NIH: Masks are just plain dangerous

Goofyfoot2001

Goofyfoot2001

Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Messages
8,846
Location
Tega Cay, South Carolina
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Not a political post and should be seen by all. This study from the NIH (National Institute of Health). Link to study below. Conclusion screen shot. And yet they keep pushing the damn masks.

Screenshot_20210422-203056_Brave.jpg


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
Maybe if George Floyd would have died because he couldn’t breathe because the LEO’s forced him to wear a mask we’d be done with mask mandates. Social Media sure was more powerful than science in his case.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see the article. How about posting the url or at least a citation so that I can find it on Medline.
 
Chuckman said:
To be accurate, it's not from the NIH, but rather from their publishing site. A lot of academic articles are linked through their site.
Click to expand...
That's what i was going to say
pubmed (the site at the link) is not even a publisher, it's like google for research papers. pubmed may be a function of NIH, but they don't control content.
I'm not familiar with the journal this was published in, Medical Hypotheses, but it looks like it's a pretty low ranking journal that lets people publish without the need for peer review. That's not a good thing. Looking at the history on this journal, it's been known to publish some quackery.
But just because he didn't get published in a big name journal with peer review doesn't mean his ideas don't have merit. it may just mean that he knows he couldn't get it through the review process in this political climate.
Even with that... there are journals that have relaxed peer review and aren't quite as selective about the ideas they publish.
However, the author does seem to be working at a VA hospital (scratch that, the author was once at a 1yr position at the va/stanford, but no longer is), which is some cred in his or her favor, but has never been funded by the NIH, which is somewhat questionable since they're the big money machine.

tldr - take that paper with a handful of salt. know how to research your researcher before you believe the research.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
That's what i was going to say
pubmed (the site at the link) is not even a publisher, it's like google for research papers. pubmed may be a function of NIH, but they don't control content.
I'm not familiar with the journal this was published in, Medical Hypotheses, but it looks like it's a pretty low ranking journal that lets people publish without the need for peer review. That's not a good thing. Looking at the history on this journal, it's been known to publish some quackery.
But just because he didn't get published in a big name journal with peer review doesn't mean his ideas don't have merit. it may just mean that he knows he couldn't get it through the review process in this political climate.
Even with that... there are journals that have relaxed peer review and aren't quite as selective about the ideas they publish.
However, the author does seem to be working at a VA hospital (scratch that, the author was once at a 1yr position at the va/stanford, but no longer is), which is some cred in his or her favor, but has never been funded by the NIH, which is somewhat questionable since they're the big money machine.

tldr - take that paper with a handful of salt. know how to research your researcher before you believe the research.
Click to expand...
In this climate of fact checking then maybe they should peer review stuff they publish on government run public health websites. Just sayin.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
In this climate of fact checking then maybe they should peer review stuff they publish on government run public health websites. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

Medical Hypothesis is really a collection of articles in a journal based on "this is what I think....". Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Not making any assertion one way or the other about this particular article.

Personally I largely agree with the author's premise.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
In this climate of fact checking then maybe they should peer review stuff they publish on government run public health websites. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

Peer review is kind of a joke these days isn’t it? it would be better to have the people that disagree with you to offer a rebuttal or opposing study. Having friends and associates ‘approve’ of your research is kind of weak.
 
CZfool68 said:
Peer review is kind of a joke these days isn’t it? it would be better to have the people that disagree with you to offer a rebuttal or opposing study. Having friends and associates ‘approve’ of your research is kind of weak.
Click to expand...
it goes both ways. sure, your buddy might get your manuscript... but if the editor happens to send your it to somebody whose work you're showing is wrong, you can expect to not be published in that journal...
 
I am not a medical professional qualified to fully evaluate all of the current information about masks.

However, I have read the CDC's own guidance documents, published over time, about wearing masks. COVID ushered in a dramatic change in mask guidance and CDC documents did not refer to any breakthrough research to justify the change.
 
gc70 said:
I am not a medical professional qualified to fully evaluate all of the current information about masks.

