Read on Twitter
Media is now picking up on the senior @WHO advisor whose comment was NOT to provide N95 masks because they might lead to acne.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/who-adviser-sparks-furore-after-remarks-on-mask-harm/13299570
#COVIDisAirborne
Side note: his comment about decreased O2 is garbage. 3% diff, small N, and the ppl had no subjective effect
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/who-adviser-sparks-furore-after-remarks-on-mask-harm/13299570
#COVIDisAirborne
Side note: his comment about decreased O2 is garbage. 3% diff, small N, and the ppl had no subjective effect
I have noted he has put this in print before.
The intro suggests the harms are severe, but pulling the _citations_, which I should not have to spend my time doing, revealed that they were about acne. https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1316381178979659777
The intro suggests the harms are severe, but pulling the _citations_, which I should not have to spend my time doing, revealed that they were about acne. https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1316381178979659777
He also wrote this piece on behalf of the @WHO, which was meant to support droplets, but actually proved ventilation was great because they didn't check their citations well enough. https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1322387896050065409
An unpublished email was used as a source, but not cited. Instead, a review citing the email was cited
This makes it difficult to discern that the data is coming from a personal communication. This does not meet style guide requirements for that reason https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1291835389318176768
This makes it difficult to discern that the data is coming from a personal communication. This does not meet style guide requirements for that reason https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1291835389318176768
The thread on the ARTICLE about acne (3 posts up) may be broken for some people.
The continuation, with the citations, etc., is here: https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1316441594552291329
The continuation, with the citations, etc., is here: https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1316441594552291329
Here, the ENTIRE thread together: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1316381178979659777.html
As for oxygen, he says small decrease his OWN study said no subjective effects at all (ppl did not notice).
Quick search and found https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7558090/
No effect of N95 masks. 1 hr slow walking = nothing. 4 hours = slight increase in respiratory effort prob the moisture.
Quick search and found https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7558090/
No effect of N95 masks. 1 hr slow walking = nothing. 4 hours = slight increase in respiratory effort prob the moisture.
When a view doesn't accord with actual science, the arguments become more specious and desperate. I leave to readers to decide if we hit that point.
It would be noteworthy and that's it, if it weren't deadly. No mask _will_ statistically lead to death.
It would be noteworthy and that's it, if it weren't deadly. No mask _will_ statistically lead to death.
No mask, or surgical vs N95. I treat them the same because surgical masks are not designed to stop aerosols. Period.
The arg against is technical, to say this study or that study is not proof ENOUGH that they work.
But since surgical never meant for aerosols, we are done here
The arg against is technical, to say this study or that study is not proof ENOUGH that they work.
But since surgical never meant for aerosols, we are done here
Interesting side note:
Copernicus discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
This upset lots of established people. They really wanted the Earth at the centre. They attacked Copernicus' ideas.
Want some fun?
Copernicus discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
This upset lots of established people. They really wanted the Earth at the centre. They attacked Copernicus' ideas.
Want some fun?
Tolosani attacked Copernicus and his ideas.
What did he say?
** You have not sufficiently PROVEN your theory. **
Does this sound familiar?
What do I keep saying about humans repeating repeating repeating everything?
What did he say?
** You have not sufficiently PROVEN your theory. **
Does this sound familiar?
What do I keep saying about humans repeating repeating repeating everything?
The nice thing is that when you have looked at the totality of the evidence and you see that these things all spread in small aerosols and infection is statistics, you can just sit back and wait. You know the sea change is coming.
You'll be right.
It's just a matter of time.
You'll be right.
It's just a matter of time.
Mask up people. Avoid indoors. Be safe.
#COVIDisAirborne
(psst, we'll solve acne after we get through this pesky viral pandemic.)
#COVIDisAirborne
(psst, we'll solve acne after we get through this pesky viral pandemic.)
*Avoid if can, of course.
Minimize ppl and ventilate regardless.
Be safe.
Minimize ppl and ventilate regardless.
Be safe.
