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.
My answer: Not at all. Nor do I fall for the fallacy of believing something is "good" just because some pseudo-scientist says it is good.
Both of the analysis you cite (and I've read them carefully) are pseudo-science, based on anecdotal data and provide NO testable data. Even worse, the conclusion that "these studies found reductions of risk of catching Covid-19 of 10 to 15% using masks or social distancing" does not impress me at all, as 10% to15% speculative "improvement" is really not significant at all.
It would be surprisingly easy to initiate and conduct a comprehensive scientific test of the effectiveness of masks against Covid-19 and complete it in less than 3 months. The model of this test would be the same as the 2008 test of surgical masks and N95 masks against influenza, documented in my post #211, above, with 1 test group using surgical masks, a 2nd group wearing N95 masks, and a 3rd third group wearing no mask.
I find it amazing and frustrating that this has not already been done, and have a few suspicions why it has not been done.
Given the extraordinary violations of freedom and liberty resulting from the present bureaucratic and arbitrary restrictions imposed by our government, motivated and "justified" by this pseudo science, I have a few suspicions why it has not been done.
Can you explain why it has not been done?