Replies

This is a bunch of BS. In one breath the author states that a mask is unable to stop the spread of a virus because the fibers are too far apart and the virus is so small. In the next breath he states that a mask somehow prevents the free travel of carbon dioxide and Oxygen molecules which are even smaller than a virus so...which is it?

The author ignores the fact that masks are comprised of multiple layers of fibers, not individual layers. It's not like throwing a golf ball at a chain link fence, it's like throwing a golf ball at a hundred layers of chain link fence. And, for that matter, the virus is transmitted via droplets that are more like the size of a baseball being thrown at a hundred layers of chain link fence.

And; furthermore, multiple studies have shown that facemasks do not, in fact, cause hypercapnia or hypoxia. Here's one that's so clear, even a caveman can understand it. De. Bunked.

Here are multiple videos demonstrating that facemasks do, in fact, reduce the transmission speed, distance and "hang time" of droplets.

Schlieren Imaging mask vs no mask

Mask no mask petri dish experiments

Laser imaging of droplet emission through no mask vs various styles of masks

Then the author cites the following study as evidence that wearing facemasks is pointless: 26) Leung N.H.L., Chu D.K.W., Shiu E.Y.C., Chan K.H., McDevitt J.J., Hau B.J.P. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks

This is the actual conclusion of that particular study stated:

This isn't even a study. It's straight up BS.

“”This is a bunch of BS. In one breath the author states that a mask is unable to stop the spread of a virus because the fibers are too far apart and the virus is so small. In the next breath he states that a mask somehow prevents the free travel of carbon dioxide and Oxygen molecules which are even smaller than a virus so...which is it?””

There’s a big difference between stops and restricts. I’m not going to read the article to see exactly what was said but I’ll just say this. I doubt it was said that the mask stops oxygen molecules while passing virus. What I’m guessing was said or meant was the mask restricts the flow or volume of air causing a lower O2 level. No different than an air cleaner on a car or a filter on the AC unit. Both restrict some even when new. The less restriction the easier it is to breath.

“This isn’t even a study. It’s straight up BS”
AGREED
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720333028

In the third paragraph with heading “Hypothesis”, the author Baruch Vainshelboim – credentials below indicating a connection with Stanford-
Address: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Cardiology 111C, 3801 Miranda Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304, United States.
baruch.v1981@gmail.com
Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States

… says this -

“Given the fact that asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times higher than the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate is considerably less than 1% [5]. This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, “”the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza”” [5], having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1% [5], [6], [7], [8].”

The amazing thing about the link to reference number 5 is that that article was co-written by Anthony Fauci. It would be amazing if Fauci said the fatality rate for Covid was .1%, given that .4% of New York City died of Covid. In Europe and the US about .2% of the entire population has already died of Covid. So even assuming everyone in the US, Italy, France, UK Spain, Poland, etc. has already had Covid – which is obviously absurd – THE CASE FATALITY RATE MUST BE AT LEAST .2%, NOT .1% A more reasonable assumption, for example that 1/3 of Americans have “had Covid”, gives a fatality rate of .6%, or SIX TIMES THAT OF SEVERE FLU. In fact less than 10% of Americans have actually been diagnosed with Covid, and the fatality rate for those diagnosed is about 2% -TWENTY TIMES THAT OF SEVERE FLU, although it is now going down because all the old people have been vaccinated. Yet “scientists” at Stanford are still pedaling the .1% figure, although they surely know it isn’t based in reality. It is simply a lie, and we must wonder why they are telling it. Who is helped by spreading this garbage from Stanford?
And on top of that the actual quote from reference number 5 is this –

“This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=0,7&cluster=4190197419714426109

Notice the difference between saying the “clinical consequences are similar to those of severe seasonal flu” and saying “This suggests [but obviously doesn’t prove] that … Covid 19 may ultimately prove to be more akin to [ i.e. closer to] …a severe seasonal influenza.. [with .1% case fatality rate] rather than to a disease similar to SARS or MERS which have had case fatality rates of 9% to 10% and 36%, respectively.”

All he (Fauci) is saying is that even a 1% fatality rate is closer to a .1% fatality rate than it is to a 10% fatality rate. And yes 1% is closer to .1% than it is to 10%. But its still 10 times worse than .1%, Covid is 10 times more fatal than the seasonal flu.

Also, thankfully others crushed the author
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/16/diamond-and-silk/medical-hypotheses-journal-article-lacks-evidence-/