Copied directly from a post by u/novaskyd
Hi everyone! I have been working on gathering sources to support me when I encounter the typical pro-lockdown, pro-mask, pro-vaccine mandate perspectives among my friends and family, so that I can provide data to support my claims since it’s usually not something they have ever heard, and they usually assume anyone disagreeing with them must be clueless and unaware of “the science.”
This is what I have so far. It’s a work in progress, and I’d love any contributions!
Subject: Masks
Study: “Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread”.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1
Study: “Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours during HD significantly reduced PaO2 and increased respiratory adverse effects in ESRD patients.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
Study: “Distance was not modified by the mask (P=0.99). Dyspnea variation was significantly higher with surgical mask (+5.6 vs. +4.6; P<0.001) and the difference was clinically relevant. No difference was found for the variation of other parameters.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/
Study: “Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use. The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/
Review: “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1
Review: “Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.”
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
Review: “Cloth masks are ineffective as source control and PPE, surgical masks have some role to play in preventing emissions from infected patients, and respirators are the best choice for protecting healthcare and other frontline workers, but not recommended for source control. These recommendations apply to pandemic and non-pandemic situations.”
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
Study: “Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. […] This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
Review: “In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25)”.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Review: “The evidence from these laboratory filtration studies suggests that such fabric masks may reduce the transmission of larger respiratory droplets. There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.”
https://www.nap.edu/read/25776/chapter/1#7
Subject: Vaccines
Study: "When revising its mask guidance this week to urge even vaccinated people to wear masks indoors in much of the country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was criticized for not citing data in making that move.
Now it has — and the data is sobering.
The study details a COVID-19 outbreak that started July 3 in Provincetown, Mass., involving 469 cases. It found that three-quarters of cases occurred in fully vaccinated people.
Massachusetts has a high rate of vaccination: about 69% among eligible adults in the state at the time of the study.
It also found no significant difference in the viral load present in the breakthrough infections occurring in fully vaccinated people and the other cases, suggesting the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the coronavirus is similar."
This is a CDC study.
News: Johnson & Johnson Vaccinations Paused After Rare Clotting Cases Emerge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/johnson-johnson-vaccine-blood-clots-fda-cdc.html
Study: “The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine committee reported on June 23, 2021, a possible association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis, primarily in younger male individuals, within a few days after the second vaccination, at an incidence of about 4.8 cases per 1 million.
This new study shows a similar pattern, although at higher incidence, suggesting mRNA COVID-19 vaccine adverse event underreporting.
Myocarditis developed rapidly in younger patients, mainly after the second vaccination.
[…]
Note: A study published by JAMA on June 27, 2021, reported a case series of 23 male patients, including 22 previously healthy military members.“
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/heart-inflammation-risk-following-mrna-covid-19-vaccination-could-be-common
(Remember, these risks were UNKNOWN until they happened, and they happened after we were already being told that all vaccines were perfectly safe. This is what happens when we push vaccines that have not undergone long-term trials.)
Opinion: “Vaccine hesitancy rightfully exists in communities that have historically been exploited by the US Government as part of unethical and sometimes abhorrent medical experiments. Specifically POC, the queer community and enlisted military members. Look into the Tuskegee Study, AZT treatment and the anthrax vaccine. To start. The US Government lost its credibility to tell us what is “safe, effective and free”, especially among groups it has injured in the past with the SAME EXACT LINE. So tying a person’s right to freedom of movement, to healthcare, to employment, to education - tying those things to this unprecedented vaccine is NOT a liberal policy. It belittles and dismisses the lived experiences of these groups. It creates a 2 class system that is inherently going to be harmful to the underprivileged and historically oppressed. HOW does the left support this???”
https://i.imgur.com/gD7fT7n.jpg
News: The coronavirus could be just a few mutations away from evading existing COVID-19 vaccines, according to the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/cdc-the-coronavirus-could-be-just-a-few-mutations-away-from-evading-the-vaccines/articleshow/84809277.cms
Subject: Lockdowns
News: Sweden: Despite Variants, No Lockdowns, No Daily Covid Deaths.
https://www.aier.org/article/sweden-despite-variants-no-lockdowns-no-daily-covid-deaths/
News: (Translation: The proportion of false-positive results in corona rapid tests in Hamburg has increased significantly in recent weeks. While it was just over half in the first week of May, 80 percent of people with a positive corona rapid test result were not infected by the second week of June, as the Senate’s response to a small request from the CDU parliamentary group shows. In the weeks in between, the percentage of false-positive results determined by the PCR test climbed from 52 to 69 and 71 to 75 percent.).
https://www.hamburg.de/nachrichten-hamburg/15239202/80-prozent-der-positiven-corona-schnelltests-falsch-positiv/
Study: At Least 21,000 Cancer Patients Died In 2020 Due To Lockdowns Forcing Their Hospital Appointments To Be Cancelled.
https://www.thewashingtongazette.com/2021/05/cancer-screenings-plummeted-in-2020.html#.YJViEnR_cpA.reddit
News: Shelters ‘at capacity’ with unwanted lockdown pets.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-56546206
Opinion: Costs vs. Benefits of Lockdowns.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownCriticalLeft/comments/kwkwz3/costs_vs_benefits_of_lockdowns/
News: Mother-of-four, 27, dies of cervical cancer after check-ups were halted by Covid pandemic and she was misdiagnosed with an early menopause
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9435625/Mother-four-27-dies-cervical-cancer-check-ups-halted-Covid-pandemic.html
News: Over 4,000 children have been quarantined in Vietnam without their parents.
