ecsd on Nostr: Jeff Cliff 🦝 npub1ng3el…cxe28 npub1cr0kq…kst20 >> is YOUR CLAIM because I HAVE ...
Jeff Cliff 🦝 (npub1umx…d244) npub1ng3elnju7fsn8v80fsewmzg3fsyfetnr80685u4js7xvvtfkd7hsrcxe28 (npub1ng3…xe28)
npub1cr0kqsyjj2x764aqnmfnk6zg6ec03vz3z6m5t5zjghj7qvamdyeqvkst20 (npub1cr0…st20)
>> is YOUR CLAIM because I HAVE SEEN STUDIES THAT PROVE MASKS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE.
>then you have seen studies which have made a mistake, or are not measuring what you think you are measuring.
"Then I am in possession of the truth (without citation) and you are not"
(some) Citations in my favor:
(1)
New research shows CDC exaggerated the evidence for masks to fight COVID
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/2/8/23591132/cdc-exaggerated-evidence-supporting-mask-mandates-column-jacob-sullum
(2)
The new scientific review on masks and Covid isn’t what you think
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/2/22/23609499/masks-covid-coronavirus-cochrane-review-pandemic-science-studies-infection
<
Nearly all of us wore masks at one time or another, and many of us still do. Did that even help?
It doesn’t seem like it, according to the Cochrane review: “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.”
Some observers have taken this as a final, authoritative conclusion on the matter, an opinion shared by the man behind the review. “There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop,” Tom Jefferson, the study’s lead author, said in an interview. Even fitted N95 masks in health care settings, the interviewer asked? “It makes no difference — none of it.”
>
Now, in fairness to the facts, the author of the article disagrees that Cochrane was correct, and explains why; but does not produce /evidence/ contrary to Cochrane's claims. The author says "the evidence on masks is limited."
(3)
The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-work.html (paywalled)
(4) More results from DDG search "MASKS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE against covid":
Undigested, but see leading remarks per each:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com › articles › covid-19-and-face-masks-to-wear-or-not-to-wear
COVID-19 and face masks: To wear or not to wear? - Medical News Today
Claims: Masks are not an effective way of protection from the new coronavirus, only N95 are, and masks have disclaimers saying they cannot prevent someone from acquiring the new coronavirus
https://www.theatlantic.com › health › archive › 2023 › 02 › covid-mask-guidelines-fight-cochrane-review › 673039
Somehow, the science on masks still isn't settled - The Atlantic
Feb 13, 2023February 13, 2023. For many Americans, wearing a mask has become a relic. But fighting about masks, it seems, has not. Masking has widely been seen as one of the best COVID precautions that people ...
https://www.factcheck.org › 2021 › 03 › scicheck-the-evolving-science-of-face-masks-and-covid-19
The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19
One study of 15 states and Washington, D.C., identified a 0.9% drop in the daily growth of COVID-19 cases in the first five days following the mask mandate, which grew to a 2.0% daily decrease ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 2022 › 01 › 14 › health › cloth-masks-covid-cdc.html
Cloth Masks Do Not Protect Against Virus as Effectively as Others, C.D ...
Jan 14, 2022Some experts have said that cloth masks are inadequate to protect from the variant, and have urged the C.D.C. to recommend respirators for ordinary citizens. The agency did not go that far. Its ...
https://www.cdc.gov › mmwr › volumes › 71 › wr › mm7106e1.htm
Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor ...
The use of face masks or respirators (N95/KN95) is recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1).Well-fitting face masks and respirators effectively filter virus-sized particles in laboratory conditions (2,3), though few studies have assessed their real-world effectiveness in preventing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (4).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC7883189
How effective is a mask in preventing COVID‐19 infection?
