Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid
americanconservativemovement.com ^ | 04.17.2021 | JD Rucker

Posted on 04/17/2021 2:35:49 PM PDT by rxsid

Stanford study quietly published at NIH.gov proves face masks are absolutely worthless against Covid
The diapers most of us are wearing on our face most of the time apparently have no effect at stopping Covid-19. This explains a lot.

Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19? No? It was posted on the the National Center for Biological Information government website. The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health, so one would think such a study would be widely reported by mainstream media and embraced by the “science-loving” folks in Big Tech.

Instead, a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely.

Raheem Kassam
@RaheemKassam
Twitter has suspended @CortesSteve for citing a Stanford NIH study about masks.
Image
6:00 PM · Apr 16, 2021
8K
454

He was quoting directly from the NCBI publication of the study. The government website he linked to features a peer-reviewed study by Stanford University’s Baruch Vainshelboim. In it, he cited 67 scholars, doctors, scientists, and other studies to support his conclusions.

The sentence Cortes quoted from the study’s conclusion reads: “The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks.”

Vainshelboim drew many conclusions from the vast information he compiled, but arguably the biggest bombshell in it can be found in the “Efficacy of facemasks” section [emphasis added]:

According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: authorgaslightingfor; baruchvainshelboim; bioweapon; ccp; ccpvirus; chinavirus; clickbait; coronavirus; covid; covid19; facemasks; fauci; fearporn; fraud; govtabuse; masks; nih; nomasks; sars; sarscov2; scamdemic; scandals; stanford; stanforduniversity; stopthefriqmeltdown; tyranny; vainshelboim; wuflu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: rxsid

The paper summarizes the first clinical study it cites (endnote 26) as follows: “The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask”.

In sharp contrast, the abstract of that study reads: “Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”

The paper is a flubro con job.


21 posted on 04/17/2021 3:07:32 PM PDT by NobleFree ("law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollard

Yeah - just read that. So what is Fauci going to say?


22 posted on 04/17/2021 3:11:31 PM PDT by SkyDancer (To Most People The Sky's The Limit ~ To A Pilot, It is Home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Haven’t you heard?

You’re supposed to wear TWO MASKS DAMMIT!!

(/s)


23 posted on 04/17/2021 3:12:03 PM PDT by OKSooner (John Durham does not exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Exactly, the whole point being is that masks are ineffective to stop COVID; the only purpose they serve is to give people a warm fuzzy feeling of being protected.


24 posted on 04/17/2021 3:13:18 PM PDT by SkyDancer (To Most People The Sky's The Limit ~ To A Pilot, It is Home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
Masks are:

1) a sign of submission, subversion and subjugation
2) mandated in order to dehumanize
3) virtue signaling devices
4) meant to provide constant reinforcement of fear
5) used to destroy community, friends and family normal communication
6) implemented to create isolation, confusion, anxiety, destroy human connectivity, trust and interactions
7) mandated to exacerbate illness
8) intended to aid in the abandonment of the belief and reliance on our immune systems
9) intended to refute integrous science
10) signal to positions of power that you are willing to give up all of your rights and freedoms based on anything they say, even if it is a BIG FAT LIE!

25 posted on 04/17/2021 3:14:44 PM PDT by lightman (I am a binary Trinitarian. Deal with it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
"It is the pore size that matters, not the thread size."

Technically, the "pore size" can fluctuate greatly (on a micron or nano-scale level) because the mask is made of fabric threads....which can move around. Meaning, the threads are not static in one position. So a more meaningful and consistent comparison is the measure of the size of the threads of the material that make up the mask.

The study he cites for thread size is this: Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks and it only mentions thread size as well. They do mention "gaps," but that's in reference to how well a mask/respirator is fitted. Meaning, if there are gaps between the mask and the face.

26 posted on 04/17/2021 3:17:11 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Duh!


27 posted on 04/17/2021 3:25:31 PM PDT by maddogtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drago

..masks of any type reduce “ballistic” droplet


It seems that not enough to make any difference.


28 posted on 04/17/2021 3:27:43 PM PDT by TTFX ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Felted (non-woven) fabrics make much better filtration materials because you can control the pore size much more precisely than woven filters.

