top of page
Search

THE REST OF THE STORY...

12/15/22


So as our holiday gatherings commence, many of our blue-haired family members and friends who identify as Karens will be pushing the “mask-up” agenda to fight the “TRIPLEDEMIC” and will have in their arsenal of “proof” that masks work this article published two days ago in the New York Times (so you can rest assured it’s legit) by apparently yet another child playing dress-up and pretending to be some kind of “reporter” entitled (my bold) “It’s Time to Wear a Mask Again, Health Experts Say”


If you read the article you will be assaulted with all sorts of PANIC PORN from all sorts of “experts”, much of which I have already debunked, but all you really need to know is this passage:


“There is strong evidence that masks help to reduce the transmission of several respiratory viruses. One paper published in 2020 by researchers in Hong Kong showed that people sick with either Covid-19 or the flu breathed out fewer viral particles when they were wearing a surgical mask.” The author cites another recent piece out of Boston but it's so silly I'll not waste time on it.


Couple things. First, if you click on the “strong evidence” hyperlink in the piece found here https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/well/covid-flu-rsv-masks-tripledemic.html#:~:text=It%E2%80%99s%20Time%20to%20Wear%20a%20Mask%20Again%2C%20Health,and%2C%20this%20time%2C%20they%E2%80%99re%20not%20just%20for%20Covid-19. you come to a paper published in October of 2009 in the Annals of Internal Medicine entitled “Facemasks and Hand Hygiene to Prevent Influenza Transmission in Households” which ACTUALLY SHOWS masks do essentially NOTHING! “Hand hygiene with or without facemasks seemed to reduce influenza transmission, but the differences compared with the control group were not significant.” And even that statement is dishonest. Later the authors go on to tell us “There were no significant differences between intervention groups in contact infections when any of the influenza definitions were used…Secondary attack ratios did not significantly differ at the household level” Here’s the chart:





Please notice the rate of “secondary attack” (the spread from the infected individual to others in the house) is HIGHER (sometimes significantly higher) EVERY TIME when you compare just hand hygiene to hand hygiene WITH MASKS. Once you ADD MASKS the rate of spread INCREASES. How do you explain that?


Second, if you click on the “one paper” hyperlink, you come to a paper that compared the flow of viral particles through a mask versus not through a mask (remember all that nonsense during the first two years of this thing about “laboratory evidence” and studies done on mannequins “proving” masks work?). It NEVER looked at TRANSMISSION OF INFECTION so it means NOTHING as far as “protecting” anybody from anything. Yes, masks may decrease the flow of germs but no, they don’t prevent infections. These authors tell us “Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols…For those who did shed virus in respiratory droplets and aerosols, viral load in both tended to be low” So if most people naturally shed either no or very low levels of virus in their unmasked breath cloud (now that visual is in your head too...HA!) how much "protection" could masks possibly provide?


How did links to these two papers possibly make it into this New York Times article extolling the "proof" of mask usage? One says they do nothing and the other doesn't even address the issue of viral transmission at all. Where did this "reporter" get those links? Did she not read the papers before she included them in her "report"as "proof" of her position? Remember, she didn't say "evidence suggestive of" she said "strong evidence". Would even a drunken pangolin (probably the one that started this whole pandemic) accept these "scientific" papers as "strong evidence"? Was there no editor, well, editing? Are these really the imbeciles to whom Aunt Karen is listening?


So THAT’S the New York Times “strong evidence”. And by the way, remember how for two years when crackpot science-deniers like me were telling you masks didn’t do anything because that’s what all the data on planet earth said for as long as anyone had investigated the subject, all the “experts” were telling you “No, THAT data was done on influenza, THIS (COVID) is different.” and now they’re telling you to wear masks to prevent…influenza? And by the way again, if the reason there was no flu for the last two years is because of masks, which is what they’re saying now, how exactly do you explain the seasonal spikes in COVID? You can’t say the masks prevented flu which you already admitted they could not do, while COVID, which you promised us masks would prevent, ran rampant. How EXACTLY do you explain that?


Liars and idiots all. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

35 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

1/31/23 So in case you didn't know, in September of 2019, just as the evil coronavirus began to circulate (it magically came from a bat at that very same time, you know) Bill Gates invested 55 million

1/30/23 So I titled this "PART 1" because I'll revisit this sort of thing from time to time. I could write a piece about this stuff every single day, but where's the fun in that? The "thing" is the ba

1/27/23 Here’s an interesting tidbit from the UK report on COVID vaccines we discussed yesterday (post found here: https://www.springfieldholisticwellness.com/post/uk-bans-boosters) concerning the BS

bottom of page