A politician died, and naturally, turned up in Hell for the afterlife.
At the Infernal Gates, Satan met him, to give him a tour of the possible accommodations.
Surprised that there was any choice involved, he hurried to catch up to his host.
Behind the first door Satan opened, marked "Traditional", was a lake of pure lava fire, as far as the eye could see, with people burning all over their bodies simultaneously in unspeakable agony beyond time, in a never-ending sheer unspeakably horrific torture.
Behind the second door Satan opened, marked "Alternate Reality", was a vast space, endless to the invisible white horizon, freezing cold, near absolute zero, with millions of people sitting naked, freezing for a never-ending punishment.
But behind the third door, labelled "Lord Of The You-Know-What", Satan revealed to him a vast warehouse of people standing in the rankest and most utterly disagreeable stench imaginable, covered in steaming wet feces up to their armpits in an endless swamp sewer, but standing there drinking cups of coffee.
Despite the retch-inducing stench that never seemed to fade, the new arrival quickly indicated that he would vastly prefer the third choice, whereupon he was left there in charge of the underdemons.
As he was handed his cup, the supervising demon announced over the public address system, "Okay Losers, coffee break's over; everyone, get back on your heads!"
Which brings us to take up the fecal pile of supposed mask studies into which we are thus far slightly past halfway.
29) Aerosol and leakage penetration of masks used in the health care industry
Abstract:
Background: Historically, surgical masks have been worn to protect patients from being infected by large, pathogen-containing aerosol droplets emitted by health care personnel. Today, emphasis has shifted from solely protecting the patient to protecting the health care worker as well. As a result of new procedures used in operating rooms and clinical areas, aerosolized hazardous agents in the submicrometer size range are being produced, posing a potential threat to health care workers.
Methods: Eight surgical masks were tested for aerosol particle penetration through their filter media and through induced face-seal leaks.
Results: The percentage of filter penetration ranged from 20% to nearly 100% for submicrometer-sized particles. In comparison, a dust-mist-fume respirator used in industrial settings had significantly less penetration through its filter medium. When the surgical masks had artificially induced face-seal leaks, the concentration of submicrometer-sized particles inside the mask increased slightly; in contrast, the more protective dust-mist-fume respirator showed a fourfold increase in aerosol penetration into the mask with an artificial leak 4 mm in diameter.
Conclusion: We conclude that the protection provided by surgical masks may be insufficient in environments containing potentially hazardous submicrometer-sized aerosols.
Aesop Summary: Test from 1993, wherein, despite the full and certain knowledge that they weren't designed to protect any wearer from anything, study tested 8 surgical face masks from the 1990s to see if they did, in fact provide any protection to the wearer. When that wasn't bad enough, they cut holes in the masks, to make the numbers even worse. Shockingly, under this testing regimen, all masks failed to protect the wearers against anywhere from 20% to 100% of test medium, exactly as they were not designed to do, ever, anywhere, by anyone.
In other news, jumping out of an airplane at altitude with your mother's comforter knotted in the corners does not provide an adequate substitute for a certified parachute, and leaks in a submarine's hull at crush depth can't be plugged with your finger. Stop the presses.
And someone paid these incredible fucktards real money to do this!!
And it was peer-reviewed and published!!!
In the American Journal of Infection Control, which is clearly nothing better than an in-industry joke publication. Like The Onion, or The Babylon Bee.
And Nurse Claire, probably having never read it, is referencing this study among this entire festering pile of shit, as proof that "masks don't work". This is what an 80 IQ looks like in the wild, kids. We stand agape in awe at this level of naked intelligence strutting in public. In older times, families would have kept a child like this in the basement, for life.
30) Review of masks and respirators to prevent influenza
Abstract:
There are limited data on the use of masks and respirators to reduce transmission of influenza. A systematic review was undertaken to help inform pandemic influenza guidance in the United Kingdom. The initial review was performed in November 2009 and updated in June 2010 and January 2011. Inclusion criteria included randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental and observational studies of humans published in English with an outcome of laboratory-confirmed or clinically-diagnosed influenza and other viral respiratory infections. There were 17 eligible studies. Six of eight randomised controlled trials found no significant differences between control and intervention groups (masks with or without hand hygiene; N95/P2 respirators). One household trial found that mask wearing coupled with hand sanitiser use reduced secondary transmission of upper respiratory infection/influenza-like illness/laboratory-confirmed influenza compared with education; hand sanitiser alone resulted in no reduction. One hospital-based trial found a lower rate of clinical respiratory illness associated with non-fit-tested N95 respirator use compared with medical masks. Eight of nine retrospective observational studies found that mask and/or respirator use was independently associated with a reduced risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Findings, however, may not be applicable to influenza and many studies were suboptimal. None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection. Some evidence suggests that mask use is best undertaken as part of a package of personal protection especially hand hygiene. The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early, consistent and correct usage.
