You say "Yes, legalese. Maybe it’s not written in the same dense language that, for example, the settlement papers for a house you are buying is written, but that warning is there for legal reasons."
My answer: You seem to be implying that since it is "legalese" it should be ignored because it is simply there to protect the manufacturer, rather than the user. That is nonsense.
The WARNING, in very large, bold print, is there to clearly inform users that this product will NOT accomplish what many potential users may expect from it given the current political pressure to use it for.
You say "The face masks reduce virus transmission. More and more studies are showing this."
My answer: The point of this thread is that Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses, and several scientific studies confirm that.
Secondly; there are many intuitive analysis that conclude masks will "reduce" transmission, but so far NO studies have been conducted to determine the degree of reduced rate of transmission they might provide.
However; there was a scientific study a number of years ago, that determined that surgical masks were NOT effective at all in reducing transmission of the influenza virus.
My answer to your next 3 paragraphs advising how to deal with difficulties using the mask: No argument.
When I use the mask, I consistently suffer with severe hypercapnia within about 15 minutes. This is a serious, dangerous problem, which affects MANY mask users to some different degree.
Finally you say "Also, I think it rather amusing that you quoted a passage on HIF-1alpha; this protein is very closely related to the work I did in graduate school, and I knew the people who discovered it. The passage was a little incorrect; HIF-1 refers to a dimer, which is two proteins bound together. Only HIF-1alpha is actually inducible by low oxygen conditions. HIF-1beta, more commonly known as ARNT, is always present."
My answer: You should consider being a little more careful when arrogantly claiming superior knowledge and experience.
You happen to be challenging Dr. Russell Blaylock, the author of that passage. I recommend you re-read the article, then apologize.
Secondly; there are many intuitive analysis that conclude masks will "reduce" transmission, but so far NO studies have been conducted to determine the degree of reduced rate of transmission they might provide.
Do you fall for the fallacy of sacrificing the good for the perfect? I only know about risk reduction, not risk elimination. This applies to the use of facial masks, as well as just about everything else.
SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Serologic Responses from a Sample of U.S. Navy Service Members — USS Theodore Roosevelt, April 2020, CDC MMWR: "Service members who reported taking preventive measures had a lower infection rate than did those who did not report taking these measures (e.g., wearing a face covering, 55.8% versus 80.8%; avoiding common areas, 53.8% versus 67.5%; and observing social distancing, 54.7% versus 70.0%, respectively)."
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, June 2020, The Lancet: "Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings."
In less technical language, these studies found reductions of risk of catching Covid-19 of 10 to 15% using masks or social distancing.
You happen to be challenging Dr. Russell Blaylock, the author of that passage. I recommend you re-read the article, then apologize.
Um... in what way did I challenge him, and why should I apologize for providing a little more detail on the characteristics of HIF-1alpha? I was pointing out the irony in you quoting from someone who is familiar with a topic on which I have MUCH experience. It is not uncommon for experts to use simplifications to describe their point to laypeople, since they know that getting into the technical details is going to immediately lose their audience. I'm certain that Dr. Blaylock is aware that HIF-1 is a dimer, of which the expression of only one of the proteins is induced by conditions of hypoxia and the other protein is constitutively expressed.