I'm not canceling my Thangsgiving...!!! You lied about x15 days to 'flatten the curve', about masks.

The study can be found on the CDC cite. What do you suppose that means?

OTOH, the latest confirmation that masks do not work stop viruses is not.

"A major study out of Denmark that sought to examine the efficacy of face masks at limiting the spread of COVID-19 has reportedly been rejected by multiple academic journals amid hints that the study found face coverings are not effective in protecting individuals from the coronavirus.

Masks have been among the most persistent and controversial flashpoints of the COVID-19 epidemic for months. Health officials around the world initially argued strongly against their use, claiming that studies over the years had demonstrated that masks were ineffective at stopping respiratory viruses and unnecessary for the current pandemic."
JUST THE NEWS,Multiple journals reject major mask study amid hints that it shows masks don't stop COVID, Results will be published "as soon as a journal is brave enough," researcher says. By Daniel Payne, October 23, 2020.
https://justthenews.com/politics-po...-multiple-journals-amid-rumors-it-shows-masks

 

~ If the CDC & news media promoted hand sanitizer and face hygiene the way they do masks I think we would be better off .

 

The CDC doesn't make any judgment on papers submitted to the journal, one way or the other. Countless papers are submitted to the journal, so that they can be independently peer reviewed. That's why the CDC says:

"The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to Emerging Infectious Diseases do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions."​

Implying that it is a CDC article, or a CDC-endorsed article is intellectually dishonest.

 

Not true. The CDC makes judgements all the time.

 

As regards the Journal, the CDC does not make judgements on submissions - the disclaimer make this perfectly clear:

"The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to Emerging Infectious Diseases
do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the
Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions."​

 

~ Regardless of the CDC standing on masks the organization has become politicized - just as WHO .

 

THIS is a huge part of the overall problem -- all these highly-respected (and well-paid) EXPERTS don't ever seem to be able agree on ANYTHING, or for very long, either. They tell us to do this, and to do that -- and then totally CONTRADICT themselves or down-play what they had pronounced with such learned authority only a few weeks before! But then the Left bitches endlessly because Trump isn't some kind of clairvoyant mind reader who is magically able to sift through all this bullshit?!

The other huge part of the overall problem is that nobody (NOBODY) has bothered to approach this whole 'virus' thing from the much more accurate perspective of it being a carefully-engineered, delicately-cultured BIO-WEAPON, which just happened to be carelessly and recklessly handled by its creators -- THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT! Anybody who thinks that COVID-19 was just some kind of 'common cold' virus that just popped out of nowhere is deluding themselves!

Wear a mask! No, wait... that's bullshit. You need to wear a 'space suit' like bio-lab workers use.
Wear nitrile gloves! No, wait, that's also bullshit. Gloves just move the virus from one place to another, and spread dirt and filth, too.
Maintain 6-feet 'social distancing'! No, that's bullshit, because the virus can travel 15-feet in a cough, and then hang in the air for hours.
The virus can't be caught from surfaces! Nope, more bullshit. The virus can survive for hours or DAYS, depending on what kind of surface.

On and on. Meanwhile, so far, none of our "highly-respected" and VERY well-paid "EXPERTS" has missed a single paycheck!

 

~ And they call Donald trump a bull-****ter... ´

 

LOL! In fact, the CDC makes judgements all the time including deciding what will or will not appear on its website. Are there any links to Didier Raoult's studies showing the effectiveness of HCQ, and the Fake Science used to suppress its use?

"Ingraham read about the first problem from Raoult’s response, “In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct and this article [VA findings] is an absolutely spectacular example of this. The analysis of the data shows two major biases…Lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups as the non-HCQ group and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia and fatality rate, which is well known.”

One of the major problems Raoult found was that the HQC and the HQC/Zpak were given after the patients had been intubated. “This is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm [after patient is critically ill], as it is unlikely that HCQ alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.”"
RED STATE, French Doctor Didier Raoult Cites ‘Scientific Misconduct’ in Recent VA Study on Hydroxychloroquine; Two Major Flaws, By Elizabeth Vaughn, April 23, 2020.
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-...uct-in-recent-va-study-on-hydroxychloroquine/

 

The article appears in May edition of the "Emerging Infectious Diseases" journal, appearing in the journal section of the CDC website - that's why it it says "Emerging Infectious Diseases" at the top of the page. The content of the journal is submitted by numerous authors and "The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors... do not necessarily reflect the official position of ... the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention". In other words, the authors' opinions are their own.

They CDC also makes this plain in saying this: "The journal’s peer review process allows for critical assessment of submitted manuscripts by experts who are usually not part of its editorial staff, and it operates independently from CDC’s clearance processes."

I have no idea why you continual to argue this point. If you think the authors' article supports your opinion, that's fair enough - it will do so on it's own merits, without having to claim - falsely - that it is also the opinion of the CDC.

 

Did the CDC link to Didier Roault's study? Or not. The CDC's website is not an open forum.

They republished the University of Hong Kong paper because the authors are recognized authorities, and because there was no political angle at the time.

"“Just before the COVID-19 madness, researchers in Hong Kong submitted a study for publication with the mouthful of a title, “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures.” Oddly, the study, just published this month, is actually housed on the CDC’s own website, and directly contradicts recent advice from the CDC about wearing a mask.** Namely, the study states:

“In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018….In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks…Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza….Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission.”
SORRY OREGON YOUR MASK IS USELESS, (according to the science), By Professor Hinkley May 12, 2020.
https://www.professorhinkley.com/blog/sorry-oregon-your-mask-is-useless-according-to-the-science

 

[Sigh] The CDC doesn't choose which articles go in the Journal - again, it "operates independently from CDC’s clearance processes."

I know you really, really, really want your article to be "CDC endorsed". It's not. Persisting in claiming that it is, despite very clear information to the contrary - from the horse's mouth - is willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Just go with the merits of your article, as is, and stop claiming it's something it's not.

 

I am thankful for people like yourself, speaking out against the tide of fear that is taking weak kneed Americans to the "dark side". Such a waste of liberty and humanity.

 

It is the CDC site. Who do you think determines what appears on it? The Pentagon?

 

Just because it's hosted and accessible at the CDC doesn't mean the content is approved and endorsed by the CDC. I have already quoted the clear facts that it "operates independently from CDC's clearance processes". Not that that should have been necessary.

CDC's explicit statement that ..... "The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to Emerging Infectious Diseases do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions."..... makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR that articles are not CDC endorsed.

Your refusal to accept what the CDC itself says is utterly irrational.

 

It is irrational to assume that the CDC does not exercise control over their website.

Again: are any of the Didier Raoult studies appear on the CDC website?

 

Don't be so silly.

They say themselves that articles don't necessarily reflect their position.

It is irrational to ignore this.

 

It is irrational to claim that the CDC does not control what appears on their website.
Has the CDC challenged anything from the paper they republished?
Has the CDC challenged the credentials of any of the authors?

Do you have an example of even one study published before the China Virus Pandemic that contradicts the conclusions republished by the CDC in 2019?

“Abstract

There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.”
Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020, Policy Review, Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling, Author affiliations: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

 

Blah blah blah

 

IOW, you cannot cite even one study before 2020 that contradicts the paper republished by the CDC.

Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.”
Volume 26, Number 5—May 2020, Policy Review, Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Jingyi Xiao1, Eunice Y. C. Shiu1, Huizhi Gao, Jessica Y. Wong, Min W. Fong, Sukhyun Ryu, and Benjamin J. Cowling, Author affiliations: University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

Note the date.