The coronavirus scam
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
expos4ever
Well-known member
Please answer the question!!! What is your source? If it turns out to be unreputable, then there is no such contradiction.
expos4ever
Well-known member
What posts? All I am asking for is a post number.
Somebody posted this, without citing an actual source. I need the source.
a cloth mask is 3% effective , which is statistically insignificant
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
expos4ever
Well-known member
What in heaven's name is this?
This is classic anti-science rhetoric - a completely unsupported wildly speculative statement. I would not have the guts to make such a claim without supporting it.
Correction: I would not have the integrity to make such a claim without supporting it.
expos4ever
Well-known member
Well, you asked for it. From Politifact:
In a video clip being shared on Facebook, a retired anesthesiologist who rails against mask wearing to protect against COVID-19 purports to demonstrate their ineffectiveness by blowing out the vapor from an electronic cigarette. The video carries the headline: "Doctor proves masks ‘don’t work.’"
But he doesn’t prove that at all.
The fact that he can blow vapor through a mask is not evidence that masks don’t protect against passing the coronavirus. After all, people breathe in and out with masks on.
"By that illogic, the fact that air can pass through a mask could be cited as ‘evidence’ as well," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
Cindy Prins, a clinical associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida, called the video "completely misleading."
"Fabric and surgical/procedure masks are meant to help protect against larger droplet particles that may contain COVID-19," she said. "You have to be able to breathe through a mask, and he is just blowing out water vapor, so that is expected to be able to go through a mask."
The video maker
The Facebook post that includes the video clip was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
The video is by Dr. Ted Noel, a former Florida anesthesiologist. Noel allowed his license to expire in 2014 after deciding to retire, the Florida Department of Health told us.
Noel’s YouTube channel has more than 19,000 subscribers and has had more than 9 million views since it was started in 2016.
In the three-minute clip, Noel blows e-cigarette vapor through a variety of masks, including a surgical-style mask and a cloth mask like those commonly worn to control the spread of COVID-19.
When we asked Noel to back his position, he argued in an email that COVID-19 is spread by aerosols, and that 90% of aerosols and viruses "go right through" cloth masks. He also argued that "basically, the only way droplets can spread COVID-19 is if an ill person happens to be quite close to an uninfected person who happens to be breathing in at the exact moment that the ill person expels the droplets."
Noel has repeatedly railed against masks. On Jan. 31, he wrote: "Most Americans intuitively recognize that masks don’t reduce infections. But they go along with the virtue signaling to be good citizens." In his email, he called Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious-disease expert, "a lab rat turned bureaucrat who plays a doctor on TV."
Noel's claims on countering the spread of the coronavirus are contradicted by public health experts.
Translation: 'If one source disagrees with my stubborn erroneous opinion then that source is unreliable.'
Yes, that's what everyone is claiming. But you seem to have missed the point the good doctor was making, that wasn't even mentioned in the article you quoted, because the entire piece is an attempt to discredit him.
Expos, did you even bother to watch the video? Or was your knee jerk reaction to toe the party line and attempt to discredit him without even hearing him out, like the good little sheep you are?
The aerosolized particles he's breathing in that video are the same size or larger than the aerosolized particles that the virus "rides" on, and he said so.
Meaning that every single one of those particles, despite him wearing a mask, are making it through the mask and going out into the environment, where they could potentially infect someone else. Meaning that the masks are largely ineffective against preventing the spread of the virus. More aerosolized particles are making it through the mask than are being stopped by it. Meaning the masks are largely ineffective.
During the early 70s scientists were not citing global warming as a threat, but global cooling. If you disagree then prove me wrong.
I admit that science was sketchy back in the early 70s. There was no climate science to speak of back then, but those who dabbled in climate science predicted a coming global cooling rather than coming global warming.
Here is what one source said:
THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...
However, here is what we hear from researchers today, like these with Penn State and NASA:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations - Aliens may eat us for causing global warming
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf - Aliens may eat us scientific paper.
I see. Cloth masks don't actually stop the passage of tiny covid particles but zealots claim they do stop larger droplets that may contain covid particles. How enlightening. However, breathing in a full diving suit will also stop larger droplets which may contain covid but we don't stupidly mandate everybody wear those full time to calm the fears of the irrational and fearful.
expos4ever
Well-known member
Again, more conspiracy-theory.
As has been pointed out before, you could make such an "argument" to support any wild claim.
I will trust the opinion of, for example, the National Academy of Sciences, over a doctor with an expired license, blowing smoke rings in his basement.
expos4ever
Well-known member
Ah, yes the familiar "science-cannot-be-trusted-because-the-story-keeps-changing" line.
For those of us who inhabit, you know, reality, we know that when a new virus appears it takes time to learn about it. So there are bound to be changes in the guidance offered to us. The real world is messy and uncertain, and those who engage in the serious work of trying to understand it are, of course, going to start down some dead-end paths.
And so, like adults, they admit their mistake and backtrack.
Contrast this with a fundie mindset that insists the earth is 6,000 years old. And are they willing to check this belief against the data that the real world offers and reconsider their folly? I am sure the reader knows the answer.
Scientific reports, peer review, science organization endorsements and the like can never substitute as proof a claim is irrefutable. Men who refuse to trust in God can find themselves putting blind faith in science organizations heavily influenced by God-rejecting rebels who falsely present themselves as experts qualified to rule Biblical truth as an error. Do not put blind faith in God-rejecting quacks.
Error and Negligence in Science | On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition | The National Academies Press
Read chapter Error and Negligence in Science: Since the first edition of On Being a Scientist was published in 1989, more than 200,000 copies have been di...
www.nap.edu
The answer is yes. See www.youngearth.com
expos4ever
Well-known member
All righty-then. I will not take the time, at least at the moment, to discover the track record of your website - I am sure it will prove to most enlightening and amusing.
If you do not like Politifact, how about this:
Dr John O’Horo, associate professor of medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, said the conclusions the man in the video draws are “very, very questionable,” and “what’s being shown there isn’t really representative of the way that masks offer protection for the wearer or for those around the wearer.”
Mayo clinic good enough?
Did you see the excellent video of an expert demonstrating the very clear fact that cloth masks don't stop the spread of covid particles? Can you believe facts or do you, like committed leftists, refuse to believe your own lying eyes?
expos4ever
Well-known member
Code for: I do not have a reputable source for my claim.
You have been asked repeatedly to provide your source. Your silence on this matter is deafening.
The problem with rebels against God is that they don't understand truth, cannot properly analyze scientific data, and do not know they are wrong when they clearly are. Several decades ago a small group of researchers searching for truth came up with data they took as proof Mitochondrial Eve was around 200,000 years old. Few questioned that assumption because how could they? The assumption could neither be proven nor disproven, giving the deluded great boldness in adopting the idea that the assumption must therefore be an irrefutable fact.
All of that changed dramatically when new discoveries came to light, forcing those proponents of the 200,000 years old theory to admit, using their own methods and calculations, that Mitochondrial Eve must have been only about 6,000 years old.
Mother of All Humans Lived 6,000 Years Ago
Inside a human cell's mitochondria--the tiny organelles that provide energy--there is a small and unique chromosome. This loop of DNA is passed from mother to child in every generation and provides an intriguing source of information about mankind's past. Geneticists are using that information...
expos4ever
Well-known member
I watched the entire video, as, no doubt did the experts who discredited it.
You seem to think that you have the knowledge to accurately assess whether this demonstration proves anything of import.
I am quite sure you are, in fact, unqualified to make such a judgement. Just as I am unqualified to refute it on my own.
That is why I leave it to qualified experts to comment on it. And there are quite a few experts who claim this clip is misleading.