The effectiveness of a mask is explained from the perspectives of both exhalation isolation and inhalation protection. This review aims to provide the up‐to‐date scientific research outcomes on the typical masks that have provided one of the most effective and viable means in combating COVID‐19. 2.
https://www.bloomberg.com › news › newsletters › 2023-10-08 › do-masks-work-against-covid-what-science-says
Do Masks Work Against Covid? What Science Says - Bloomberg
Oct 8, 2023Covid is on our minds again, and one reader wonders if masks really work. But first ... Did scientists ever reach a data-supported consensus on how effective masks are against Covid-19?
https://www.nytimes.com › article › covid-masks-protection-stats.html
Does My Mask Protect Me Against Covid-19 If Others Don't Wear One ...
Apr 27, 2022In a modeling study published in December 2021, researchers found that passengers sitting in the same row or one row away from someone who had Covid-19 still had a high risk of being infected ...
MY conclusion: masks can help but are no guarantee. something is probably better than nothing.
========================
>> "Masks and vaccinations are supported by the scientific evidence" is again a VACUOUS claim
>No it isn't.
My point was that BOTH "Masks and vaccinations are SUPPORTED by the scientific evidence" and "Masks and vaccinations are REFUTED by the scientific evidence" are TRUE STATEMENTS, which leaves us nowhere.
>> Did vaccinations prevent others from getting infected,
>yes
You have no means whatever of proving so. The best you can answer that question is to cite conjecture based on comparison of regional statistics caompared to self-reporting of behavior.
DDG search "Did covid vaccinations prevent others from getting infected"
SECOND RESULT:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com › articles › does-the-vaccine-prevent-you-from-getting-covid
Does the vaccine prevent a person from developing COVID-19?
Oct 28, 2022 The COVID-19 vaccine does not stop a person from contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it can strengthen immunity against the virus and help prevent serious illness ...
If the vaccine doesn't prevent ME from getting infected, I am an "other" for the purpose of the question. My getting vaccinated helps only me. It does not protect anyone else.
>> BUT WE WERE TOLD THERE WERE STUDIES DONE THAT PROVED THEY WORKED.
>They do work at reducing severity of infection, transmission, and fatality.
Perhaps, but they DID NOT WORK for the purposes they were primarily ADVOCATED for, which is the point.
I recall a figure of 12% or 17% effectiveness for a particular (widely marketed) Pfizer vaccine. That left more than four-fifths of users IN THE COLD.
>> So whether they "work" or not appears to depend on the study one refers to and one can find studies PRO and CON many positions.
>not really
I'll rephrase that: "whether one would believe that they work" depends on what studies one has read. Phrased that way, the point is not arguable.
========================
DDG searches re myocarditis:
search "Covid causes myocarditis" returns this from a CDC article:
"During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age."
search "Covid vaccines cause myocarditis" returns this from Yale:
https://news.yale.edu › 2023 › 05 › 05 › yale-study-reveals-insights-post-vaccine-heart-inflammation-cases
Yale study reveals insights into post-vaccine heart ... - YaleNews
May 5, 2023According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among males aged 12 to 17, about 22 to 36 per 100,000 experienced myocarditis within 21 days after receiving a second vaccine dose. The incidence of myocarditis was 50.1 to 64.9 cases per 100,000 after infection with the COVID-19 virus among males in this age group.
There were more results for "vaccine-induced" than "covid-induced", but that doesn't help.
The search "myocarditis covid vs vaccine" returned this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › 36105535
Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A ...
Aug 29, 2022The risk of bias was low. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible ...
Based on that much, I retract my accustion of enhanced susceptibility to myocaarditis due to the vaccine. You win that one.
>> Moreover, where's your BALANCE insofar as VACCINES HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE DAMAGE
>The balance is as follows; the risk of damage is significantly less than with the infection (that the vaccines reduce).
>> "studies have shown that vaccinations are supported by scientific evidence" is simply a reckless endorsement with no concern for the consequences.
>No it isn't.
Yes it is, when one side of the argument is presented and the other is ignored. The first place to start unraveling this crap is to admit what lies the public was told. I've seen too many video clips debunking claims made for REMEDIES and PRACTICES to believe anything further BEFORE it has been proven by people I'm willing to trust.
The facts on the ground are that we are fucked over this covid thing. The time to have killed it off was back when we had the lockdowns, and that failed. So now humankind is saddled with yet another 'disease of permanent status' where the reductio-ad-absurdum advice is one must wear an N95 mask at all times in all places or everyone is doomed. That must fail as well.
