UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

months ago...be sure to view the 1-1/2 min. video at the end...

350,000 participants from 600 village communities...just using 'Surgical Masks'...not even N95s...not even carefully trained and monitored for usage...imagine how much better the results would be if all of them were given N95s and careful training.


Link: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html

(no message)

but I wanted to read all the other responses, especially those from Baron and Mark, which I'll address with them separately, and of course I spent time doing a little extra research that addresses your concern as well as theirs...

One more thing...before going into your post, let me say that I read your comments and entire link...so, I'm hoping that the same consideration will be returned...deal?...let's hope so...

The first thing I did upon reading your linked study is make sure it's from a reputable source...did a little research and found just a few complaints regarding bias on the part of some editors, but nothing outrageous...I also, sought out the Cochrane Review's "Impact Factor", which is a measure of its 'value' to the medical community...and found an IF = 9.2....then I searched for the rating of all medical journals and found The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)'s #2 among all journals with an IF = 91.2...so I went there in search of any studies regarding mask wearing, and found the attached link that deals with school system experiences in Massachusetts.

Now, wrt the Cochrane study, without getting into the weeds of Confidence Intervals, etc...the impression I got was that there was great "Uncertainty" regarding the RCTs themselves as well as the reported results...
>many studies conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods as opposed to COVID-19 conditions
>in many studies 'Harms' were rarely measured and poorly reported
>for N95 vs Surgical Masks, there was great uncertainty in the comparison

In short the word "Uncertainty" crops up all through the report...which doesn't give me much confidence in their findings, and frankly, IMO there is no clear statement that masks don't work...or they would have said so.

Now let's go to the NEJM study that I found...it is based on actual records of COVID infections among the thousands of students and staff in the State of Massachusetts' School Districts during 2021 and compares districts that stopped requiring 'Universal' mask wearing vs. those that continued the practice...here's what they found...
-------------------
A study by Cowger and colleagues, the results of which are now reported in the Journal,8 provides new evidence that the REMOVAL OF UNIVERSAL SCHOOL MASKING POLICIES IN MASSACHUSETTS WAS ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASED INCIDENCE OF COVID-19. The study used difference-in-differences methods, a rigorous form of causal inference for policies that are infeasible or unethical to assess in a randomized trial. During a 15-week period (March to June 2022), Covid-19 cases in school districts that had ended universal school masking policies (70 districts for most of the 15-week period) were compared with cases in school districts that sustained universal masking policies (2 districts for most of the 15-week period). The removal of universal school masking was associated with an additional 2882 Covid-19 cases among 46,530 staff (an estimated 81.7 cases per 1000 staff) and an additional 9168 Covid-19 cases among 294,084 students (an estimated 39.9 cases per 1000 students) during the 15 weeks. In school districts that had ended universal masking, approximately 40% of 7127 staff cases and 32% of 28,524 student cases were associated with the removal of universal masking policies. (emphasis mine)
------------------

No 'If, Ands or Buts' about it...clear evidence that Universal (i.e. mandatory) Masking in schools REDUCED the spread of COVID-19...published in the very well respected NEJM that accepts only 5% of submittals from the very best research teams...btw, the findings jibe very well with the earlier posting on this board of the "MIT Study" dealing with masks for schools and nursing homes.

Look for other posts/links from me in this thread...history shows that the odds are low for an end to this debate, but I'm feeling very good about my position.


Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2213556

First, while there may be a questionable study done in a third-world country that showed masks to have minimal effectiveness in stemming viral transmission, since World War II there have been 10 out of 10 studies that showed masks to be completely ineffective in stemming viral transmission (University of Hong Kong research team). It was from these studies that the Great Fauchino, then-surgeon general Dr. Jerome Adams, the CDC and WHO all initially said masks do nothing to stem viral transmission and not to bother wearing them. Then, out of nowhere, the CDC under the bidding of the Great Fauchino came up with the idea of everyone wearing a mask. It wasn't too long ago the Great Fauchino admitted there was no science behind this, as documented here.

In addition to the study done in Bangladesh, there were two other RCTs done on the effectiveness of masks in specifically stemming Covid transmission, one in Denmark and one with our own Parris Island marines. Neither study showed masks to do anything to stem viral transmission.

As for the Massachusetts study, the study period coincided with not only a sharp rise in cases in the United States but also in Massachusetts. Since only two districts were involved that required masks, that's not a large enough sample size to have any validity. But as long as we're talking small sample sizes, last year my oldest kid's school required masks for a three-month period while my youngest kid's school didn't (same age range). The school that didn't require masks had no more cases than did the other school. Down the road, Chatham County (GA) schools requires maks for months while neighboring Effingham County didn't. Effingham County schools actually had fewer cases on a per-student and per-teacher/administrator basis. There are also other studies showing masking in schools did nothing, either.

And not only that, there are many, many studies such as the one linked in the thread starter that showed masks to be completely ineffective - studies that you ignore. But let's assume you're right, that masks work in stemming viral transmission. Under that philosophy, as a society we are required to wear masks in public at all times because it would save lives. Is that a society in which you want to live?

thousands upon thousands of Docs and Nurses wouldn't be using masks ALL DAY...EVERY DAY...if they didn't work...makes sense to me...but maybe you know better...yeah, right.

btw, this time, I'd like to hear your response to my comments on HCQ.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

But science is making itself hard to believe in.

out, they derided the people who did so. We had guys making shit up about eating dinner with specialists who agreed, we had people calling us names, and I had people who know Jack squat call me a charlatan despite having more training and medical knowledge and degrees and board certification than they would ever dream of having…..and being a damn good looking guy to boot.

But they had Google leading them to idiotic sites first.

