
Please refrain from further commenting until you've read the studies on N95 masks; otherwise, you're just reacting from your emotions and/or your brainwashing.
Are you on the WEF payroll?
Do you always default to ask people if they are on someone's payroll when they present data supporting conclusions you don't like, or do you sometimes actually care about the data?
(That said, I'm not on anyone's payroll)