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/perspectives/children-in-quarantine-some-issues-for-authorities-to-consider-4294364.html
News: As the pandemic took hold, more than 1 million children did not enroll in local schools. Many of them were the most vulnerable: 5-year-olds in low-income neighborhoods.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/07/us/covid-kindergarten-enrollment.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Continued below:
The first study on masks isn’t peer reviewed. The second study used only Thirty nine patients in the study and the study isn’t even specifically for covid-19 but for SARS.
Study: “Distance was not modified by the mask (P=0.99). Dyspnea variation was significantly higher with surgical mask (+5.6 vs. +4.6; P<0.001) and the difference was clinically relevant. No difference was found for the variation of other parameters.” - used only 44 subjects and so its too small a sample size
Study: “Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use. The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage.” - Basically concludes that we should be careful with long-term use of N95 respirator usage for pregnant healthcare workers, not really relevant…
“The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.” - Not peer reviewed and even says that it shouldn’t be used to guide clinical practice and concludes that facemasks only provide a marginal benefit for use in stopping the spread of covid-19 but also notes that the trials that were done and used in this paper often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks.
I don’t have time to go through all of these papers, but sufficient to say that the ones I did look at they are not good science and very well versed papers. Just because there is a paper showing xyz doesn’t make it true if the methodology is not very good. You should look for more papers that are peer reviewed and use good methodology with larger sample sizes and ideally randomized controlled trials (meaning that the allocation of the people receiving the treatment and control and random so it prevents bias)
Granted I’m no scientist and this is just my understanding but if anyone wants to contribute and correct me when I’m wrong feel free.
Good work.
Edit:
This is a good example of the other point you were making about misinformation. The reason people come to believe this stuff is because it is censored - that implies the censor has something to hide, is dishonest. Censored content is valuable propaganda. Instead of downvoting/hiding this post (which doesn’t make you right or prove anything), we should be discussing and refuting it (which is educational). The post + its refutal is valuable information.
Are you aware that studies are being taken down from journal sites and RCT studies require massive investment, which, guess what? FDA, CDC, WHO, Phizer, Moderna, etc. are not investing in.
Twitter, FaceBook, Youtube, CNN, NY Times, WaPo, etc… all regurgitating the same talking points and engaging in censorship of any counter evidence doesn’t strike you as strange?
Also, Fauci funded gain of function testing to make corona viruses more infectious, in Wuhan, circumventing a gov ban due to the very risk it could lead to a pandemic, but he’s still running the show.
Now VAERS signal of adverse events at record levels is also being ignored and all the authorities and companies pushing the vaccine, denying natural immunity exists and denying early treatment to ppl even though there are RCT studies showing efficacy of Fluvoxomine and Ivermectin
Boogles my mind how so many ppl supporting this, forgetting about Oxycontin, Vioxx, cancerous talcum powder, etc. Big pharma lies big and so does the gov, How are so many people letting the fear propaganda push them into compliance and even relishing in the suffering of ppl who don’t trust the state and big pharma promises of safety?
Ouch so many downvotes. At least someone try to debunk the studies rather than just downvoting.
Someone did above you
That’s the same person
bruh
2/2 Subject: Censorship and Media Bias
Incident: Podcast with creator of mRNA technology, in which he is critical of the vaccines, is taken down by YouTube for violating “community standards” after 798,000 views.
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1405838948560166912Op-ed: “And it’s crazy to me how the media picks its darlings, and refuses to apply any real scrutiny to their statements. In a sane media environment, journalists would be tearing through Dr. Fauci’s emails that have been acquired by Jason Leopold, and they would be pouring over the NIH grant documents that have been posted by Judicial Watch in an effort to build out a greater understanding of how various state and private agencies collaborate to move money around the world in pursuit of research that may be very well intentioned, but that in the end, could actually have caused the greatest pandemic since the 1918 flu. But instead it’s all team sports in headlines that could have been written by high school sophomores, glorifying dunks and our favorite popular kid owning the class nerd.”
https://thedevilmakesthree.substack.com/p/splitting-hairs-to-thunderous-applauseSubject: General opinions and ideological debates
Opinion: “In a year with no shortage of questionable studies masquerading as science, this paper is perhaps the most bizarre and Orwellian piece of scientific literature I’ve encountered. It is what I consider to be emblematic of a phenomenon I can only describe as the inversion of science–an attempt to alter the very definition of science itself. If this paper is what passes as scientific inquiry in our most esteemed scientific institutions, then we can safely say that we are witnessing the death knell of scientific inquiry as practiced at the institutional level.
Oddly, almost the entirety of the paper is spent acknowledging that it’s the skeptics–rather than lockdown or mask proponents–who have a far more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the underlying data. Yet despite this concession, the authors conclude (or not so much conclude as simply accept a priori) that such skeptics are misguided–despite offering zero explanation, evidence, or counterargument. The paper’s closing paragraphs draw a parallel between the Jan 6th Capitol rioters and lockdown/mask skeptics (both groups are skeptical, you see), a transparent attempt at guilt by association that is meant to reinforce just how dangerous our ideas are if placed in the wrong hands. Whether our ideas are correct is not something MIT is interested in addressing; they simply know that such ideas are dangerous. “Thinking for yourself”, as the authors note in the conclusion, can lead to "horrifying ends.””
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/mhgosb/the_inversion_of_science/Discussion: Why don’t we have a safe vaccine that actually works?
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownCriticalLeft/comments/oqt86d/why_dont_we_have_a_safe_vaccine_that_actually/Discussion: “Mandate vaccination for everyone, including all children” vs “The vaccines are dangerous, deadly experiments” – using England’s age demographics + Covid-19 mortality data to appeal for nuance + proportionality in the vaccine debate.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/oyouji/mandate_vaccination_for_everyone_including_all/I’d love any additions and/or suggestions to make this stronger.
