- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stanford study says masks are ineffective, have devastating health consequences
Posted on 4/19/21 at 8:46 am to The Spleen
Posted on 4/19/21 at 8:46 am to The Spleen
quote:
Stanford
Missed that. Still, doesn't seem like this guy has much to do with Stanford, so it's a bit dishonest to call this a Stanford study. I scanned his report, and I didn't see any reference to the study being commissioned or financed by Stanford.
quote:
Which is a peer-reviewed Journal that has existed since the 70s.
It's onyl been peer-reviewed since 2010. And it's not peer-reviewed in the traditional sense where the reports and findings are scrutinized. It's only peer-reviewed for scientific merit. His hypothesis does have scientific merit, but it has been debunked by several people more knowledgeable in public health and communicable diseases, particularly his hypothesis that masks can have devastating health consequences.
There are better, more legitimate, studies out there addressing the ineffectiveness of masks.
Stuff like this just demonstrates how much dims ONLY care about using masks for power. The obvious desperation from your ilk when people start realizing they don’t need masks is startling.
At their core, democrats are tyrants. Never forget that fact.
1
Posted on 4/19/21 at 8:49 am to Robin Masters
Huh? I even said in my post there are legitimate studies out there that come to the conclusion that masks are ineffective.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 8:52 am to The Spleen
Don't need a Stanford study to see that there is zero correlation between mask utilization rate and case growth rate - one full year and 142 million cases later. Thats a helluva sample.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 8:54 am to The Spleen
quote:
debunked
Anytime a liberal uses this word, it basically invalidates whatever claim you're trying to make.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:02 am to The Spleen
quote:
Huh? I even said in my post there are legitimate studies out there that come to the conclusion that masks are ineffective.
Typically when people immediately resort to a n appeal to authority type of argument they are not arguing in good faith. My apologies if that not you.
Perhaps you are bearing the brunt of the numerous posters who have lashed out at the possibility of the main symbol of fear , the mask, being neutralized.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:04 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Anytime a liberal uses this word, it basically invalidates whatever claim you're trying to make.
It's because the claim is most often based on flawed circular logic.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:04 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Accelerated aging process
That alone is cause enough to 86 the masks for me.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:19 am to Cowboyfan89
quote:
Or, you could read the frickin links and see that Baruch Vainshelboim, the author, is stationed in Palo Alto. Where is Stanford again?
Don't think he's employed by Stanford and is an Exercise Physiologist. This is a single author, non-peer reviewed journal.
I'd be pumped if the OP were a legit source, but alas, it is not.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:26 am to CatfishJohn
quote:
Don't think he's employed by Stanford and is an Exercise Physiologist. This is a single author, non-peer reviewed journal.
I'd be pumped if the OP were a legit source, but alas, it is not.
Correct. The woman who wrote this "article" is in her last semester of college at UCF. She should rethink her career choice because journalism isn't it.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:27 am to CatfishJohn
quote:
Don't think he's employed by Stanford and is an Exercise Physiologist. This is a single author, non-peer reviewed journal.
I'd be pumped if the OP were a legit source, but alas, it is not.
does the op understand now?
the same point was made early on.
this thread is the very definition of fake news.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:36 am to The Spleen
quote:His Ph.D. is in exercise physiology in pulmonary rehabilitation. I'm not appealing to authority, but that background seems more relevant to the topic than anything having to do with public health or communicable disease.
people more knowledgeable in public health and communicable diseases
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:40 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Anytime a liberal uses this word, it basically invalidates whatever claim you're trying to make.
Its certainly getting to be that way. Like, the Russian bounty story that was so thoroughly "fact checked" by the legacy media last year yet turned out to be a phony neocon wet dream - as we all knew. Or the latest campus "hate crime" that turned out to be a false flag - like 99% of all other so-called hate crimes turn out to be. But they get very upset when you doubt them.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:41 am to Robin Masters
Here are my thoughts on masks. By themselves, they're mostly ineffective. I do think they provide a small level of protection, and that level is highly debatable. But even that small level requires 100% compliance. I think better mitigation efforts are social distancing, and limiting social interaction. At some point last year, society decided to make masks the predominant mitigation effort. This was done so businesses could re-open, particularly restaurants. And I know some cities kept tight restrictions on restaurants. I'm speaking more generally. It was a bit of an informal compromise wherein businesses were allowed to open, but masks would be required. The practice of wearing a mask into a restaurant until you are seated is stupid, but was needed to allow that restaurant to open while at least giving the impression of trying to limit spread.
None of that is really based on any studies, just my personal observations over the last year.
None of that is really based on any studies, just my personal observations over the last year.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 9:52 am to Hazelnut
quote:We only wore them while in contact with certain patients. Wearing one for an hour or three isn't the same as wearing one for an entire 12 hour shift.
Are the health consequences the same for health care workers who have always had to wear them for work? If not, why?
Posted on 4/19/21 at 10:13 am to SneakyWaff1es
quote:
We only wore them while in contact with certain patients. Wearing one for an hour or three isn't the same as wearing one for an entire 12 hour shift.
A surgeon operating on someone is exactly the same as a 50somthing year old Karen driving alone. Didn't you know this?
Posted on 4/19/21 at 11:29 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Wearing a mask over a beard looks like a ladies underwear ad from 1972.
https://twitter.com/leslibless/status/1365122794816757767
Posted on 4/19/21 at 12:01 pm to WildManGoose
quote:
His Ph.D. is in exercise physiology in pulmonary rehabilitation. I'm not appealing to authority, but that background seems more relevant to the topic
But he thinks masks cause diabetes. I don’t care what his phd is, because believing that makes him dumb as shite.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 12:34 pm to The Spleen
quote:
Still, doesn't seem like this guy has much to do with Stanford, so it's a bit dishonest to call this a Stanford study. I scanned his report, and I didn't see any reference to the study being commissioned or financed by Stanford.
We're in agreement there.
quote:
It's onyl been peer-reviewed since 2010. And it's not peer-reviewed in the traditional sense where the reports and findings are scrutinized. It's only peer-reviewed for scientific merit.
How many articles have you had peer-reviewed? Because I've been through the process, and they didn't scrutinize anything about my results and findings. All of the comments read more as "well this is my opinion, and I'm an expert, so you should listen to me", or "why did you say this this way instead of that way". Hell, the only comment about the merits was "we think this is worthy of publication, but you need to satisfy us on the way you worded your introduction". If an article and it's results aren't meritorious, it shouldn't be published.
Whether a reviewer agrees with the results or not is irrelevant. And that is the problem--people trying to dismiss science because they don't agree with it.
It doesn't matter if you agree with it. Are the methods flawed? Was there a flaw that led to misleading or biased results? If the answer to either or both of those is "Yes", then it's bad science, and should not be published. But if not, if it is good methods and no obvious bias in the data or the way it was reported, then it should be published.
If a study is scientifically rigorous, no reviewer should hold it back from publication because they disagree with the results. That is not science.
Posted on 4/19/21 at 1:01 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Stanford study says
Who the hell believes anything coming out Stanford's "science" department? Rich people paying for their imbecilic children to get top spots in California schools has made every institution in that State suspect.
Page 12 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News