The coronavirus scam

expos4ever

Well-known member
Yet you won't debunk it yourself. Why?

Answer my questions, please.

In what way is the demonstration misleading?
In what way is the demonstration insufficient in showing that masks do not work against aerosols?
All right, how is this for starters (repeat of what has already been presented):

The fact that he can blow vapor through a mask is not evidence that masks don’t protect against passing the coronavirus. After all, people breathe in and out with masks on.

"By that illogic, the fact that air can pass through a mask could be cited as ‘evidence’ as well," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

Cindy Prins, a clinical associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida, called the video "completely misleading."

"Fabric and surgical/procedure masks are meant to help protect against larger droplet particles that may contain COVID-19," she said. "You have to be able to breathe through a mask, and he is just blowing out water vapor, so that is expected to be able to go through a mask."
 

marke

Well-known member
From factcheck. I'll link to the article which you can read at your leisure. In the meantime I'll highlight certain passages in bold and comment on them.


Dr John O’Horo, associate professor of medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, said the conclusions the man in the video draws are “very, very questionable,” and “what’s being shown there isn’t really representative of the way that masks offer protection for the wearer or for those around the wearer.”

In a phone interview, O’Horo explained: “The idea that just seeing some particulates going through a mask negates their effectiveness is just a misunderstanding of how masks work. The masks do allow air and small particles to pass through. That’s how we can still breathe with them on, but what they do is they take a lot of the energy out so it doesn’t travel as far.”


Now that makes sense doesn't it? Nobody's claiming that masks stop air and smaller particles altogether, they don't. After the first lockdown was eased over here in the UK then most places were allowed to reopen but with safeguards. One of those was no raucous get togethers, no karaokes or singing in pubs. The reason? The amount of particles released when singing/shouting is far more than when people talk normally. Again, makes sense doesn't it? Sneezing also although obviously there's nothing anyone can do to stop that.

Christopher Sulmonte, project administrator at the Johns Hopkins Biocontainment Unit, made a similar point.

“You’ll notice that those vapors… are being hindered -- when he breathes out, they’re not going out as far, but also they’re going backwards, which is exactly conceptually what we’re trying to do with the masks,” he said by telephone.

Sulmonte criticized the video for its attempt “to create an equivalency between how SARS-CoV-2 is spread through respiratory droplets to the movement of gaseous particles.”

Respiratory droplets are much larger, and that is the main way Covid-19 is spread, he said, adding that while “there is still some concern with aerosol spread of the virus,” masks still help, as demonstrated by the smoke moving sideways and backwards in the video, rather than forward.


Now, don't really have much to add to this. Sure, where it comes to smaller particles masks aren't going to stop them but the reduction of distance in which they spread seems again, fairly obvious. Also, they are effective in curbing larger droplets as described. Using gaseous particles doesn't encapsulate anything akin to the whole picture.

Dr Shelley Payne, a molecular biosciences professor and head of the University of Texas at Austin’s center for infectious disease, agreed via email that masks also help prevent aerosol transmission. “Much of the leakage of aerosols shown in the video is at the edges of the mask. There is less from the front of the mask, reducing exposure to a person you are facing and talking to.”

So again, what doesn't make sense about this? Seems perfectly reasonable doesn't it?

Dr Sam Hogue, the interim head of the Texas A&M UniversityDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, said in an email: “Viruses are tiny and could easily pass through masks. However, the mucous environment in which they are embedded, not so much.

“I am disappointed that a licensed physician would use smoke as an equivalent comparison,” said Hogue, although as noted above, Noel’s license has expired.


So, what's to differ with here? Again, nobody is saying that masks stop smaller particles altogether, they don't, but once again, the use of smoke in that test was an invalid comparison to respiratory droplets anyway.

There's more but that should be enough to be going on with for now. There's also this:


So, I'm going with the experts on this because they make absolute sense and have dismantled Noel's experiment all ends up as far as I'm concerned.