However, I have read the CDC's own guidance documents, published over time, about wearing masks. COVID ushered in a dramatic change in mask guidance and CDC documents did not refer to any breakthrough research to justify the change.
Click to expand...

Imo, it all boils down to control.
 
I find the OP posts with links to the published documents interesting and informative. They reinforce my original opinion that (paper) masks did nothing to prevent the spread of covid or any other virus. I dont want to wear a mask anywhere. I only wear one where I have to and its usually the grocery store. Wore one for 4 hrs around my 85 year old mother early last year and I became light headed and dizzy. This article reinforces that the only possible cause for those symptoms was from wearing a paper mask for 4hrs. These posts/threads havent really changed my behavior but hopefully the more scientific papers or op eds written will hasten a change to public policy.
 
jimmyjames8 said:
Wore one for 4 hrs around my 85 year old mother early last year and I became light headed and dizzy.
Click to expand...
A couple of weeks ago we had a junk removal crew come and take a bunch of stuff away in preparation for selling a house. They started out wearing masks and it was obviously making it hard for them to breath going up and down the stairs hauling furniture. The masks quickly came off with our permission. They were much more comfortable.
 
Interesting that the author mentioned a fear and stress response from wearing a mask. Which likely results from mouth breathing when you feel like you can't breath well enough from your nose. And likely taking short, fast, shallow breaths. It's exactly the habit I'm working on changing currently and it seems to make a big difference in how I feel daily and during workouts.
 
CZfool68 said:
Peer review is kind of a joke these days isn’t it? it would be better to have the people that disagree with you to offer a rebuttal or opposing study. Having friends and associates ‘approve’ of your research is kind of weak.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Peer review separates the wheat from the chaff. It's the gold standard. Anyone can do an opposing study, but 99% of published articles there's really no contention or controversy.
 
Chuckman said:
No, not at all. Peer review separates the wheat from the chaff. It's the gold standard. Anyone can do an opposing study, but 99% of published articles there's really no contention or controversy.
Click to expand...

There’s the way things are supposed to work and there is the way they do work. A lot of politics and BS in scientific journals now.
 
Funny thing ... I’ve worn various SCBA’s, respirators and masks for going back to the 80’s for VFD and industrial purposes than I care to remember. We were checked out medically prior to issue and benchmarked. We were taught proper donning and doffing of the equipment along with proper cleaning & care ... aside from occasionally yanking hair out when pulling one off I never had a problem. At home I use to have a stack of N95 masks we wore when working around dust ... cutting grass & brush during pollen season ... doing control burnings ... and so on with no problems. Wearing a good quality mask properly is really no health risk ... WHEN DONE CORRECTLY AND HYGIENICALLY. The article in the OP just points out how mandated stuff done with little to no real guidance can cause a pile-o-crap!

The stupid thing is aside from say the N95 masks without an exhalation valve none of the mask really did any real good at preventing spread of a virus because of its ability to handle something as small as a virus BUT they could lead to problems for various reasons. Gooberment lemmings ... and power grabbing ... that’s what I call it for 95% of the mandates.
 
CZfool68 said:
There’s the way things are supposed to work and there is the way they do work. A lot of politics and BS in scientific journals now.
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for all peer-reviewed journals. The ones I have to read, and the ones in which I have articles, are legit. I am sure there are probably some sketchy ones out there, and those are the ones respectable professionals steer clear.

What like about this journal (Medical Hypotheses), is it publishes articles based on the scientific process preceded by a hunch. It's more 'opinion' based on what the author understands and on what the author thinks' than a 'science' article. It's usually common sensical, but not always accurate, and is open to debate. What I don't like about it is an author can follow up with an article on why masks are important based on the literature they read that supports their position.
 
Peer review journals are much like gun stores. Some are very knowledgeable, credible, and support the 2nd Amendment. Others are like Walmart, they sale it, they fill out the forms, but have no idea of the what and why they are doing other than to turn a profit.
 
I like it!

No healthy American that jumps off a 20 story building will ever had covid symptoms, much less die of the terrible disease!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom