patrick.net

mostly reader says

AmericanKulak says

We have real life, real world data that trumps controlled studies.

Show them.
Keep in mind that I'll drill into other variables of a hypothetical study, just to be sure that there's no bias (*)

AmericanKulak says

My view is the correct view

What exactly is your view? That mask or no mask, exposure to self and to those around is the same? Are we clear on that?

* Note: I at this time am an anti-mask person

Nope: the burden of proof is on you. You're making the extraordinary claim, so pony up the extraordinary data.


Cloth Masks, don't work - though we knew this in Early 2020.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/experts-warn-that-cloth-masks-don-t-work-again-recommend-tests/ar-AAS3Wmn?source=patrick.net
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/bangladesh-study-proves-masks-dont?s=r

https://dossier.substack.com/p/tragic-shooting-of-american-journalist?s=r&source=patrick.net

There’s just one big problem with that narrative.

All of the available evidence we have points to the Ukrainians, not the Russians, being responsible for the tragic shooting of Renaud.

This morning, Renaud and his crew, which had been contracted with Time Magazine, were traveling through the outskirts of Kiev, Ukraine’s capital city, and on their way to document the plight of the refugee situation. ...

But since the initial Ukrainian PR campaign, compelling evidence, in addition to multiple eyewitness testimony, has emerged to tell a very different story of the day’s events.

The Real Story

Shortly after the incident occurred, a video was posted to social media, with Renaud’s body on display in the background. In the video (CONTENT WARNING), a Ukrainian soldier says the shooting occurred in the settlement of Romanovka. ...

The location of the incident is very significant, because it established that the shooting took place well within a swath of territory that remains within the lines controlled by Ukrainian forces. Now, it’s certainly possible that troop movements shifted in those early hours, but there is no documented evidence of Russian troops being anywhere near the crime scene, before during, or after the incident. The Russians have in recent days repeatedly shelled the entire area, but Renaud was killed by nearby gunfire. ...

Another major piece of information came out earlier this evening, when The New York Times confirmed that the incident occurred at a Ukrainian checkpoint. ...

Arrendondo, who is by far our most reliable source for this incident, makes it clear that the shooting came from the direction of the checkpoint. And The New York Times, backed by other sources, have established the area as a Ukrainian checkpoint. And in addition to that, the most recent maps of troop positions show the scene of the crime as an area that remains controlled by Ukrainian forces.

In all likelihood, Brent Renaud was killed by Ukrainian forces. And instead of taking responsibility for the tragic shooting, the Ukrainians used Renaud’s death as an instrument to advance a propaganda campaign against their enemy.

AmericanKulak says

Nope: the burden of proof is on you.

Fare enough. Pick one.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7?source=patrick.net
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd3083?source=patrick.net - kinda watered-down for easier consumption
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c07291?source=patrick.net - this one is more specific towards mask shapes and diameters

AmericanKulak says

Cloth Masks, don't work - though we knew this in Early 2020. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/experts-warn-that-cloth-masks-don-t-work-again-recommend-tests/ar-AAS3Wmn

I ask for a study and you point me to msn site which refers to experts?? WTF??? Are we seriously considering "experts" now, the same experts who discredited themselves time and over again? And you refer me to MSN to boot???

There are 2 parts to the point:
1) Masks indeed work in lab environment
2) Life is not lab environment.

You fail to understand that the 2 parts may both be valid and say stupid shit.

https://thegoodcitizen.substack.com/p/ukrainian-white-helmets?s=r&source=patrick.net

The latest maternity hospital “Russian Bombing” in Mariupol has a lot of the same staged appearances of the Syrian war propaganda. A bomb crater in the middle of the square. Crisis actors looking at the cameras and playing their roles. There was video of buckets of fake blood inside the hospital and later Russian soldiers who overtook that position showed Ukrainian forces had used the hospital to stash armaments.

mostly reader says

but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

So you've been to lab controlled restaurants?

mostly reader says

and possibly health issues related to respiratory conditions or environments with high performance demands.

You breathe your own CO2 all day, possible is an understatement. The first thing I heard about, second hand, but related by someone I trust. People where coming in with a significant increase in mouth diseases and cavities. Second thing is again second hand, but family, so I trust them. Boyfriend got a blood test, and had significant increase in CO2 levels in his blood. Anyone relying on a mask to keep them healthy is already sick, and scared.

Patrick says

Another major piece of information came out earlier this evening, when The New York Times confirmed that the incident occurred at a Ukrainian checkpoint. ...

@Patrick

You are copy/pasting selectively. Here's an important bit:

“We crossed the checkpoint and they started shooting at us,” Arrendondo started. “So the driver turned around, and they kept shooting at us … I saw him being shot in the neck, and we got split, and I got pulled into the … ambulance, I don’t know.”