Now, not sure how I've been insulting people left, right and center on here, it's not like I go around calling people 'tards' and whatnot with free abandon so that's rather an exaggeration on your part I would say.
The 'experts' who side with the leftist government narratives do not debunk scientific claims about the ineffective of masks, they just frame the facts in such a way so as to give the impression that masks still help at least a little in preventing the passage of covid particles.
 

marke

Well-known member
Then supply it, otherwise this is just another assertion of yours with absolutely nothing to support it. The onus isn't on me, the burden of proof is on you. Else, disprove that a unicorn is on my kitchen roof.
Democrat argument: 'We never have to prove anything - not our claims about masks, not our claims about the vaccines, not our claims about the origin of covid, not our claims about voting integrity and honesty, not our dishonest slanders about Trump's booming economy, not our claims supporting Hillary's Trump/Russian collusion conspiracy theory boondoggle lie, not our false allegations of Kavanaugh sex crimes, not our claims of Biden's innocence, and more.'
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Democrat argument: 'We never have to prove anything - not our claims about masks, not our claims about the vaccines, not our claims about the origin of covid, not our claims about voting integrity and honesty, not our dishonest slanders about Trump's booming economy, not our claims supporting Hillary's Trump/Russian collusion conspiracy theory boondoggle lie, not our false allegations of Kavanaugh sex crimes, not our claims of Biden's innocence, and more.'
You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The 'experts' who side with the leftist government narratives do not debunk scientific claims about the ineffective of masks, they just frame the facts in such a way so as to give the impression that masks still help at least a little in preventing the passage of covid particles.
They've debunked the video in question in absolute and resolute detail. Else, supply an in depth explanation point by point as to how they haven't.
 

marke

Well-known member
All right then. Since you have claimed this site supports a young earth, what specific claims that this site makes are we to consider as evidence of a young earth?

Just one piece of evidence will suffice.
Science does not prove old earth assumptions, but data is manipulated by anti-God zealots to support those assumptions with deceptive arguments. Are you wanting to examine the evidence for a young earth, or are you just wanting to arrange arguments for the purpose of dismissing those evidences with prejudice? Here are some reasonable evidences and arguments:

The next evidence for a recent creation is provided by carbon 14 dates. Carbon 14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays and then slowly decays. The older an organic sample is, the less carbon 14 it will contain because the sample will not be absorbing new carbon 14 after it dies. An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the fossil record show detectable amounts of 14C! Giem reviewed the literature and tabulated about seventy reported AMS measurements of 14C in organic materials from the geologic record that, according to the conventional geologic time-scale, should be 14C dead. The surprising result is that organic samples from every portion of the fossil record show detectable amounts of 14C. For the measurements considered most reliable, the 14C/C ratios appear to fall in the range 0.1-0.5 percent of the modern 14C/C ratio (percent modern carbon, or pmc). 0.1 percent modern carbon corresponds to a computed age of 57,000 years, and higher values correspond to even younger ages. This implies that the entire geologic column from the Cambrian period onward is less than 57,000 years old. Some of the researchers tried to explain this carbon 14 as contamination, but none of their attempts to clean it were successful, and other evidence indicated that this carbon 14 was not contamination.
 

marke

Well-known member
You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you.
I again post publicly reported facts. Will you ever support your denials of the facts with evidence of your own?


Dr. Anthony Fauci is an adviser to President Donald Trump and something of an American folk hero for his steady, calm leadership during the pandemic crisis. At least one poll shows that Americans trust Fauci more than Trump on the coronavirus pandemic—and few scientists are portrayed on TV by Brad Pitt.
But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
 

marke

Well-known member
They've debunked the video in question in absolute and resolute detail. Else, supply an in depth explanation point by point as to how they haven't.
'Proof' to leftist democrats: 'Dr. Fauci said masks do work and are essential in efforts to stop covid. That is all the proof we need to consider deniers debunked.'
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
'Proof' to leftist democrats: 'Dr. Fauci said masks do work and are essential in efforts to stop covid. That is all the proof we need to consider deniers debunked.'
Do you ever answer on actual point? This has nothing to do with what I asked or even my stance on the Covid issue.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I again post publicly reported facts. Will you ever support your denials of the facts with evidence of your own?


