• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Why Mask Wearing is my Civic Duty

Off topic and a what-aboutism, just as predicted. Myocarditis is another issue. Here's another review of studies indicating masks are effective:
nope, again misleading.
they took two groups of villages in india.
in one group, they gave them free masks and "educated" them about the dangers of covid.
in the other group was told nothing or not "educated" and given nothing. no intervention.
so the group they scared into staying home got slightly less covid.
shocking!
 
Last edited:
Off topic and a what-aboutism, just as predicted. Myocarditis is another issue. Here's another review of studies indicating masks are effective:
Another flimsy “study” that relied on reporting covaids symptoms

And “also saw a slight increase in physical distancing in public spaces”. So there was more than one variable changed, invalidating the study

Also, they referred to this as a randomized, controlled study. There was zero randomization, everyone in both cohorts either knew they were or were not wearing a mask.

How can these researchers put this garbage out when some dumb mechanic can look at this for 5 minutes and find a bunch of problems with it. I’m sure a smart person could rip this pile of shit to shreds in 10 minutes
 
Off topic and a what-aboutism, just as predicted. Myocarditis is another issue. Here's another review of studies indicating masks are effective:
You should probably go suck start a shotgun. You seriously have screws loose in your head and probably shouldn't even own guns......just don't go and shoot up a school before you off yourself......

Doc
 
Off topic and a what-aboutism, just as predicted. Myocarditis is another issue. Here's another review of studies indicating masks are effective:
So how many times did you get your booster before you realized you were being bamboozled? Or have you not figured it out yet and are still getting them every 3 months?

I wouldn’t do any strenuous exercise or you may end up in the died suddenly thread with only a “no refunds” comment to commemorate your wonderful life of being herded around with the other sheep to slaughter.
 
Off topic and a what-aboutism, just as predicted. Myocarditis is another issue. Here's another review of studies indicating masks are effective:

OP: “I put a mosquito barrier around my house too.”

x600-78498.Jpg
 
I have not really addressed my problem with you, specifically. This is primarily because I'm doubtful of anyone on this site taking a discussion seriously and thus it not being worth my time to go into longform conversation, but you might be an exception, so, here we go. That said, I'm happy to revert back to the pithy shit instead of respectful conversation if this goes sideways with you:
nope, again misleading.
they took two groups of villages in india.
in one group, they gave them free masks and "educated" them about the dangers of covid.
in the other group was told nothing or not "educated" and given nothing. no intervention.
so the group they scared into staying home got slightly less covid.
shocking!
You've completely dismissed anything that doesn't agree with you outright, and seemingly refuse to even consider evidence of the *possibility* or *probability* that masks *might* help. The difference in our positions seems to be that you need irrefutable proof before you take an action that *might* protect yourself or your loved ones. That's like refusing to fight an intruder before he's in the house and instead requiring a guilty verdict from a court room before you'd pick up arms, which, like masks, are just tools that are also no guarantee of success. Obviously, I suspect neither you, nor most on this site, would wait for incontrovertible proof in that circumstance, but why would you/they require it in the case of a virus we reasonably perceived as a threat? Also, why have you come to a conclusion at all without irrefutable proof that masks do not work? Your bias seems to be in the standard of proof required for coming to one conclusion instead of its opposite... Or, have you incorrectly concluded from the evidence you've provided that you have irrefutable proof of their ineffectiveness?

You are one of the only or perhaps the only person in this thread even attempting to characterize the antagonism of mask-wearing, mandate-opposed, conservatives like me as reasonable and evidence-based. However, it seems to me that you're confusing 'lack of evidence' from the only cherry-picked studies you'll accept with 'irrefutable evidence' of both ineffectiveness & harm. To an open-minded, reasonable person, this comes across as clearly wrong, at least from what you've provided to this point.

Now, if you actually want to seem reasonable in taking such an affirmative, antagonistic position, then the burden is on you to prove the harm, and therefore the unreasonableness, of mask wearing... not just their ineffectiveness, which you still have not done. It's not good enough that you find studies that fail to find statistically significant evidence that masks help. That's a misunderstanding of statistical results, and that is the area of my expertise (Master's in ORSA). Others studies do find statistically significant evidence of effectiveness and I will continue to provide them here, if for no other reason then the entertainment of stringing out this thread and antagonizing my wanna-be antagonizers, even though you will continue to dismiss them...