Filtration efficiency is a strong function of “face velocity,” the speed at which the gas approaches the filter material. In power plants, bag houses (used to remove fly ash) have face velocities of a few feet per MINUTE. You simply cannot get high filtration efficiency with the high face velocity on a face mask. It is easy to figure the face mask face velocity — the volume of a breath and the surface area of the mask are all you need. If you tried to breathe sufficiently slow to get a very low face velocity, you’d pass out from lack of oxygen.


29 posted on 04/17/2021 3:32:29 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom (The Weak Never Started, The Cowards fail along the way, Only the Strong Survive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

The questions that needs to be asked...

Why was it published quietly?

Why haven’t the researchers asked for a meeting with Abbott and DeSantis to let them know of their findings and then have a press conference?

Why not call on the Republican Governors to a central location and explain the study, how it was conducted, and the results and let them do their thing?


30 posted on 04/17/2021 3:32:50 PM PDT by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

So, in effect, even the other study admits that there is a benefit from masks only from symptomatic (already sick) individuals. Why then the emphasis on forcing everyone to wear them, even frightening little children into it?

Also, just think for a moment of the effect on a symptomatic person of wearing one. They would be 10 times worse off through lack of oxygen (when they were already congested in any case) and cross contamination by having to breath back their own germs combined with all the others attracted to a damp mask. It makes me feel ill just thinking about it.

Forcing whole populations to wear masks is nothing more than an extreme form of population control and outright punishment.


31 posted on 04/17/2021 3:35:50 PM PDT by Nipfan (The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it - H L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TTFX

Hard to gauge w/o a “re-run” without any social distancing measures or masks in place...but common sense and the fact that “regular flu/influenza” was reduced to almost zero by those measures says otherwise. “R0” (”contagiousness”) of COVID-19 is higher than the flu so mitigation methods are less effective, but the methods (masks, etc) were highly effective against the flu for the 2020-2021 flu season.


32 posted on 04/17/2021 3:40:47 PM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Drago

Places that use masks and harsh lockdowns are the places with the highest amounts of cases and deaths. When the restrictions were introduced, they didn’t cause a sharp relief to hospitals weeks later, or months later.


33 posted on 04/17/2021 3:43:43 PM PDT by TTFX ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TTFX

“When restrictions were introduced”....the virus wasn’t distributed evenly across the US.

No data on how high hospital cases would have spiked w/o mitigation measures.

Best bet is to use your personal experience with colds & flu in your own household.


34 posted on 04/17/2021 3:49:21 PM PDT by Drago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: qaz123

I think it was a well done article. It was not published in a high impact journal but it was peer-reviewed. Interesting that it came from the Cardiology department. These are dangerous times (for your ability to work) that we live in. Big Tech is now the strongarm of the Nazi party that effectively controls our government.


“a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely. “”


35 posted on 04/17/2021 3:51:06 PM PDT by consult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: consult

Hopefully, someone out there is making/can make, DeSantis, et al aware of the study so they can get the info out there.

Be awesome if they were invited, along with Fauci, to attend a round table discussion on everything.

Toss this study in with this research.....

Laboratories In US Can’t Find Covid-19 In 1500 Positive Tests

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3951460/posts

And the evidence is leading to we’ve been taken for a ride.


36 posted on 04/17/2021 3:56:55 PM PDT by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
He referenced numerous papers to put together that study and in particular that chart. Quit the wealth of information at the links cited.

 

Physiological effects of wearing facemasks

Wearing facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process [12], [13]. Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10–15 breaths for 2–4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles [33], [34], prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health [11], [12], [13]. In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O2 and 0.03% CO2, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia [35], [36], [11], [12], [13]. Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension [43]. Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using facemask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Table 1 summarizes the physiological, psychological effects of wearing facemask and their potential long-term consequences for health.


37 posted on 04/17/2021 3:57:04 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RC one

‘It’s straight up BS.’

fine, that’s your opinion, others disagree...speaking of opinions, what do you think of requiring asymptomatic or healthy people to wear impediments to the only respiratory apparatus we have, our nostrils...? does that mmake an iota of sense to you...?


38 posted on 04/17/2021 3:57:11 PM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

Direct link to the study.


39 posted on 04/17/2021 3:58:00 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: consult

On this journal:

“The purpose of Medical Hypotheses is to publish interesting theoretical papers. The journal will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed.”

This paper isn’t the result of a study or anything like that. It is a collection of ideas from a non-specialist. Perhaps worth considering, but not proof of anything.


40 posted on 04/17/2021 4:01:43 PM PDT by Renfrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson