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.
Ideological morality. Such a scourge. In this current climate, if one dares to compare what's been decreed (lockdowns, mandates, masks) to the Nazi regime, they are mocked. Those I have heard mocking can't see the parallel because they assign the Nazi evils to extreme right-wing nationalism, and believe the pandemic response to be wonderful, left-wing socialist ideals, which aim to create an equal society. As I was told when I was questioning the 'vaccine', 'it's not about you', as though I cared about nobody but myself. That is patently untrue, but as every first-responder well knows, whenever you are going into a 'rescue' the first priority is personal safety. If you can't swim, don't jump into the water to save someone. If the helper is harmed, then there is another casualty.
Unfortunately this article and the interview of Jefferson by Demasi do not include the following keywords or their derivatives: Exhale, Fomite, Aerosol, Droplet, Virion
Asymptomatic superspreader is an immunocompromised individual with cancer. Should health policy for general population such as mandatory masks be based on this particular case?
Oh, if only it were this simple. Asymptomatic superspreaders are all around us. Flip through patient charts and compare those with their lung X-Rays showing massive damage and inflammation next time you have a chance.
Logically there must be asymptomatic spreaders but we are at a crossroads where either ‘side’ doesn’t want to know too much about it. I am surprised (but not shocked) there are people with serious lung damage who never knew they were sick. WMC research on Substack looks at some pretty worrying papers and findings related to Spike protein damage.
Asymptomatic superspreader is at least 40% of all currently Covid19 infected. It simply means they have no symptoms. Has absolutely nothing to do with Cancer.
Ok thanks, I was referring to the study on your Substack (https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31456-2). Do you have any information that 40% of infected individuals are asymptomatic and that asymptomatic spread is occurring at this time?
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)."
Workers wear the mask on the chin between patients, take it off and leave it on the bench at lunchtime, then put it back on!
Patients carry their mask in their pockets to put on "when required" using the same mask for weeks as they may have paid as much as $4 for a disposable one.
This is akin to using the same dirty tissue all day and leaving it on the bench i.m.o.
Poor training and poor behaviour of workers in the medical industry definitely a problem. But I never experienced such behaviour when I was in hospital or the operating theatre.
This behavior is why "masks don't work". If I took my rain coat off every 5 minutes while walking through a thunderstorm, I would arrive to my destination wet. 'Raincoats don't work'.
Isn't that the point that Mansell makes above? That these interventions cannot safely be worn for long periods while also allowing for human functioning, and so were never a proper intervention (ie: for wearing for long periods in daily life) in the first place?
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.
With respect, your first sentence exactly proves my point. They're not mask experts, they are medical experts. Their lack of knowledge of the application of masks undermines their argument.
"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."
Mansell goes to lengths to explain why this is a scientifically unsupported statement as it pertains to respiratory viruses. For example her explanation of PFU, MID and the fact that 3.2% leakage = 100% inefficacy (N95s have up to 5% leakage). You are basing this statement on what, exactly?
We are in agreement on the question of personal liberty.
""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.""
"Mansell goes to lengths to explain why this is a scientifically unsupported statement as it pertains to respiratory viruses."
These 2 statements are not sensible to link.
"You are basing this statement on what, exactly?" -- My statement is based on the colleagues who are on regular rotation in and out of work on sick leave vs the colleagues who keep their nostrils protected with a close-fitting N95 who make it through the sick waves.
I'm happy to disagree. But I am posting this info here for those people who would like to consider their health. What's at stake are the neurons, cardiomyocytes, oocytes, pneumocytes, and so forth.
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.
Ideological morality. Such a scourge. In this current climate, if one dares to compare what's been decreed (lockdowns, mandates, masks) to the Nazi regime, they are mocked. Those I have heard mocking can't see the parallel because they assign the Nazi evils to extreme right-wing nationalism, and believe the pandemic response to be wonderful, left-wing socialist ideals, which aim to create an equal society. As I was told when I was questioning the 'vaccine', 'it's not about you', as though I cared about nobody but myself. That is patently untrue, but as every first-responder well knows, whenever you are going into a 'rescue' the first priority is personal safety. If you can't swim, don't jump into the water to save someone. If the helper is harmed, then there is another casualty.