Dr. Anthony Fauci is an adviser to President Donald Trump and something of an American folk hero for his steady, calm leadership during the pandemic crisis. At least one poll shows that Americans trust Fauci more than Trump on the coronavirus pandemic—and few scientists are portrayed on TV by Brad Pitt.
But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
No, you don't. A lot of the time you go on irrelevant diatribes about "leftists" and you've made a claim about Fauci that you haven't come close to substantiating. Where is your evidence that Fauci helped to invent Covid as you claim?
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
What is obvious? That covid tests in Thailand are on the rise? That Thailand has started using masks, driving infections through the roof? That Thailand is experiencing record-breaking numbers of deaths while other nations' death rates are falling? What?
What is obvious is the misleading nature of the poster's original post - he (or she) posted a graph showing case numbers skyrocketing in Thailand and concluded masks don't work. Well, if you look at the whole picture, you see that testing also skyrocketed at the same time. This does not prove that masks work, but it exposes the misleading nature of the original post.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Science does not prove old earth assumptions, but data is manipulated by anti-God zealots to support those assumptions with deceptive arguments. Are you wanting to examine the evidence for a young earth, or are you just wanting to arrange arguments for the purpose of dismissing those evidences with prejudice? Here are some reasonable evidences and arguments.
First, your highly rhetorical demonizing of those who disagree with you certainly does not help your case - while it might make you feel good to toss out such barbs, and while your creationist friends will no doubt be heartened thereby, any serious, neutral reader will see it for what it is - a ploy of desperation; after all, were the evidence really in your favor, what need would there be for such rhetoric?

Did you see Einstein demonizing those who disagreed with him. Or Newton? Or Hawking. Of course not, serious debate should be expunged of such nonsense and its presence is a red flag that someone has found themselves in a corner from which their only hope of escape is a reason-impoverished appeal to base emotion.

Do I toss out nasty-isms? Yes, I do. But I trust it is clear that none of that stuff is intended to be part of any serious argument for any position that I happen to hold.

But my main point is this: like vaccines, people like you and me are simply not remotely qualified to independently evaluate the evidence for a young earth or for an old earth. So we have no choice but to rely on experts. Now the fact that one expert - Paul Giem from your article - has presented a case for a young earth needs to be understood in context - the overwhelming consensus of qualified experts is that the earth is very old.

You are effectively cherry-picking.

A neutral reader has to decide between the overwhelming consensus and the views of a tiny minority. Now which choice seems more reasonable?
 

marke

Well-known member
No, you don't. A lot of the time you go on irrelevant diatribes about "leftists" and you've made a claim about Fauci that you haven't come close to substantiating. Where is your evidence that Fauci helped to invent Covid as you claim?
There is no point in me giving you more evidence if you show that you completely ignore and dismiss the evidence others give you. I just posted an article from Newsweek that you completely ignored.
 

marke

Well-known member
What is obvious is the misleading nature of the poster's original post - he (or she) posted a graph showing case numbers skyrocketing in Thailand and concluded masks don't work. Well, if you look at the whole picture, you see that testing also skyrocketed at the same time. This does not prove that masks work, but it exposes the misleading nature of the original post.
Hard proof, as it is in science, is not possible, rendering claims of masks efficiency or inefficiency unproven opinions, based upon conflicting sets of facts, data, and reports.
 

marke

Well-known member
First, your highly rhetorical demonizing of those who disagree with you certainly does not help your case - while it might make you feel good to toss out such barbs, and while your creationist friends will no doubt be heartened thereby, any serious, neutral reader will see it for what it is - a ploy of desperation; after all, were the evidence really in your favor, what need would there be for such rhetoric?

Did you see Einstein demonizing those who disagreed with him. Or Newton? Or Hawking. Of course not, serious debate should be expunged of such nonsense and its presence is a red flag that someone has found themselves in a corner from which their only hope of escape is a reason-impoverished appeal to base emotion.

Do I toss out nasty-isms? Yes, I do. But I trust it is clear that none of that stuff is intended to be part of any serious argument for any position that I happen to hold.

But my main point is this: like vaccines, people like you and me are simply not remotely qualified to independently evaluate the evidence for a young earth or for an old earth. So we have no choice but to rely on experts. Now the fact that one expert - Paul Giem from your article - has presented a case for a young earth needs to be understood in context - the overwhelming consensus of qualified experts is that the earth is very old.

You are effectively cherry-picking.

A neutral reader has to decide between the overwhelming consensus and the views of a tiny minority. Now which choice seems more reasonable?
Are you claiming those who zealously contend the Bible is in error are not anti-God? Are you and I qualified to analyze reports? If not, why not? Are you and I incapable of discerning between good reports which have good arguments and bad reports which don't? If not, why not?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
All right then. Since you have claimed this site supports a young earth, what specific claims that this site makes are we to consider as evidence of a young earth?

Just one piece of evidence will suffice.

Start a thread. This is not the one to talk about it in.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
There is no point in me giving you more evidence if you show that you completely ignore and dismiss the evidence others give you. I just posted an article from Newsweek that you completely ignored.
You haven't given any evidence that supports your claim that Fauci helped to invent Covid. You can't give more evidence when you've supplied none to start with.
 
Top