========================
>> How many EXCESS DEATHS have been reported thanks to vaccine-induced MYOCARDITIS?
>very few relative to the COVID-induced myocarditis.
========================
>> Cite any position on the issues and you can find material endorsing that position.
>Not all material is of equal value.
Yes, but what is of what value and how do you know?
========================
>> Covid as BULLSHIT,
>Not sure who you're arguing with but if this is where you're coming from I can imagine why they are not taking you seriously. Covid has killed 10s of millions of people and continues to cause mass havok across the world.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying Covid isn't REAL. I'm saying there was never any reason homo sapiens should ever have had to DEAL with it. I said it was a disease humans CREATED, that it was not found in nature UNTIL HUMANS INTRODUCED IT, and on THAT basis, it's HORSESHIT NOBODY SHOULD EVER HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT'S A "PUT-UP JOB", where the way to defeat "such viruses in the future" is to DISMANTLE THE FUCKING GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH LABS THAT CREATE THE SHIT.
I never said my response to it was RATIONAL. /Rationally/ I have to deal with it as extant, and avoid it as one can. My response to it was I DON'T "FEEL LIKE" BEING PUSHED AROUND BY YET ANOTHER FAKE CRISIS THAT EXISTS ONLY BECAUSE SAOME ASSHOLES SOMEWHERE WANTED TO PLAY DR. MENGELE WITH THE POPULATION. It's "NOT A REAL CRISIS" in the sense that it was indeed avoidable, but we let the wrong people run the world. AIDS was/is real {no, actually I have to take that back too. SARS may have been 'real' (from nature), I'd have to return to the "was AIDS developed by the CIA?" material to reassess HIV.}. COVID is fake.
========================
>> it was a disease that HUMANS CREATED
>No it wasn't. See @Angie_rasmussen 's report.
You might as well cite @Jimmy_Dore for all the good that is as a citation. Dore believes Covid was invented. I believe Covid was invented. We don't believe it for nothing. Once again, both sides of the argument find support, but on balance I believe the "invented by humans" has more weight behind it. There's too much skullduggery behind hiding who did what with respect to this stuff, to believe the participants' hands are clean on the matter. I say the release was deliberate, and one can find material explaining what "they" gained in conducting experiments in repression surrounding biowarfare threats.
Whatever Angie Rasmussen CITED, has its own CITATIONS and can be referred to directly.
I doubt that "Angie Rasmussen", whoever she is, is the author of any refutation on her own. I'd rather read her sources.
There is such a VOLUME of "humans created it" material that I will not bother looking it up. It's there to refer to.
========================
>> When I HEAR that Covid is surging in my area, I will take some precautions.
>what is your area?
Washtenaw County, immediately West of Detroit.
========================
>> One "plays it by ear" until we purge politics from agencies such as the CDC.
>This is a bad heuristic.
According to you. It's my heuristic for me to use. I've never been infected with Covid, and "have no intention of ever being infected." What else do I do? I eat 3 grams of Vitamin C every day when I remember, and try to eat 10000 IU per day of Vitamin D3. {laughs} Try proving that CAN'T help. And if I ever GET infected, I will ask for Ivermectin first thing. Yeah, I should mention ZINC too. Try showing that Zinc + D3 are ineffective as compared with pharma-goo X. {laughs}
I know what a Mathematical Proof is. I know what a Scientific PROOF is. When you can cite an article that PROVES what is and isn't effective, let me know. That I am reduced to having to use "my best judgement" despite "being surrounded by experts" only demonstrates the point I made to Ron Chusid: the air is full of bullshit because we no longer have trustworthy CENTRAL AUTHORITIES. When Average Joe has to DECIDE who to trust, we are fucked.
Try PROVING all the things you made claims for. I actually don't care about Covid, one reason I don't bother saving URLs for issues involved, and don't remember names of players. I just stubbornly refuse to cede that "you know better" when what you say only matches standard (prior!) CDC advice (since now they treat Covid/LC as "no big deal".)
