Megan Mansell is an OSHA-qualified mask expert with a background in hazardous environs PPE applications. During the pandemic years, she has addressed school boards, written articles and a book, done podcast interviews and countless twitter threads on why the strategy of masking to reduce spread of Covid won’t work.
Q: "When parsing through the enormous volume of conflicting information ‘out there’, how do you decide which information to trust, and which to discard?"
A: Look at the politics. Masks are a political symbol of compliance. Those wearing masks occupy the paramoral high-ground and may virtue signal with impunity: "I'm keeping others safe. You are putting others at risk. I'm righteous; you are wicked!" That's the psychology of masking an entire populace by State edict. Thus, the war was always waged on ideological grounds, never on empirical science (masking and the physics of aerosols). I think it reasonable to conclude that those parading the State-dictated self-righteousness (ideological morality) can *always* be discarded as immoral, whimsical, and liable to change at a moment's notice. History bears that conclusion out: look at the ideological morality that developed in 1932-1944 Germany and tell me whether National Socialist ideological conformity was moral or immoral. In that case it was not masking, but treatment of Jews. Nowadays it is treatment of the unvaccinated - ideological conformity is the demand by immoral monsters of all generations. This is how I decide which set of conflicting information to trust.
Feb 8, 2023·edited Feb 8, 2023Liked by Rebekah Barnett
Unfortunately this article and the interview of Jefferson by Demasi do not include the following keywords or their derivatives: Exhale, Fomite, Aerosol, Droplet, Virion
I will send it to my mailing list. I hope I won't raina on MacIntyre's lunch for people to see her egregious conflict of interest. She must have muted instead of blocking me.
Those four are among the most prominent feral leftist tools pimping all the govt measures.
In spite of all his feralness, Danwu Andrews does not block me; however, your McGuwan did in 2022.
I still cannot believe some people. I can understand people pimping for one business over another; it is beyond words to pimp on matters that directly and indirectly impact millions of lives, of all ages.
The Jefferson Cochrane report actually says "Physical interventions, such as the use of MASKS, physical distancing measures, school closures, and limitations of mass gatherings, might prevent the spread of the virus transmitted by large droplets or aerosols FROM infected TO susceptible individuals.
The use of hand hygiene, gloves, and protective gowns can also prevent the spread by limiting the transfer of viral particles onto and from fomites (inanimate objects such as flat surfaces, tabletops, utensils, porous surfaces, or nowadays cell phones, which can transmit the agent if contaminated)."
So disappointed Jefferson follows Nick Coatsworth, Former Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Australia (who lost his job after stating that Covid19 is not airborne) ignoring Exhalation Jefferson says "The idea that the covid virus is transmitted via aerosols has been repeated over and over as if its “truth” but the evidence is as thin as air" - this is dangerous misinformation.
Hi from a fellow Perthican. You ask how I decide what to trust or discard. My innate intuition (which is built from six decades of life experiences, a degree, a masters, and work in frontline health care) often directs me to look deeper, or to put something aside for possible later scrutiny. Then, any statement made without supporting information (e.g. 'this vaccine is safe and effective') is treated with the disdain it deserves. Trust in sources is earned by several checks: relevant qualifications, real-life experience in the subject, clear presentation and explanation of the issue or research. Also, where, when, how, who conducted the study: is it sullied by industry funding? Is it generalisable? What presumptions are made about health that may be skewed by belief systems? (As an example, the research available strongly supports the benefit of newborn skin-to-skin; midwives encourage this, yet the former WA-AMA head, an obstetrician, dismissed it as a fad. Basic beliefs in the body's abilities are pitted against the belief that bodies are inherently flawed and need saviours in the form of surgeons and drugs.) Finally, does there seem to be a political agenda behind the shared information? That doesn't automatically disqualify it, but it requires more filtering.
The past few years have highlighted to me just how much junk 'research' is published. Anyone can point to a piece of research to support their point of view. How we interpret, understand and apply findings is often very different.
I'm just looking forward to this period of history being history. And a true exposure of those who knowingly and willingly pretended to be acting in the best interests of humanity by creating fear, distrust, and misery, and offering a one-size-fits-all approach as The Solution.
All argument points snapshotted in "The Conversation" are reasonable, pertinent, and aligned with medical and infectious disease knowledge.
Mansell's arguments are consistently illogical and irrelevant. For instance, the Hierarchy of Controls makes no sense to apply to this context. If one were talking about asbestos exposure, then "elimination: physically removing the hazard" is the first step. In a hospital, although we might like that on certain very busy days, we are not allowed to eliminate and physically remove sick patients from the premises. In trying to use this chart in support of her argument, Mansell is actually arguing for strict isolation and lockdowns.
Anyone who works in a hospital knows that some colleagues actually wear their mask, whereas a majority of colleagues are in the staff kitchen for morning coffee, then 1 hour later for group breakfast, followed by group lunch, later afternoon cake... all without a mask. These are the colleagues who are on regular rotation in and out of work on sick leave. The colleagues who keep their nostrils protected with a close-fitting N95 make it through these sick waves.
Personal liberty is of utmost importance. But people: you have several holes in your face, and there is a bioengineered virus floating around out there that has the possibility of damaging your brain, your fertility, etc. Would the theoretical creators of a population-reducing bioweapon be encouraging you to protect yourself, or rather be supporting the notion that personal protection doesn't work?
Survival of the fittest is in full swing here. Make the choices that you feel are wise.
I just had to include this aside in addition to my ideological spiel.
Stephen E. Petty, a PPE expert like Megan Mansell, has been lambasting US governments about the uselessness of masks for 2 years. His much watch diatribes are here:
Q: "When parsing through the enormous volume of conflicting information ‘out there’, how do you decide which information to trust, and which to discard?"