Nevertheless, your refutations are still the wrong approach. To rightfully antagonize the reasonable position of attempting to protect oneself and loved ones with masks, you must affirmatively demonstrate statistically significant evidence of unmitigable harm. The closest I have seen here is the claim that the mandate is harmful, with which I am already in agreement. I'm beyond reasonably confident that you cannot demonstrate that properly worn masks are harmful, for if they were, that fact would have been clearly discovered and demonstrable by the millions of medical workers who have worn them correctly every workday for decades. So, at worst-case, I'm neither harming nor helping myself or my family. At best-case I successfully mitigated the transmission of COVID from outside of my home to its inside. Those of your persuasion never tried, and I support the right to do that, but I believe the decision was dubious, particularly if you have health-compromised or elderly family in your home.

Point made, for now.

Today's evidence countering your Cochrane review post:
Here's a quote from the editor-in-chief of the library that commissioned the Cochrane review you cited: "Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work,' which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."


but the harm they do is undeniable

So, your turn. Link the studies that suggest wearing masks may be an unmitigable health hazard? To be clear, I don't want you to show me how idiots or populations can harm themselves. I also don't care to argue the socio-political value of pushing back against unwarranted mandates. I want you to show me how I, as an individual, cannot avoid harm despite training and discipline. All I've seen from you so far is suggestions that they haven't been proven to work, and rejections of anything suggesting that they might. The difference is, if you can demonstrate unmitigable harm, meaning training and disciplined use of masks is still harmful, you could actually change my mind. I know I cannot change yours.
 
Last edited:
I have not really addressed my problem with you, specifically. This is primarily because I'm doubtful of anyone on this site taking a discussion seriously and thus it not being worth my time to go into longform conversation, but you might be an exception, so, here we go. That said, I'm happy to revert back to the pithy shit instead of respectful conversation if this goes sideways with you:

You've completely dismissed anything that doesn't agree with you outright, and seemingly refuse to even consider evidence of the *possibility* or *probability* that masks *might* help. The difference in our positions seems to be that you need irrefutable proof before you take an action that *might* protect yourself or your loved ones. That's like refusing to fight an intruder before he's in the house and instead requiring a guilty verdict from a court room before you'd pick up arms, which, like masks, are just tools that are also no guarantee of success. Obviously, I suspect neither you, nor most on this site, would wait for incontrovertible proof in that circumstance, but why would you/they require it in the case of a virus we reasonably perceived as a threat? Also, why have you come to a conclusion at all without irrefutable proof that masks do not work? Your bias seems to be in the standard of proof required for coming to one conclusion instead of its opposite... Or, have you incorrectly concluded from the evidence you've provided that you have irrefutable proof if their ineffectiveness?

You are one of the only or perhaps the only person in this thread even attempting to characterize the antagonism of mask-wearing, mandate-opposed, conservatives like me as reasonable and evidence-based. However, it seems to me that you're confusing 'lack of evidence' from the only cherry-picked studies you'll accept with 'irrefutable evidence' of both ineffectiveness & harm. To an open-minded, reasonable person, this comes across as clearly wrong, at least from what you've provided to this point.

Now, if you actually want to seem reasonable in taking such an affirmative, antagonistic position, then the burden is on you to prove the harm, and therefore the unreasonableness, of mask wearing... not just their ineffectiveness, which you still have not done. It's not good enough that you find studies that fail to find statistically significant evidence that masks help. That's a misunderstanding of statistical results, and that is the area of my expertise (Master's in ORSA). Others studies do find statistically significant evidence of effectiveness and I will continue to provide them here, if for no other reason then the entertainment of stringing out this thread and antagonizing my wanna-be antagonizers, even though you will continue to dismiss them...

Nevertheless, your refutations are still the wrong approach. To rightfully antagonize the reasonable position of attempting to protect oneself and loved ones with masks, you must affirmatively demonstrate statistically significant evidence of unmitigable harm. The closest I have seen here is the claim that the mandate is harmful, with which I am already in agreement. I'm beyond reasonably confident that you cannot demonstrate that properly worn masks are harmful, for if they were, that fact would have been clearly discovered and demonstrable by the millions of medical workers who have worn them correctly every workday for decades. So, at worst-case, I'm neither harming nor helping myself or my family. At best-case I successfully mitigated the transmission of COVID from outside of my home to its inside. Those of your persuasion never tried, and I support the right to do that, but I believe the decision was dubious, particularly if you have health-compromised or elderly family in your home.