Aesop Summary: Another pointless review of studies prior to 2012, with no original research. Six studies showed no improvement, two showed minimal effect, nine studies showed notable improvement. Studies are a dog's breakfast hash of invalid and poorly constructed garbage, exactly like 99% of available "studies"; nonetheless with a score of 9 to 6 in favor, study concludes effectiveness of masks is linked to early, consistent, and correct usage. Not having read that clinical pearl right in the open of the abstract, let alone looking at any of the study itself, Nurse Claire nonetheless points to it as evidence that "masks don't work".
We can't make up that level of profound retardation.
31) Use of surgical face masks to reduce infection by common colds
Abstract:
Results: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. There were 2 colds during this time period, 1 in each group. Of the 8 symptoms recorded daily, subjects in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headache during the study period (P < .05). Subjects living with children were more likely to have high cold severity scores over the course of the study.
Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Aesop Summary: A pitifully small sample, amounting to statistical insignificance, was studied for self-reported and entirely subjective complaints, while wearing surgical face masks at work only, and living in a home with small children, and from each group, there was only one report of a cold.
In a similar study, 32 people went to the beach every day for two months, half with bathing suits, and half without, and sharks ate 1 person in each group. The study concluded bathing suits do nothing to stop shark attacks based on this data.
Bullshit like this is absolutely off the charts with regard to how pointless, invalid, and stupid it is, but yet again, it's published in what is self-evidently the house organ of scientific jackassery, the American Journal Of Infection Control. Anyone with any connection to that publication should be stripped of any professional credentials, and be issued a duck bill to wear 24/7 by law, so people will recognize utter quacks when they see them.
32) Use of N95 vs Medical Masks to prevent influenza infections in health care personnel
Abstract:
Interventions Overall, 1993 participants in 189 clusters were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators (2512 HCP-seasons of observation) and 2058 in 191 clusters were randomly assigned to wear medical masks (2668 HCP-seasons) when near patients with respiratory illness.
Results There were 1556 acute respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 1711 in the mask group. ... In the respirator group, 89.4% of participants reported “always” or “sometimes” wearing their assigned devices vs 90.2% in the mask group.
Aesop Summary: You tested health care workers wearing masks or respirators only at work during the height of flu season, who took no precautions at home, or when out in the community at the exact season when flu and URIs were rampant, and knowing that 10% of nominal health care professionals admitted they didn't wear their god-damned masks even at work, and lo and behold, with such a gaping hole of stupidity in both study validity and methodology, let alone compliance, you achieved an infection rate of 1.6 respiratory infections per person over a 4 year period of 12-week peak respiratory infection season.
IOW, this wasn't a test of mask effectiveness, it was a test of proper and valid survey construction, and these idiots failed in droves. And BTW, while they were up, they determined the average person in health care gets a URI (cold, flu, whatever)1 time out of 3 years.
Now compare that for the average person not in healthcare, and get back to us.
To be this stupid in your own life, you'd have to construct a survey where you wore your safety glasses 90% of the time while grinding or using power tools, and then survey you for four years to determine if you ever rubbed your eyes.
Second-closest would be to survey airline passengers for wearing seatbelts during flight, most of the time, and reporting if they ever bumped their head anytime in four years, even when not on airplanes, and relating that to seatbelt effectiveness. It's that nakedly jackassically retarded, to where you can make even 4th graders get it.
In short, this test tells you absolutely nothing about mask effectiveness, which wasn't even tested. This is nothing but indirect data, second-hand, where study participants wore their masks maybe 90% of their working hours, and took no precautions whatsoever away from work, while out and about, at home, around family, friends, and relatives, etc.
Hmm, I wonder where all their URIs during cold and flu season came from...?
For all anyone knows, they're out licking stripper poles and giving mouth-to-mouth to homeless bums with 57 diseases. This "study" never looked at that.
This is the kind of idiotic shit JAMA, and Nurse Claire are trying to pass off as "data".
This is far and away the stupidest fucking shit I've seen on the internet in 15 years of blogging, and this is the cream of medical expertise.
And we stopped at what appears to be the end of the journals. Next time, we'll be reading the brain-droppings of guest bloggers on random websites.
What could possibly go wrong there, after looking at the best medical expertise on the topic?
_______________________
Notably, not even the Usual Suspects among the Brave Anonymous Trolls has seen fit to pre-read one of these steaming piles of horseshit to try and sharpshoot us in advance.
Or they did, and found the evidence so lacking it wasn't even worth the effort of a lame troll.
More to the point, Nurse Claire, with abundant obviousness, never read a single one of these links, nor had the wit to grasp how utterly and completely worthless these piles of steaming shit were in service of her ridiculous contentions.
0 for 32 out of 51, so far.
How bad is this? It's like pointing to a pile of fresh-caught tuna, while telling you nothing lives in the ocean.
It's looking at that enormous pile of triceratops poo at the header of every one of these articles, and then telling you, straight-faced, that dinosaurs' shit doesn't stink.
In short, it's a special kind of Stupid.
If you can't tell the difference between Nurse Claire's unfounded and contra-factual contentions and your own position, pull up a chair, and have another bowl of dumbass.
No comments:
Post a Comment