I say "we don't truly know." We can give "best advice", and that's all.
------------
wow, longest post to date (vs. 16384 limit.)
npub1cr0kqsyjj2x764aqnmfnk6zg6ec03vz3z6m5t5zjghj7qvamdyeqvkst20 (npub1cr0…st20)
>> is YOUR CLAIM because I HAVE SEEN STUDIES THAT PROVE MASKS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE.
>then you have seen studies which have made a mistake, or are not measuring what you think you are measuring.
"Then I am in possession of the truth (without citation) and you are not"
(some) Citations in my favor:
(1)
New research shows CDC exaggerated the evidence for masks to fight COVID
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/2/8/23591132/cdc-exaggerated-evidence-supporting-mask-mandates-column-jacob-sullum
(2)
The new scientific review on masks and Covid isn’t what you think
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/2/22/23609499/masks-covid-coronavirus-cochrane-review-pandemic-science-studies-infection
<
Nearly all of us wore masks at one time or another, and many of us still do. Did that even help?
It doesn’t seem like it, according to the Cochrane review: “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.”
Some observers have taken this as a final, authoritative conclusion on the matter, an opinion shared by the man behind the review. “There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop,” Tom Jefferson, the study’s lead author, said in an interview. Even fitted N95 masks in health care settings, the interviewer asked? “It makes no difference — none of it.”
>
Now, in fairness to the facts, the author of the article disagrees that Cochrane was correct, and explains why; but does not produce /evidence/ contrary to Cochrane's claims. The author says "the evidence on masks is limited."
(3)
The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-work.html (paywalled)
(4) More results from DDG search "MASKS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE against covid":
Undigested, but see leading remarks per each:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com › articles › covid-19-and-face-masks-to-wear-or-not-to-wear
COVID-19 and face masks: To wear or not to wear? - Medical News Today
Claims: Masks are not an effective way of protection from the new coronavirus, only N95 are, and masks have disclaimers saying they cannot prevent someone from acquiring the new coronavirus
https://www.theatlantic.com › health › archive › 2023 › 02 › covid-mask-guidelines-fight-cochrane-review › 673039
Somehow, the science on masks still isn't settled - The Atlantic
Feb 13, 2023February 13, 2023. For many Americans, wearing a mask has become a relic. But fighting about masks, it seems, has not. Masking has widely been seen as one of the best COVID precautions that people ...
https://www.factcheck.org › 2021 › 03 › scicheck-the-evolving-science-of-face-masks-and-covid-19
The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19
One study of 15 states and Washington, D.C., identified a 0.9% drop in the daily growth of COVID-19 cases in the first five days following the mask mandate, which grew to a 2.0% daily decrease ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 2022 › 01 › 14 › health › cloth-masks-covid-cdc.html
Cloth Masks Do Not Protect Against Virus as Effectively as Others, C.D ...
Jan 14, 2022Some experts have said that cloth masks are inadequate to protect from the variant, and have urged the C.D.C. to recommend respirators for ordinary citizens. The agency did not go that far. Its ...
https://www.cdc.gov › mmwr › volumes › 71 › wr › mm7106e1.htm
Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor ...
The use of face masks or respirators (N95/KN95) is recommended to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1).Well-fitting face masks and respirators effectively filter virus-sized particles in laboratory conditions (2,3), though few studies have assessed their real-world effectiveness in preventing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (4).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC7883189
How effective is a mask in preventing COVID‐19 infection?
The effectiveness of a mask is explained from the perspectives of both exhalation isolation and inhalation protection. This review aims to provide the up‐to‐date scientific research outcomes on the typical masks that have provided one of the most effective and viable means in combating COVID‐19. 2.
https://www.bloomberg.com › news › newsletters › 2023-10-08 › do-masks-work-against-covid-what-science-says
Do Masks Work Against Covid? What Science Says - Bloomberg
Oct 8, 2023Covid is on our minds again, and one reader wonders if masks really work. But first ... Did scientists ever reach a data-supported consensus on how effective masks are against Covid-19?
https://www.nytimes.com › article › covid-masks-protection-stats.html
Does My Mask Protect Me Against Covid-19 If Others Don't Wear One ...