A: Look at the politics. Masks are a political symbol of compliance. Those wearing masks occupy the paramoral high-ground and may virtue signal with impunity: "I'm keeping others safe. You are putting others at risk. I'm righteous; you are wicked!" That's the psychology of masking an entire populace by State edict. Thus, the war was always waged on ideological grounds, never on empirical science (masking and the physics of aerosols). I think it reasonable to conclude that those parading the State-dictated self-righteousness (ideological morality) can *always* be discarded as immoral, whimsical, and liable to change at a moment's notice. History bears that conclusion out: look at the ideological morality that developed in 1932-1944 Germany and tell me whether National Socialist ideological conformity was moral or immoral. In that case it was not masking, but treatment of Jews. Nowadays it is treatment of the unvaccinated - ideological conformity is the demand by immoral monsters of all generations. This is how I decide which set of conflicting information to trust.
Unfortunately this article and the interview of Jefferson by Demasi do not include the following keywords or their derivatives: Exhale, Fomite, Aerosol, Droplet, Virion
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/how-masks-capture-your-exhaled-covid19
With apologies to Richard Ashcroft:
"Now the masks don't work
They just make you worse and I
Know I'll see your face again"
Thank you Rebekah 💛
Yawns are contagious. I always cover my mouth when i yawn so that i dont spread the Yawn Virus.
Thanks, Rebekah.
I will send it to my mailing list. I hope I won't raina on MacIntyre's lunch for people to see her egregious conflict of interest. She must have muted instead of blocking me.
Those four are among the most prominent feral leftist tools pimping all the govt measures.
In spite of all his feralness, Danwu Andrews does not block me; however, your McGuwan did in 2022.
I still cannot believe some people. I can understand people pimping for one business over another; it is beyond words to pimp on matters that directly and indirectly impact millions of lives, of all ages.
The Jefferson Cochrane report actually says "Physical interventions, such as the use of MASKS, physical distancing measures, school closures, and limitations of mass gatherings, might prevent the spread of the virus transmitted by large droplets or aerosols FROM infected TO susceptible individuals.
The use of hand hygiene, gloves, and protective gowns can also prevent the spread by limiting the transfer of viral particles onto and from fomites (inanimate objects such as flat surfaces, tabletops, utensils, porous surfaces, or nowadays cell phones, which can transmit the agent if contaminated)."
So disappointed Jefferson follows Nick Coatsworth, Former Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Australia (who lost his job after stating that Covid19 is not airborne) ignoring Exhalation Jefferson says "The idea that the covid virus is transmitted via aerosols has been repeated over and over as if its “truth” but the evidence is as thin as air" - this is dangerous misinformation.
There is nothing quite as delicious as acquiring new information that confirms one's existing biases.
Hi from a fellow Perthican. You ask how I decide what to trust or discard. My innate intuition (which is built from six decades of life experiences, a degree, a masters, and work in frontline health care) often directs me to look deeper, or to put something aside for possible later scrutiny. Then, any statement made without supporting information (e.g. 'this vaccine is safe and effective') is treated with the disdain it deserves. Trust in sources is earned by several checks: relevant qualifications, real-life experience in the subject, clear presentation and explanation of the issue or research. Also, where, when, how, who conducted the study: is it sullied by industry funding? Is it generalisable? What presumptions are made about health that may be skewed by belief systems? (As an example, the research available strongly supports the benefit of newborn skin-to-skin; midwives encourage this, yet the former WA-AMA head, an obstetrician, dismissed it as a fad. Basic beliefs in the body's abilities are pitted against the belief that bodies are inherently flawed and need saviours in the form of surgeons and drugs.) Finally, does there seem to be a political agenda behind the shared information? That doesn't automatically disqualify it, but it requires more filtering.
The past few years have highlighted to me just how much junk 'research' is published. Anyone can point to a piece of research to support their point of view. How we interpret, understand and apply findings is often very different.
I'm just looking forward to this period of history being history. And a true exposure of those who knowingly and willingly pretended to be acting in the best interests of humanity by creating fear, distrust, and misery, and offering a one-size-fits-all approach as The Solution.
All argument points snapshotted in "The Conversation" are reasonable, pertinent, and aligned with medical and infectious disease knowledge.
Mansell's arguments are consistently illogical and irrelevant. For instance, the Hierarchy of Controls makes no sense to apply to this context. If one were talking about asbestos exposure, then "elimination: physically removing the hazard" is the first step. In a hospital, although we might like that on certain very busy days, we are not allowed to eliminate and physically remove sick patients from the premises. In trying to use this chart in support of her argument, Mansell is actually arguing for strict isolation and lockdowns.
Anyone who works in a hospital knows that some colleagues actually wear their mask, whereas a majority of colleagues are in the staff kitchen for morning coffee, then 1 hour later for group breakfast, followed by group lunch, later afternoon cake... all without a mask. These are the colleagues who are on regular rotation in and out of work on sick leave. The colleagues who keep their nostrils protected with a close-fitting N95 make it through these sick waves.
Personal liberty is of utmost importance. But people: you have several holes in your face, and there is a bioengineered virus floating around out there that has the possibility of damaging your brain, your fertility, etc. Would the theoretical creators of a population-reducing bioweapon be encouraging you to protect yourself, or rather be supporting the notion that personal protection doesn't work?
Survival of the fittest is in full swing here. Make the choices that you feel are wise.
I just had to include this aside in addition to my ideological spiel.
Stephen E. Petty, a PPE expert like Megan Mansell, has been lambasting US governments about the uselessness of masks for 2 years. His much watch diatribes are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3dnkbKoj4A (16 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr3nkuzQ8FU (16 mins)
Some of these "experts" will even lie in their graves - provided they did not get cremated, of course!