From this, it seems to me that they CROSSED the checkpoint, at which point they were shot at, at which point they TURNED AROUND. (back towards the checkpoint, I assume, which rules out the possibility that the checkpoint was shooting at them)

This makes it look like they weren't shot at from the checkpoint. On the contrary to what this "dossier" guy on substack says.

Unless I'm missing something, WTF? And WTF is this dossier.substack guy who can't put 2 and 2 together?

NuttBoxer says

So you've been to lab controlled restaurants?

I made it abundantly, ABUNDANTLY clear that I understand the difference between lab and real life and that my reasoning factors it in.

Are you saying that you haven't seen it? Or that you didn't get it?

You'll see that the article says that the Russians were 2km away from that Ukrainian checkpoint. Does it say how far they drove after the checkpoint?

Patrick says

You'll see that the article says that the Russians were 2km away from that Ukrainian checkpoint.

The map shows 2km from the main forces. "The map" and "main forces" are important bits. In dynamic situation, it doesn't mean much.

But the fact that they turned around back towards the checkpoint means loads. Unless other info becomes available, I think that it seals the case. Again, who's this dossier.substack guy? He himself says that this comment about turning around is "the most important piece of testimony". Not realizing that it destroys his narrative instead of supporting it?

mell says

but if n95 and up and worn correctly and with tables enough apart and proper ventilation it may make a difference.

Unless it hermetically seals your face, it won't. You'd require a full hazmat suit all the time. The only exception would be if you had a laboratory you could go to, you could remove it then, after proper decontamination. Because what was released was a spike cell, and it attached to a very common form of the flu, it didn't matter. In a real pandemic, you'd see people in those N95's laying dead in the streets.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/update-american-reporter-brent-renaud-killed-ukrainian-checkpoint-behind-russian-front-likely-friendly-fire-incident/?source=patrick.net

Renaud was being shot at, turned around and continued to be shot at from the direction of the checkpoint.

Patrick says

Renaud was being shot at, turned around and continued to be shot at from the direction of the checkpoint.

gatewaypundit says that, but they are referring to dossier.substack Who in turn refers to witness testimony. But I don't see that witness testimony supports that. The witness uses "they" which makes it ambiguous. Then, turning car around takes time and makes it a sitting duck, that's not something you'd do to get closer to the side that's shooting at you. Not saying that it didn't happen, saying that the evidence that has been revealed so far doesn't support it.

mostly reader says

Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

No, this isn't true.

When you breathe, you're not just exhaling water vapor, you're expelling droplets formed by your alveoli. If your mask caught that, it would SOAKING WET in a matter of minutes. The droplets pass right through, well, not really, mostly around.

Ever done drywall were you used a sander to smooth over the patches? Ever notice you can TASTE it, and it's even chalky, even when you're wearing an N95 mask? Those are a LITTLE effective maybe, for DRYWALL particles but even they get through a bit. Those are relatively huge.

This is all bullshit, and our media just lies through its teeth, politicians lie, and people just inexplicably believe them now matter how many times they contradict themselves. They knew masks didn't work in the 1917-1919 pandemic - it's even thought that cloth masks (all they had at the time) may have contributed to people getting pneumonia.

mostly reader says

. Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

Link to study please.

Or are you making shit up?

mostly reader says

Unless you have a reasonable resource to show that exposure in same controlled environment is the same. Do you? I doubt it.

OK. Forget the study. Link to your "resource" or you're making shit up.

mostly reader says

Show them.

Yes, show them!

Onvacation says

mostly reader says

. Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

Link to study please.

Or are you making shit up?

I already provided a few in this thread: https://patrick.net/post/1344073&80#comment-1826854

Sheesh

mostly reader says

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7?source=patrick.net

From your article

Recent studies suggest that wearing face masks reduces the spread of COVID-19 on a population level and consequently blunts the growth of the epidemic curve (7, 8). Still, determining mask efficacy is a complex topic that is still an active field of research [see, for example, (9)], made even more complicated because the infection pathways for COVID-19 are not yet fully understood and are complicated by many factors such as the route of transmission, correct fit and usage of masks, and environmental variables. From a public policy perspective, shortages in supply for surgical face masks and N95 respirators, as well as concerns about their side effects and the discomfort of prolonged use (10), have led to public use of a variety of solutions that are generally less restrictive (such as homemade cotton masks or bandanas) but usually of unknown efficacy. While some textiles used for mask fabrication have been characterized (11), the performance of actual masks in a practical setting needs to be considered. The work we report here describes a measurement method that can be used to improve evaluation to guide mask selection and purchase decisions.

Can you link a study that actually shows that masks are effective against viruses?