Apr 27, 2022In a modeling study published in December 2021, researchers found that passengers sitting in the same row or one row away from someone who had Covid-19 still had a high risk of being infected ...
MY conclusion: masks can help but are no guarantee. something is probably better than nothing.
========================
>> "Masks and vaccinations are supported by the scientific evidence" is again a VACUOUS claim
>No it isn't.
My point was that BOTH "Masks and vaccinations are SUPPORTED by the scientific evidence" and "Masks and vaccinations are REFUTED by the scientific evidence" are TRUE STATEMENTS, which leaves us nowhere.
>> Did vaccinations prevent others from getting infected,
>yes
You have no means whatever of proving so. The best you can answer that question is to cite conjecture based on comparison of regional statistics caompared to self-reporting of behavior.
DDG search "Did covid vaccinations prevent others from getting infected"
SECOND RESULT:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com › articles › does-the-vaccine-prevent-you-from-getting-covid
Does the vaccine prevent a person from developing COVID-19?
Oct 28, 2022 The COVID-19 vaccine does not stop a person from contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it can strengthen immunity against the virus and help prevent serious illness ...
If the vaccine doesn't prevent ME from getting infected, I am an "other" for the purpose of the question. My getting vaccinated helps only me. It does not protect anyone else.
>> BUT WE WERE TOLD THERE WERE STUDIES DONE THAT PROVED THEY WORKED.
>They do work at reducing severity of infection, transmission, and fatality.
Perhaps, but they DID NOT WORK for the purposes they were primarily ADVOCATED for, which is the point.
I recall a figure of 12% or 17% effectiveness for a particular (widely marketed) Pfizer vaccine. That left more than four-fifths of users IN THE COLD.
>> So whether they "work" or not appears to depend on the study one refers to and one can find studies PRO and CON many positions.
>not really
I'll rephrase that: "whether one would believe that they work" depends on what studies one has read. Phrased that way, the point is not arguable.
========================
DDG searches re myocarditis:
search "Covid causes myocarditis" returns this from a CDC article:
"During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age."
search "Covid vaccines cause myocarditis" returns this from Yale:
https://news.yale.edu › 2023 › 05 › 05 › yale-study-reveals-insights-post-vaccine-heart-inflammation-cases
Yale study reveals insights into post-vaccine heart ... - YaleNews
May 5, 2023According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among males aged 12 to 17, about 22 to 36 per 100,000 experienced myocarditis within 21 days after receiving a second vaccine dose. The incidence of myocarditis was 50.1 to 64.9 cases per 100,000 after infection with the COVID-19 virus among males in this age group.
There were more results for "vaccine-induced" than "covid-induced", but that doesn't help.
The search "myocarditis covid vs vaccine" returned this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › 36105535
Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A ...
Aug 29, 2022The risk of bias was low. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible ...
Based on that much, I retract my accustion of enhanced susceptibility to myocaarditis due to the vaccine. You win that one.
>> Moreover, where's your BALANCE insofar as VACCINES HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE DAMAGE
>The balance is as follows; the risk of damage is significantly less than with the infection (that the vaccines reduce).
>> "studies have shown that vaccinations are supported by scientific evidence" is simply a reckless endorsement with no concern for the consequences.
>No it isn't.
Yes it is, when one side of the argument is presented and the other is ignored. The first place to start unraveling this crap is to admit what lies the public was told. I've seen too many video clips debunking claims made for REMEDIES and PRACTICES to believe anything further BEFORE it has been proven by people I'm willing to trust.
The facts on the ground are that we are fucked over this covid thing. The time to have killed it off was back when we had the lockdowns, and that failed. So now humankind is saddled with yet another 'disease of permanent status' where the reductio-ad-absurdum advice is one must wear an N95 mask at all times in all places or everyone is doomed. That must fail as well.