Point made, for now.

Today's evidence countering your Cochrane review post:
Here's a quote from the editor-in-chief of the library that commissioned the Cochrane review you cited: "Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work,' which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."




So, your turn. Link the studies that suggest wearing masks may be an unmitigable health hazard? To be clear, I don't want you to show me how idiots or populations can harm themselves. I also don't care to argue the socio-political value of pushing back against unwarranted mandates. I want you to show me how I, as an individual, cannot avoid harm despite training and discipline. All I've seen from you so far is suggestions that they haven't been proven to work, and rejections of anything suggesting that they might. The difference is, if you can demonstrate unmitigable harm, meaning training and disciplined use of masks is still harmful, you could actually change my mind. I know I cannot change yours.
D30872A1-F758-4128-9BAF-570D98359D2E.jpeg
 
I have not really addressed my problem with you, specifically. This is primarily because I'm doubtful of anyone on this site taking a discussion seriously and thus it not being worth my time to go into longform conversation, but you might be an exception, so, here we go. That said, I'm happy to revert back to the pithy shit instead of respectful conversation if this goes sideways with you:

You've completely dismissed anything that doesn't agree with you outright, and seemingly refuse to even consider evidence of the *possibility* or *probability* that masks *might* help. The difference in our positions seems to be that you need irrefutable proof before you take an action that *might* protect yourself or your loved ones. That's like refusing to fight an intruder before he's in the house and instead requiring a guilty verdict from a court room before you'd pick up arms, which, like masks, are just tools that are also no guarantee of success. Obviously, I suspect neither you, nor most on this site, would wait for incontrovertible proof in that circumstance, but why would you/they require it in the case of a virus we reasonably perceived as a threat? Also, why have you come to a conclusion at all without irrefutable proof that masks do not work? Your bias seems to be in the standard of proof required for coming to one conclusion instead of its opposite... Or, have you incorrectly concluded from the evidence you've provided that you have irrefutable proof if their ineffectiveness?

You are one of the only or perhaps the only person in this thread even attempting to characterize the antagonism of mask-wearing, mandate-opposed, conservatives like me as reasonable and evidence-based. However, it seems to me that you're confusing 'lack of evidence' from the only cherry-picked studies you'll accept with 'irrefutable evidence' of both ineffectiveness & harm. To an open-minded, reasonable person, this comes across as clearly wrong, at least from what you've provided to this point.

Now, if you actually want to seem reasonable in taking such an affirmative, antagonistic position, then the burden is on you to prove the harm, and therefore the unreasonableness, of mask wearing... not just their ineffectiveness, which you still have not done. It's not good enough that you find studies that fail to find statistically significant evidence that masks help. That's a misunderstanding of statistical results, and that is the area of my expertise (Master's in ORSA). Others studies do find statistically significant evidence of effectiveness and I will continue to provide them here, if for no other reason then the entertainment of stringing out this thread and antagonizing my wanna-be antagonizers, even though you will continue to dismiss them...

Nevertheless, your refutations are still the wrong approach. To rightfully antagonize the reasonable position of attempting to protect oneself and loved ones with masks, you must affirmatively demonstrate statistically significant evidence of unmitigable harm. The closest I have seen here is the claim that the mandate is harmful, with which I am already in agreement. I'm beyond reasonably confident that you cannot demonstrate that properly worn masks are harmful, for if they were, that fact would have been clearly discovered and demonstrable by the millions of medical workers who have worn them correctly every workday for decades. So, at worst-case, I'm neither harming nor helping myself or my family. At best-case I successfully mitigated the transmission of COVID from outside of my home to its inside. Those of your persuasion never tried, and I support the right to do that, but I believe the decision was dubious, particularly if you have health-compromised or elderly family in your home.

Point made, for now.

Today's evidence countering your Cochrane review post:
Here's a quote from the editor-in-chief of the library that commissioned the Cochrane review you cited: "Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work,' which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."