The main purpose of masks is to dehumanize is.

mostly reader says

Onvacation says

mostly reader says

. Then of course there's matter of statistics and other parameters, but there's no doubt that in a lab-controlled environment exposure of a person wearing a mask is lesser than the one who isn't, and significantly so.

Link to study please.

Or are you making shit up?

I already provided a few in this thread: https://patrick.net/post/1344073&80#comment-1826854

Sheesh

I looked up the first one - here's something I pulled out which kind of is saying "well, this was pretty pointless" - at least in my opinion.

The above studies all indicate a strong potential for masks to help reduce transmission of respiratory illnesses. To date, however, none have investigated the effectiveness of masks across a range of expiratory activities, and limited consideration has been given to different mask types. Furthermore, no studies to date have considered the masks themselves as potential sources of aerosol particles. It is well established that fibrous cellulosic materials, like cotton and paper, can release large quantities of micron-scale particles (i.e., dust) into the air39,40,41,42. Traditionally, these particles have not been considered a potential concern for respiratory viral diseases like influenza or now COVID-19, since these diseases have been thought to be transmitted via expiratory particles emitted directly from the respiratory tract of infected individuals43. Early work in the 1940s indicated, however, that infectious influenza virus could be collected from the air after vigorously shaking a contaminated blanket44. Despite this finding, over the next 70 years little attention focused on the possibility of respiratory virus transmission via environmental dust.

All they need is a control group.

There's states that had no mandates for the masks and some that didn't - the masks seemed largely worthless based on that. Florida has been over this nonsense for a long time.

Florida however, more sunshine than NYC. Should have just been a personal choice, stupid to make it a mandate. The people making the mandates sure as heck didn't believe the masks were useful.

Onvacation says

Can you link a study that actually shows that masks are effective against viruses?

You are moving the target. My statements are:

1) Masks indeed work in lab environment
2) Life is not lab environment.

I'm responsible only for what write. I'm not responsible for your mental process which transforms it into something else.

mostly reader says

> Onvacation

You are moving the target. My statements are:

1) Masks indeed work in lab environment
2) Life is not lab environment.

I'm responsible only for what write. I'm not responsible for your mental process which transforms it into something else.

So you're saying, "masks don't work in the real world"?

Agreed.

mostly reader says

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7?source=patrick.net

None of these are actual real world results on a public health level, but laboratory experiments.

A Public Health level study is "In DeBlasio Land, rigid mask wearing rules resulted in X rate of COVID (or Flu or any Respiratory Virus) cases vs. in DeSantis Land".

or "1000 people who wore masks had a rate of Flu infection of X, versus 985 people who didn't wear masks having a Flu infection rate of Y, over a 3 month, seasonal period."

Onvacation says

So you're saying, "masks don't work in the real world"?

I said nothing that would imply my understanding of how masks work - or don't - in real life. You are making shit up, again.

mostly reader says

I said nothing that would imply my understanding of how masks work

So do you think masks work to stop Wuhan contraction and spread or not?

It's quite amazing how people who try to challenge me on my masks comment literally repeat one of my points. While they think that they are arguing against me. Amazing.

Just so you know: in public, invalid argument that you make against masks immediately labels you as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. This discredits your position and makes it a lot harder to submit valid argument.

mostly reader says

Just so you know: in public, invalid argument that you make against masks immediately labels you as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

So you're saying, "masks do work in the real world"?

What are you saying?

I think masks are harmful in many ways. CO2 concentration, oxygen restriction, micro-expression suppression, dehumanization, and little effectiveness against viruses.

Can you clearly state your opinion on mask effectiveness in the real world? Not expecting corroborating evidence just curious about your opinion.

mostly reader says

Just so you know: in public, invalid argument that you make against masks immediately labels you as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. This discredits your position and makes it a lot harder to submit valid argument.

Who are you talking to and what "invalid argument" are you talking about?

Not that I really care. I think you just like to argue,

Onvacation says

Can you clearly state your opinion on mask effectiveness in the real world? Not expecting corroborating evidence just curious about your opinion.

Mask effectiveness in the real world no longer matters. Whatever it is, it's been offset by overall harm that they bring along. You are asking my opinion on the question which doesn't need to be answered.

mostly reader says

You are asking my opinion on the question which doesn't need to be answered.

Yep. But I was not expecting a cogent answer.

From another thread:

Patnet has been accused of lots of things wrt the "housing boom," "Covid pandemic," "election fraud," etc. If people think that Patnet is about uncritically embracing the establishment narrative, then they are either:

a) very new here
b) an internet troll
c) sadly suffering from mental decline/alzheimers/long covid
d) incapable of using the Socratic method or logical argument
e) never really grew up

Perhaps others can add to the list here. Perhaps a poll using a modified of the above list can be used to "vet" members as far as credibility is concerned. They are free to debate their designation using rational arguments or the Socratic method, with full supporting links that others can vet.