The truth is that they aren’t educated enough to know what to believe. They cannot interpret research studies, and their education in science is absent. So they went with what their politics told them.

(no message)

And the landfills, don't forget the landfills.

How many of these worthless masks ended up on some poor dolphins face in the ocean? How many are floating around with the plastic straws?!?!

(no message)

We had Ford and GM producing respirators for a while.

(no message)

Predictable responses will be to latch on to any weakness of the report in order to cling to anything to avoid embarrassemtn for being so horribly wrong and being exposed as having no real knowledge. The weaknesses of all studies are included in the body of the text so even a Google Doc can list them.

But remember....and this is key.....the burden of proof to wear masks in this setting is on the people pushing to impose mask wearing. And it should be noted that there was no strong evidence to do so. There NEVER was such evidence....not now nor back in 2020. This Cochrane Review shows it.

The key portion from your post:
"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."

Moderate certainty level is quite strong from a Cochrane review in general, and specifically since there are so many variables in reporting and differing criteria between studies. BUT THE VERY CLEAR POINT IS THAT THERE WAS NEVER THE DATA TO SUPPORT THIS MASSIVELY INVASIVE IMPOSITION OF MASK WEARING ON THE PUBLIC - NOT NOW AND NOT BACK THEN. Fauci lied through his teeth as I have been saying. He initially admitted what he knew to be true before a meeting at the WH with BidenHandlers in late March 2020...then he completely changed his tune for political reasons. The medical community that spoke up was squelched.

posts...please come out from behind the curtain...I promise I won't bite...I just want to converse directly. Until that day, here is my response to you...note: be sure to reference my reply to Iggle as well.

Regarding Iggle's linked report...
>Yes, I did what any responsible evaluator would do...check the source of the report (Cochrane Library) and found it to be quite low on the Totem Pole of medical journals...nowhere near the level of one you are familiar with (e.g. NEJM)...and that gives me pause (see the reply to Iggle)
>Iggle's linked report was replete with "Uncertainties" on virtually every measure...and in short, NEVER reached a conclusion that said "Masks Don't Work"...hardly a study worthy of basing life-risking decisions to not use masks.
>Then there's the NEJM report that I found...which CLEARLY shows...with EVIDENCE involving thousands of staff and children that UNIVERSAL (i.e. Mandated) masking in schools DOES INDEED REDUCE the spread of COVID-19.

Regarding your other comments...
>Dr. Fauci has EARNED the respect and acclaim from his PEERS, and believe me, our own ID and ICU Specialists...who spend ALL their time being and becoming as professional as they can be in their fields...join them in thanks for his service to the nation...I'll say again...our ID Doc was at the most recent IDSA gathering (9,000+ attendees) and reported that everyone there...all of them dedicated MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS...considered Dr. Fauci to be a "Superstar"...all based on what he has DONE for patients and the Infectious Disease community.
>As for our ID and Pulmonary/CC Docs...they are indeed outstanding and I'm blessed to have them available for consultation on COVID matters...I get solid clearly explained opinions of what's happening, and even more importantly, what actions people should take to protect themselves...as a result, I feel it only right for me to share such knowledge with others, like this board.
>If I had a nickel for every time you interject "Politics" into a post, I could probably buy Mar-a-Lago with cash only ;-)...you're not kidding anyone with your 'Projections' of political intent onto "The Left"

One more time...I don't expect you to change one iota...just be willing to engage in adult conversations...at least for the benefit of all those watching.

It is time Ty stops impugning your knowledge and qualifications. Anyone with half a brain can see you know what you're talking about.

On a related note, and I'll die on this hill: I've had personal email correspondence with Dr. Risch. I've read his report. It's obvious Dr. Risch knows far more on HCQ+ than the Great Fauchino and Ty's ID doctors. You may not go as far as I am in saying Fauci is guilty of the greatest case of medical malpractice in US history, but I will.

about an Infectious Disease called "COVID-19"...and I support those criticisms using personal consultation with true experts in the fields that are most involved with that disease...i.e Infectious Diseases, and Pulmonary/Critical Care (e.g. "ICU")...Baron has demonstrated no knowledge of those fields (note: our ID and ICU specialists don't ever want to hear his name again)

As for HCQ...chew on the attached article...
>HCQ only deals with the ACE2 protein
>Human Lung cells have both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 proteins for entry...so HCQ can't stop the infection
>Once inside the lung cell its RNA needs to be 'snipped' into smaller segments that then can be spread to other cells...HCQ does NOTHING to stop that process of replication.
>PAXLOVID is designed to inhibit that 'snipping', and do it for an extended period.

Bottom line...HCQ doesn't work...PAXLOVID does...proven 88% effective in keeping high-risk patients out of the hospital.


Link: https://www.pcf.org/blog/understanding-the-relationship-between-tmprss2-and-covid-19/

try it. The ignore poster function is wonderful.

by the Left in control)
…the other half is that it threatened profits of companies with major ties to Fauci and Washington.

Note that I said that it had a specific niche which I have already posted at length about. It was unbelievable in the early days of COVID when there were no other options that they removed this safe med from use as an off label option and smeared it in with exaggerations of its arrhythmia risk.

feel morally superior to those around them. I did enjoy the evil looks from people wearing masks that didn't cover their noses. But those schmucks were "following the science".

Of course we still have to beware of the replication crisis, but this is a meta-analysis. Does that make it more reliable? Perhaps.

It reveals that there was not the scientific evidence to proceed with their placebo-fest.

*As far as anybody thinks...errrr...knows.

They served 138 people that day, of which only 68 responded. All 68 say they did not contract Covid. What about the other 70? Completely laughable to use this as "evidence" masks work.

(no message)