So, your turn. Link the studies that suggest wearing masks may be an unmitigable health hazard? To be clear, I don't want you to show me how idiots or populations can harm themselves. I also don't care to argue the socio-political value of pushing back against unwarranted mandates. I want you to show me how I, as an individual, cannot avoid harm despite training and discipline. All I've seen from you so far is suggestions that they haven't been proven to work, and rejections of anything suggesting that they might. The difference is, if you can demonstrate unmitigable harm, meaning training and disciplined use of masks is still harmful, you could actually change my mind. I know I cannot change yours.
Again, if you are so worried about catching the Rona and spreading it to your family. Why would you wear something that "might" help around strangers but not around your family?
You "might" catch it because your pp "might" not protect you. Then you are going home to the family and remove the item that "might" protect them.
2+2=6?
 

Along those lines, not reading all that. This is pretty close to what research looks like. People don't read it, I know I did not. You know why it is a bore, and not a lot of fun to read and actually digest exactly what it means. And "they" know it. So "they" will read the study and then tell us what it says. This is a little like listening to Don Lemon tell us all about Trump, he will tell you just what he wants you to hear. And the same goes with Biden.

So what is a person to do that does not want to go to the "real" source.....and again provided it is not slanted, and we all know from climate change they do not report the facts they report what will keep that grant money flowing in. We just look around and make our best judgement. We listen to that little voice in our heads and go......ahhhh about that I want more info. And in the case of covid that is not what they wanted to happen. There are still Dr. and scientists out there that do report the actual findings. And in the world of science it is a moving target. Remember the earth is the center of the universe and you would be burned alive if you said different. Science changes as we learn more. Very little in that area is "fact".

Now science has turned into a political weapon for control of people. Not really new, and when people could not read it was much more easy to control them. Now not so much. All you can do is question anything that does not pass the "smell test".

I don't know if this is a "good" source or not, but I have seen real studies and this is fairly close....but not quite. Wish I could find a good example, but I can't.

 
Again, if you are so worried about catching the Rona and spreading it to your family. Why would you wear something that "might" help around strangers but not around your family?
You "might" catch it because your pp "might" not protect you. Then you are going home to the family and remove the item that "might" protect them.
2+2=6?
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit...
 
I addressed that the illiterate in here wouldn't read it in the 2nd sentence... lol, and most importantly, it wasn't addressed to you. The only thing the retarded can handle is insults and zingers while they pretend to have a reasoned position.
Put on a cheap mask or common face covering.

Fart

Can you smell the fart?

If you need someone to fart in your face LMK.
 
Put on a cheap mask or common face covering.

Fart

Can you smell the fart?

If you need someone to fart in your face LMK.
Scientific proof! Good work, Einstein! There are multiple vectors N95 masks do protect against, but singling out one is definitely the only thing your brain is capable of. At least you're capable of basic cognition and the forming of words so you can communicate your stupidity so eagerly. Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? I probably lost you already, but the point is that the most confident folks, especially on this forum, are the least competent.
 
I have not really addressed my problem with you, specifically. This is primarily because I'm doubtful of anyone on this site taking a discussion seriously and thus it not being worth my time to go into longform conversation, but you might be an exception, so, here we go. That said, I'm happy to revert back to the pithy shit instead of respectful conversation if this goes sideways with you:

You've completely dismissed anything that doesn't agree with you outright, and seemingly refuse to even consider evidence of the *possibility* or *probability* that masks *might* help. The difference in our positions seems to be that you need irrefutable proof before you take an action that *might* protect yourself or your loved ones. That's like refusing to fight an intruder before he's in the house and instead requiring a guilty verdict from a court room before you'd pick up arms, which, like masks, are just tools that are also no guarantee of success. Obviously, I suspect neither you, nor most on this site, would wait for incontrovertible proof in that circumstance, but why would you/they require it in the case of a virus we reasonably perceived as a threat? Also, why have you come to a conclusion at all without irrefutable proof that masks do not work? Your bias seems to be in the standard of proof required for coming to one conclusion instead of its opposite... Or, have you incorrectly concluded from the evidence you've provided that you have irrefutable proof if their ineffectiveness?

You are one of the only or perhaps the only person in this thread even attempting to characterize the antagonism of mask-wearing, mandate-opposed, conservatives like me as reasonable and evidence-based. However, it seems to me that you're confusing 'lack of evidence' from the only cherry-picked studies you'll accept with 'irrefutable evidence' of both ineffectiveness & harm. To an open-minded, reasonable person, this comes across as clearly wrong, at least from what you've provided to this point.