I defy any reasonable person, in a reasonable environment such as Patnet, to claim that this is anything other than a call out to basic Patnet principles.

This is not a call to censorship. It is a call out to the dishonest to admit your mistake, or put up the evidence supporting your claims (you know who you are).

Onvacation says

Yep. But I was not expecting a cogent answer.

I'm pointing out that 1) either you don't realize that the question is obsolete 2) or you wish to discuss my current beliefs for the sake of entertainment, 3) or this is intended as a bait for friend/foe classification in the current playground.

If it's the first, I'll elaborate (although I think it's been covered)
If it's the second, I'm not your entertainment bitch.
If it's the third, the answer is a loud and profound FU. Even if my beliefs match the "friend" profile in this regard. Still FU.

Which one was it? Or am I missing something, is there another option? Don't be shy.

mostly reader says

Which one was it? Or am I missing something, is there another option? Don't be shy.

So you don't want to share your opinion on masks. It would have been easier than your long multiple choice non answer.

Cool. I was not expecting a cogent answer.

I think masks are harmful.

HunterTits says

Mitt Romney

HunterTits says

original link

This woman is good!

Just for general propaganda, I wanted to post something I've posted a few times before:


original link


Corbett isn't either left or right, but he's often thought of as being "left". I think he did a good job demonstrating how dishonest and worthless our news media is. I know it's hard to get out of the habit of listening to it, but when it was clear they would NEVER reform, it got a lot easier to ignore it. I don't think anybody should waste their time listening to it. It's not even worthwhile to prove them to be dishonest. I think that proof has been given many many times, and it should be particularly obvious in the last few years.

Kyle Rittenhouse, mostly peaceful protests, the January 6th insurrection, our free and fair election of Biden, the pandemic, Darrell Brooks, Qaddifi about to cause a humanitarian crisis, Assad using chemical weapons, Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. Literally everything in our news media is a lie. It is all a lie.

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/balancing-fear-covid-19-and-ukraine?source=patrick.net

There they go again! We have a new web of politics, strategies and fear-porn to shape and control the minds and thoughts of the gullible public. A propaganda forever war against the general populace, waged by our elected leaders and their deep state allies. The purpose of this particular Substack article is to help untangle the fabric of relevant recent Congressional bills, defunding future COVID-19 aid, funding the Ukraine war and the supporting White House and state funded media (MSM) fear-based thought shaping (fear-porn).

The superficial history of the 1.5 trillion spending bill that Congress debated, modified and passed last week included $14 Billion For Ukraine Aid. What is not in the spending bill is the money the White House and Nancy Pelosi wanted for COVID-19 Aid. Specifically, about $16 billion for COVID relief, which was for tests, vaccines and treatments. That money was stripped from the bill following last-minute disagreements over this provision. The MSM likes to assert that these disagreements were how to fund this provision, many House Republicans apparently assert that it was over vaccine mandates. The money for COVID-19 has now been put into separate legislation slated for a vote as early as next week. What is interesting is that funding for Ukraine war operations is almost the exact amount removed for COVID funding. That is no coincidence.

During these negotiations, a group of conservative legislators demanded a vote on defunding Biden's vaccine mandates in exchange for speeding up any government funding legislation.

The virus fraud is currently replaced by the Ukraine fraud. They are both frauds because neither of them are actually important to ordinary citizens, who are mostly immune from harm from both the virus and Ukraine. They are important only to the elite who are skimming tax money and using these supposed "emergencies" to further totalitarianism.

https://notthebee.com/article/the-white-house-briefs-not-one-not-two-but-30-tiktok-stars-about-ukraine-war?source=patrick.net

So the White House used not one, not two, but THIRTY TikTok stars to spread propaganda about the Russia-Ukraine war

Patrick says

https://notthebee.com/article/the-white-house-briefs-not-one-not-two-but-30-tiktok-stars-about-ukraine-war?source=patrick.net

So the White House used not one, not two, but THIRTY TikTok stars to spread propaganda about the Russia-Ukraine war

Agreed. This is not a quest for world domination, both sides should come to the table and fix up a deal so that the murderous US and mainstream media propaganda stops.

Patrick says

https://notthebee.com/article/the-white-house-briefs-not-one-not-two-but-30-tiktok-stars-about-ukraine-war?source=patrick.net

So the White House used not one, not two, but THIRTY TikTok stars to spread propaganda about the Russia-Ukraine war

The more obvious the propaganda, the better.

How easy was it for you to tell, I don't know, that David Letterman was a propagandist back in the 1990s? Now it's possible spot it instantly.