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
No but the linked article by Mansell does!
Mansell in the Brownstone article fails to mention that Exhaled Coronavirus is efficiently captured by masks.
Asymptomatic superspreader is an immunocompromised individual with cancer. Should health policy for general population such as mandatory masks be based on this particular case?
Oh, if only it were this simple. Asymptomatic superspreaders are all around us. Flip through patient charts and compare those with their lung X-Rays showing massive damage and inflammation next time you have a chance.
Did you read the linked article by Mansell in which she explains why N95 masks can't prevent asymptomatic spread?
Logically there must be asymptomatic spreaders but we are at a crossroads where either ‘side’ doesn’t want to know too much about it. I am surprised (but not shocked) there are people with serious lung damage who never knew they were sick. WMC research on Substack looks at some pretty worrying papers and findings related to Spike protein damage.
Asymptomatic superspreader is at least 40% of all currently Covid19 infected. It simply means they have no symptoms. Has absolutely nothing to do with Cancer.
Ok thanks, I was referring to the study on your Substack (https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31456-2). Do you have any information that 40% of infected individuals are asymptomatic and that asymptomatic spread is occurring at this time?
Latest CDC study states that 27% of Covid19 infections of multiply jabbed Healthcare workers were Asymptomatic Reinfections.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/29/3/22-1314_article
There are numerous studies showing around 40% or more cases are asymptomatic.
Sure https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.5002640.1593266380!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg
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.
I plant my deciduous trees as far apart as possible so the autumn virus of dropping leaves can be stopped.
Unlike Australian native gum trees that just detox all year round dropping leaves, bark and branches.
Nothing to with the environment and we are not connected to the natural world - so I am pretty sure like you that yawning is a 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)."
From infected to susceptible ..
I work in the medical industry
Workers wear the mask on the chin between patients, take it off and leave it on the bench at lunchtime, then put it back on!
Patients carry their mask in their pockets to put on "when required" using the same mask for weeks as they may have paid as much as $4 for a disposable one.
This is akin to using the same dirty tissue all day and leaving it on the bench i.m.o.
Poor training and poor behaviour of workers in the medical industry definitely a problem. But I never experienced such behaviour when I was in hospital or the operating theatre.
This behavior is why "masks don't work". If I took my rain coat off every 5 minutes while walking through a thunderstorm, I would arrive to my destination wet. 'Raincoats don't work'.
Isn't that the point that Mansell makes above? That these interventions cannot safely be worn for long periods while also allowing for human functioning, and so were never a proper intervention (ie: for wearing for long periods in daily life) in the first place?
There is no virus.
https://aleczeck.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-robert-f-kennedy
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.
With respect, your first sentence exactly proves my point. They're not mask experts, they are medical experts. Their lack of knowledge of the application of masks undermines their argument.
"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."
Yes, that is a point that Mansell frequently makes. Compliance is part of the intervention. A point made here also: https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/cochrane-masking-review-reveals-how
"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."
Mansell goes to lengths to explain why this is a scientifically unsupported statement as it pertains to respiratory viruses. For example her explanation of PFU, MID and the fact that 3.2% leakage = 100% inefficacy (N95s have up to 5% leakage). You are basing this statement on what, exactly?
We are in agreement on the question of personal liberty.
""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.""
"Mansell goes to lengths to explain why this is a scientifically unsupported statement as it pertains to respiratory viruses."
These 2 statements are not sensible to link.
"You are basing this statement on what, exactly?" -- My statement is based on the colleagues who are on regular rotation in and out of work on sick leave vs the colleagues who keep their nostrils protected with a close-fitting N95 who make it through the sick waves.
I'm happy to disagree. But I am posting this info here for those people who would like to consider their health. What's at stake are the neurons, cardiomyocytes, oocytes, pneumocytes, and so forth.
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!