Now, if you actually want to seem reasonable in taking such an affirmative, antagonistic position, then the burden is on you to prove the harm, and therefore the unreasonableness, of mask wearing... not just their ineffectiveness, which you still have not done. It's not good enough that you find studies that fail to find statistically significant evidence that masks help. That's a misunderstanding of statistical results, and that is the area of my expertise (Master's in ORSA). Others studies do find statistically significant evidence of effectiveness and I will continue to provide them here, if for no other reason then the entertainment of stringing out this thread and antagonizing my wanna-be antagonizers, even though you will continue to dismiss them...

Nevertheless, your refutations are still the wrong approach. To rightfully antagonize the reasonable position of attempting to protect oneself and loved ones with masks, you must affirmatively demonstrate statistically significant evidence of unmitigable harm. The closest I have seen here is the claim that the mandate is harmful, with which I am already in agreement. I'm beyond reasonably confident that you cannot demonstrate that properly worn masks are harmful, for if they were, that fact would have been clearly discovered and demonstrable by the millions of medical workers who have worn them correctly every workday for decades. So, at worst-case, I'm neither harming nor helping myself or my family. At best-case I successfully mitigated the transmission of COVID from outside of my home to its inside. Those of your persuasion never tried, and I support the right to do that, but I believe the decision was dubious, particularly if you have health-compromised or elderly family in your home.

Point made, for now.

Today's evidence countering your Cochrane review post:
Here's a quote from the editor-in-chief of the library that commissioned the Cochrane review you cited: "Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work,' which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."




So, your turn. Link the studies that suggest wearing masks may be an unmitigable health hazard? To be clear, I don't want you to show me how idiots or populations can harm themselves. I also don't care to argue the socio-political value of pushing back against unwarranted mandates. I want you to show me how I, as an individual, cannot avoid harm despite training and discipline. All I've seen from you so far is suggestions that they haven't been proven to work, and rejections of anything suggesting that they might. The difference is, if you can demonstrate unmitigable harm, meaning training and disciplined use of masks is still harmful, you could actually change my mind. I know I cannot change yours.
Do you have a mask on right now? I think you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc68 and MCSO1357
Scientific proof! Good work, Einstein! There are multiple vectors N95 masks do protect against, but singling out one is definitely the only thing your brain is capable of. At least you're capable of basic cognition and the forming of words so you can communicate your stupidity so eagerly.
So did you try it?

Fucktard.
 
Last edited:
Scientific proof! Good work, Einstein! There are multiple vectors N95 masks do protect against, but singling out one is definitely the only thing your brain is capable of. At least you're capable of basic cognition and the forming of words so you can communicate your stupidity so eagerly. Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? I probably lost you already, but the point is that the most confident folks, especially on this forum, are the least competent.
Do you know why this ^^^ is so funny?

R
 
I addressed that the illiterate in here wouldn't read it in the 2nd sentence... lol, and most importantly, it wasn't addressed to you. The only thing the retarded can handle is insults and zingers while they pretend to have a reasoned position.
That’s just the way it is these days.

Now we got them on the left, and the right.

Yay, algorithms that funnel weak minded people in to believing the crap it serves up, depending on their “preferences”. Into the echo chambers of social media we go, where like-minded zombies can say, Fook Ya… Hu Hu…

All to get clicks for add revenue and make the man rich.

Weeeeeeeeeeee
 
  • Like
Reactions: Praetorian_6
Do you know why this ^^^ is so funny?

R
Yes, because you realized that you're retardedly confident and equally incompetent, too. You have to be to be so critical of someone who doesn't give a shit what you do and is making his own decisions.
 
Wearing a mask in public is,was and always will be the equivalent of a swastika arm band. It is a way to show you support evil.

No scientific research has ever shown that wearing a poorly made cloth or paper face covering has any value in illness prevention or protection and this has been extensively studied since the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918-19.

Next they are going to say that masks help stop climate change. This hoax peaked two damned years ago and I see assholes still wearing masks, the town democrat is riding his bike in circles in the street today, wearing a fucking mask. Alone, over 100 feet from the nearest person, circling the post office like a 70yo retard.
 