========================
>> How many EXCESS DEATHS have been reported thanks to vaccine-induced MYOCARDITIS?
>very few relative to the COVID-induced myocarditis.
========================
>> Cite any position on the issues and you can find material endorsing that position.
>Not all material is of equal value.
Yes, but what is of what value and how do you know?
========================
>> Covid as BULLSHIT,
>Not sure who you're arguing with but if this is where you're coming from I can imagine why they are not taking you seriously. Covid has killed 10s of millions of people and continues to cause mass havok across the world.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying Covid isn't REAL. I'm saying there was never any reason homo sapiens should ever have had to DEAL with it. I said it was a disease humans CREATED, that it was not found in nature UNTIL HUMANS INTRODUCED IT, and on THAT basis, it's HORSESHIT NOBODY SHOULD EVER HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT'S A "PUT-UP JOB", where the way to defeat "such viruses in the future" is to DISMANTLE THE FUCKING GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH LABS THAT CREATE THE SHIT.
I never said my response to it was RATIONAL. /Rationally/ I have to deal with it as extant, and avoid it as one can. My response to it was I DON'T "FEEL LIKE" BEING PUSHED AROUND BY YET ANOTHER FAKE CRISIS THAT EXISTS ONLY BECAUSE SAOME ASSHOLES SOMEWHERE WANTED TO PLAY DR. MENGELE WITH THE POPULATION. It's "NOT A REAL CRISIS" in the sense that it was indeed avoidable, but we let the wrong people run the world. AIDS was/is real {no, actually I have to take that back too. SARS may have been 'real' (from nature), I'd have to return to the "was AIDS developed by the CIA?" material to reassess HIV.}. COVID is fake.
========================
>> it was a disease that HUMANS CREATED
>No it wasn't. See @Angie_rasmussen 's report.
You might as well cite @Jimmy_Dore for all the good that is as a citation. Dore believes Covid was invented. I believe Covid was invented. We don't believe it for nothing. Once again, both sides of the argument find support, but on balance I believe the "invented by humans" has more weight behind it. There's too much skullduggery behind hiding who did what with respect to this stuff, to believe the participants' hands are clean on the matter. I say the release was deliberate, and one can find material explaining what "they" gained in conducting experiments in repression surrounding biowarfare threats.
Whatever Angie Rasmussen CITED, has its own CITATIONS and can be referred to directly.
I doubt that "Angie Rasmussen", whoever she is, is the author of any refutation on her own. I'd rather read her sources.
There is such a VOLUME of "humans created it" material that I will not bother looking it up. It's there to refer to.
========================
>> When I HEAR that Covid is surging in my area, I will take some precautions.
>what is your area?
Washtenaw County, immediately West of Detroit.
========================
>> One "plays it by ear" until we purge politics from agencies such as the CDC.
>This is a bad heuristic.
According to you. It's my heuristic for me to use. I've never been infected with Covid, and "have no intention of ever being infected." What else do I do? I eat 3 grams of Vitamin C every day when I remember, and try to eat 10000 IU per day of Vitamin D3. {laughs} Try proving that CAN'T help. And if I ever GET infected, I will ask for Ivermectin first thing. Yeah, I should mention ZINC too. Try showing that Zinc + D3 are ineffective as compared with pharma-goo X. {laughs}
I know what a Mathematical Proof is. I know what a Scientific PROOF is. When you can cite an article that PROVES what is and isn't effective, let me know. That I am reduced to having to use "my best judgement" despite "being surrounded by experts" only demonstrates the point I made to Ron Chusid: the air is full of bullshit because we no longer have trustworthy CENTRAL AUTHORITIES. When Average Joe has to DECIDE who to trust, we are fucked.
Try PROVING all the things you made claims for. I actually don't care about Covid, one reason I don't bother saving URLs for issues involved, and don't remember names of players. I just stubbornly refuse to cede that "you know better" when what you say only matches standard (prior!) CDC advice (since now they treat Covid/LC as "no big deal".)
I say "we don't truly know." We can give "best advice", and that's all.
------------
wow, longest post to date (vs. 16384 limit.)