The science of face masks

@metal-brain said
People with a political bias don't like to use common sense when it is needed. Here is an experiment to prove the common sense people are too dogmatic to accept until they see for themselves.

Find a friend who smokes cannabis or tobacco. Have your friend inhale smoke and quickly put on a cloth mask or any mask you want to test. Do this in a window with direct sunlight ...[text shortened]... ave him cough or sneeze. Film it with your phone.

Seeing is believing. Cloth masks are worthless.

So your hypothesis is that if you can see smioke coming through a mask it is clear that it won't block any Aerosol?

I posit a new exoperiment blow smoke thorugh the mask multiple times and then report on what you see to from on the inside. take a White maks to improve the effect.

@ponderable said
So your hypothesis is that if you can see smioke coming through a mask it is clear that it won't block any Aerosol?

I posit a new exoperiment blow smoke thorugh the mask multiple times and then report on what you see to from on the inside. take a White maks to improve the effect.

It will show the smoke is not always filtered by the mask, especially when you cough or sneeze. Anyone who wears glasses knows masks fog up their glasses. This alone is proof they leak and do not filter as much as people assume. Think about it.

@metal-brain said
smoke is not always filtered by the mask

which is completely irrelevant because;
1, the masks show the spread of the virus not by filtering out smoke but by filtering out infected droplets which generally have much greater diameters than smoke particles. Infected droplets is not smoke.
2, the masks don't have to always filter out 100% of the infected droplets every time to significantly slow the spread.
3, there is now good scientific evidence (the links to that which you refuse to read already posted here), proof in fact, that masks do indeed slow the spread; And smoke has nothing to do with that.

@humy said
which is completely irrelevant because;
1, the masks show the spread of the virus not by filtering out smoke but by filtering out infected droplets which generally have much greater diameters than smoke particles. Infected droplets is not smoke.
2, the masks don't have to always filter out 100% of the infected droplets every time to significantly slow the spread.
3, there is ...[text shortened]... d here), proof in fact, that masks do indeed slow the spread; And smoke has nothing to do with that.

https://censoredbyjack.com/watch?id=5f8dd9459f98c81507da6245

@metal-brain said
https://censoredbyjack.com/watch?id=5f8dd9459f98c81507da6245

censoredbyjack is a site flagged as malign by my antivirus software

@ponderable said
censoredbyjack is a site flagged as malign by my antivirus software

Thanks for the warning; I won't ever risk trying to visit that website even if there is only a 0.1% risk; Just not worth it.
Just trust him to give a virus-infested website to **** up our expensive personal computers!
Why aren't I surprised?

@ponderable said
censoredbyjack is a site flagged as malign by my antivirus software

What kind of anti-virus software do you have?

@metal-brain said
What kind of anti-virus software do you have?

What kind of moral-integrity do you have?

@ponderable said
censoredbyjack is a site flagged as malign by my antivirus software

I have not had any problem with that link. I think you are making it up to discourage people from watching it. Here is another from the same website that is fascinating.

https://censoredbyjack.com/watch?id=5f4d56c5838dfb0597dd8187

https://www.promega.com/resources/guides/cell-biology/transfection/

@metal-brain said
I think you are making it up to discourage people from watching it.

Given your very long history here of lying and dishonesty and absence of any moral integrity, I think he isn't making it up and your hearsay to the contrary is just BS lies.

@humy said
Given your very long history here of lying and dishonesty and absence of any moral integrity, I think he isn't making it up and your hearsay to the contrary is just BS lies.

That is your psychological projection.

@metal-brain said
I have not had any problem with that link. I think you are making it up to discourage people from watching it. Here is another from the same website that is fascinating.

https://censoredbyjack.com/watch?id=5f4d56c5838dfb0597dd8187

https://www.promega.com/resources/guides/cell-biology/transfection/

If I would provide a screenshot you would probably Claim that I faked that too, which Shows that your contrubutions belong to "Debates".

@ponderable said
If I would provide a screenshot you would probably Claim that I faked that too, which Shows that your contrubutions belong to "Debates".

All I asked for was your anti-virus software's name. If that is such a highly guarded secret perhaps you are not being honest. You made the same claim in the debates forum and failed to answer there too.

An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/are-face-masks-effective-evidence/5720209

@metal-brain said
An overview of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of face masks.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/are-face-masks-effective-evidence/5720209

It says at the bottom of that link;

"Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. "

In other words, The Centre for Research that made this link didn't bother to check the scientific validity of the authors claims which means all of the content of that link can easily be just all massively biased BS with politically motivated lies and/or cherry picking of data to support a political view while ignoring all data that contradicts that view, which is by the way exactly what it is as shown by the numerous REAL scientific studies, not bogus ones, that we have already posted here that show the exact opposite of the main claim made by that link.

For every 10 studies showing evidence for x, you can often find at least 1 study that failed to find evidence; that doesn't contradict or invalidate the evidence the 10 found; The one study that didn't find the evidence typically didn't look in the right place.

Try again.