I have not really addressed my problem with you, specifically. This is primarily because I'm doubtful of anyone on this site taking a discussion seriously and thus it not being worth my time to go into longform conversation, but you might be an exception, so, here we go. That said, I'm happy to revert back to the pithy shit instead of respectful conversation if this goes sideways with you:

You've completely dismissed anything that doesn't agree with you outright, and seemingly refuse to even consider evidence of the *possibility* or *probability* that masks *might* help. The difference in our positions seems to be that you need irrefutable proof before you take an action that *might* protect yourself or your loved ones. That's like refusing to fight an intruder before he's in the house and instead requiring a guilty verdict from a court room before you'd pick up arms, which, like masks, are just tools that are also no guarantee of success. Obviously, I suspect neither you, nor most on this site, would wait for incontrovertible proof in that circumstance, but why would you/they require it in the case of a virus we reasonably perceived as a threat? Also, why have you come to a conclusion at all without irrefutable proof that masks do not work? Your bias seems to be in the standard of proof required for coming to one conclusion instead of its opposite... Or, have you incorrectly concluded from the evidence you've provided that you have irrefutable proof of their ineffectiveness?

You are one of the only or perhaps the only person in this thread even attempting to characterize the antagonism of mask-wearing, mandate-opposed, conservatives like me as reasonable and evidence-based. However, it seems to me that you're confusing 'lack of evidence' from the only cherry-picked studies you'll accept with 'irrefutable evidence' of both ineffectiveness & harm. To an open-minded, reasonable person, this comes across as clearly wrong, at least from what you've provided to this point.

Now, if you actually want to seem reasonable in taking such an affirmative, antagonistic position, then the burden is on you to prove the harm, and therefore the unreasonableness, of mask wearing... not just their ineffectiveness, which you still have not done. It's not good enough that you find studies that fail to find statistically significant evidence that masks help. That's a misunderstanding of statistical results, and that is the area of my expertise (Master's in ORSA). Others studies do find statistically significant evidence of effectiveness and I will continue to provide them here, if for no other reason then the entertainment of stringing out this thread and antagonizing my wanna-be antagonizers, even though you will continue to dismiss them...

Nevertheless, your refutations are still the wrong approach. To rightfully antagonize the reasonable position of attempting to protect oneself and loved ones with masks, you must affirmatively demonstrate statistically significant evidence of unmitigable harm. The closest I have seen here is the claim that the mandate is harmful, with which I am already in agreement. I'm beyond reasonably confident that you cannot demonstrate that properly worn masks are harmful, for if they were, that fact would have been clearly discovered and demonstrable by the millions of medical workers who have worn them correctly every workday for decades. So, at worst-case, I'm neither harming nor helping myself or my family. At best-case I successfully mitigated the transmission of COVID from outside of my home to its inside. Those of your persuasion never tried, and I support the right to do that, but I believe the decision was dubious, particularly if you have health-compromised or elderly family in your home.

Point made, for now.

Today's evidence countering your Cochrane review post:
Here's a quote from the editor-in-chief of the library that commissioned the Cochrane review you cited: "Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work,' which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."




So, your turn. Link the studies that suggest wearing masks may be an unmitigable health hazard? To be clear, I don't want you to show me how idiots or populations can harm themselves. I also don't care to argue the socio-political value of pushing back against unwarranted mandates. I want you to show me how I, as an individual, cannot avoid harm despite training and discipline. All I've seen from you so far is suggestions that they haven't been proven to work, and rejections of anything suggesting that they might. The difference is, if you can demonstrate unmitigable harm, meaning training and disciplined use of masks is still harmful, you could actually change my mind. I know I cannot change yours.
You were doing so well....until this.
So you are a hobby lawyer, a mathematician, and now you have a masters in ORSA.
You are a smart guy. We should listen to you. Only stupid people wouldn't hear what you have to say. Yeah we get it. Smart people like to talk about their masters and doctors. People who didn't go to school aren't as smart. Respect my athorit-tie!
So......
Do you know anything about scientific method? Standard methods? How lab shit is supposed to work?
Do you realize the scientific community, real scientists, have been compromised, and there is less and less real science going on?
Studying numbers is great. If the numbers were generated outside certain parameters, the numbers are simply data. Junk science, or since your kind doesn't like that term, science for the highest bidder.

You are a true believer. You said you weren't, I said you were lying. Now you come in here and say out loud, you are a true believer.
You sir are a disingenuous, verbose cunt.

Good day, professor.
 
Yes, because you realized that you're retardedly confident and equally incompetent, too. You have to be to be so critical of someone who doesn't give a shit what you do and is making his own decisions.
In poker they call this ^^^ a tell.
You've just described the actions of many/most of those who chose to wear a mask/take the jab.
When challenged you react in predictable form.

The D/K effect you are following to a T.
Maybe you should practice what you preach.
For someone who hasn't a care of other opinions you've visited this thread/replied considerably.

You would/probably have been a great hall monitor.

Your prose rings of youth and ignorance.

Try harder.

R
 
I have not really addressed my problem with you, specifically. This is primarily because I'm doubtful of anyone on this site taking a discussion seriously and thus it not being worth my time to go into longform conversation, but you might be an exception, so, here we go. That said, I'm happy to revert back to the pithy shit instead of respectful conversation if this goes sideways with you:

You've completely dismissed anything that doesn't agree with you outright, and seemingly refuse to even consider evidence of the *possibility* or *probability* that masks *might* help. The difference in our positions seems to be that you need irrefutable proof before you take an action that *might* protect yourself or your loved ones. That's like refusing to fight an intruder before he's in the house and instead requiring a guilty verdict from a court room before you'd pick up arms, which, like masks, are just tools that are also no guarantee of success. Obviously, I suspect neither you, nor most on this site, would wait for incontrovertible proof in that circumstance, but why would you/they require it in the case of a virus we reasonably perceived as a threat? Also, why have you come to a conclusion at all without irrefutable proof that masks do not work? Your bias seems to be in the standard of proof required for coming to one conclusion instead of its opposite... Or, have you incorrectly concluded from the evidence you've provided that you have irrefutable proof of their ineffectiveness?

You are one of the only or perhaps the only person in this thread even attempting to characterize the antagonism of mask-wearing, mandate-opposed, conservatives like me as reasonable and evidence-based. However, it seems to me that you're confusing 'lack of evidence' from the only cherry-picked studies you'll accept with 'irrefutable evidence' of both ineffectiveness & harm. To an open-minded, reasonable person, this comes across as clearly wrong, at least from what you've provided to this point.

Now, if you actually want to seem reasonable in taking such an affirmative, antagonistic position, then the burden is on you to prove the harm, and therefore the unreasonableness, of mask wearing... not just their ineffectiveness, which you still have not done. It's not good enough that you find studies that fail to find statistically significant evidence that masks help. That's a misunderstanding of statistical results, and that is the area of my expertise (Master's in ORSA). Others studies do find statistically significant evidence of effectiveness and I will continue to provide them here, if for no other reason then the entertainment of stringing out this thread and antagonizing my wanna-be antagonizers, even though you will continue to dismiss them...

Nevertheless, your refutations are still the wrong approach. To rightfully antagonize the reasonable position of attempting to protect oneself and loved ones with masks, you must affirmatively demonstrate statistically significant evidence of unmitigable harm. The closest I have seen here is the claim that the mandate is harmful, with which I am already in agreement. I'm beyond reasonably confident that you cannot demonstrate that properly worn masks are harmful, for if they were, that fact would have been clearly discovered and demonstrable by the millions of medical workers who have worn them correctly every workday for decades. So, at worst-case, I'm neither harming nor helping myself or my family. At best-case I successfully mitigated the transmission of COVID from outside of my home to its inside. Those of your persuasion never tried, and I support the right to do that, but I believe the decision was dubious, particularly if you have health-compromised or elderly family in your home.

Point made, for now.

Today's evidence countering your Cochrane review post:
Here's a quote from the editor-in-chief of the library that commissioned the Cochrane review you cited: "Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work,' which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation."




So, your turn. Link the studies that suggest wearing masks may be an unmitigable health hazard? To be clear, I don't want you to show me how idiots or populations can harm themselves. I also don't care to argue the socio-political value of pushing back against unwarranted mandates. I want you to show me how I, as an individual, cannot avoid harm despite training and discipline. All I've seen from you so far is suggestions that they haven't been proven to work, and rejections of anything suggesting that they might. The difference is, if you can demonstrate unmitigable harm, meaning training and disciplined use of masks is still harmful, you could actually change my mind. I know I cannot change yours.
509EAC34-1CE3-486C-B72B-90FCB6D732CF.jpeg
 


Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).


 
Gave you a chance... You started by trying to educate, however biased your education, and ended by shitting on education. You're inconsistent and as I demonstrated, unreasonable.

I've bookmarked this site and will follow it for at least a few articles. Looks biased at first blush, given the article titles and conclusions of harm, despite claiming anti-bias & still arriving at that conclusion immediately after the following quote, but we'll see. 2nd, the underlying source is the same cochrane review. So, this has added nothing you haven't already added, and further, your conclusion from that article was refuted by its own editor-in-chief, which you seem to be avoiding and even doubling-down on.
Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).
From your own study... So, how does this help your case about harms from masking?
 
Last edited:
Gave you a chance... You started by trying to educate, however biased your education, and ended by shitting on education. You're inconsistent and as I demonstrated, unreasonable.


I've bookmarked this site and will follow it for at least a few articles. Looks biased at first blush, given the article titles and conclusions of harm, despite claiming anti-bias & still arriving at that conclusion immediately after the following quote, but we'll see. 2nd, the underlying source is the same cochrane review. So, this has added nothing you haven't already added, and further, your conclusion from that article was refuted by its own editor-in-chief, which you seem to be avoiding and even doubling-down on.

From your own study... So, how does this help your case about harms from masking?
i worked for one of the largest medical imaging companies in the country during this shitfest.
we have modalities in 42 states.
there is so much you are clueless about, i can't even begin to explain...
 
i worked for one of the largest medical imaging companies in the country during this shitfest.
we have modalities in 42 states.
there is so much you are clueless about, i can't even begin to explain...
It’s pretty simple. You need to not be biased and provide him with studies that reinforce his opinions. Duh
 
Gave you a chance... You started by trying to educate, however biased your education, and ended by shitting on education. You're inconsistent and as I demonstrated, unreasonable.


I've bookmarked this site and will follow it for at least a few articles. Looks biased at first blush, given the article titles and conclusions of harm, despite claiming anti-bias & still arriving at that conclusion immediately after the following quote, but we'll see. 2nd, the underlying source is the same cochrane review. So, this has added nothing you haven't already added, and further, your conclusion from that article was refuted by its own editor-in-chief, which you seem to be avoiding and even doubling-down on.

From your own study... So, how does this help your case about harms from masking?
that was specific to clinical settings. wearing masks is normal, although not 24/7.
we only have to look at people wearing masks while alone in their cars to understand the mental harm it has done.
and look at your reputation on these forums. ruined!
 
Last edited:

The price paid for mask wearing is huge. Not seeing people’s faces has a negative impact on human relations. People whose face cannot be seen are less human—isn’t that why people who oppose the Muslim veil oppose it? Doesn’t the veil dehumanize the woman whose face disappears behind it? What is the effective difference between the veil and the mask? There is none. And what about children who don’t see faces outside of their house? What about patients who don’t see the faces of nurses and doctors? The nursing home residents who can’t see the smiles and hear the unmuffled speech of their caregivers? The harm done is huge.
 
You were doing so well....until this.
So you are a hobby lawyer, a mathematician, and now you have a masters in ORSA.
You are a smart guy. We should listen to you. Only stupid people wouldn't hear what you have to say. Yeah we get it. Smart people like to talk about their masters and doctors. People who didn't go to school aren't as smart. Respect my athorit-tie!
So......
Do you know anything about scientific method? Standard methods? How lab shit is supposed to work?
Do you realize the scientific community, real scientists, have been compromised, and there is less and less real science going on?
Studying numbers is great. If the numbers were generated outside certain parameters, the numbers are simply data. Junk science, or since your kind doesn't like that term, science for the highest bidder.

You are a true believer. You said you weren't, I said you were lying. Now you come in here and say out loud, you are a true believer.
You sir are a disingenuous, verbose cunt.

Good day, professor.
/end_thread/
 
i worked for one of the largest medical imaging companies in the country during this shitfest.
we have modalities in 42 states.
there is so much you are clueless about, i can't even begin to explain...
Mopping the floors doesn't make you a mask expert.
 
that was specific to clinical settings. wearing masks is normal, although not 24/7.
we only have to look at people wearing masks while alone in their cars to understand the mental harm it has done.
and look at your reputation on these forums. ruined!
Hahaha! What the fuck do I care about my reputation among the retarded? What does a lion care about his reputation among the mental sheep?