From A Reader: War On Truth

Western Rifle Shooters Association

Freedom begins between your ears.

Western Rifle Shooters Association

 Splendid interview with two practicing physicians that exposes the political machinations and subsequent corruption of science; to such an extent that two of the world’s premiere medical journals (The Lancet and JAMA!) had to print retractions of previously published articles that violated their own guidelines for scientific integrity….not to mention the many thousands who died needlessly as a result.

———————-

I’ve said it before and it bears repeating – we are fighting a war on truth. The provably false narratives that have been flying around about the virus – masks, HCQ, distancing, quarantining the healthy, blah – is but one front; we are facing the same war on multiple fronts…and the populace at large has been so stupified by media outlets, and social media in particular, it defies belief, it really does.

I don’t wear a mask for the same reason I don’t carry a rabbit’s foot – it’s superstitious nonsense. You want to carry a rabbit’s foot around, fine. But we’re going to have a very serious problem if you tell me I have to believe that crap.

The one redeeming feature of a mask is that it provides an excellent visual indicator on who’s thinking, and who’s not.

One of the physicians in this interview, on a previous occasion, described the mask inadequacy thusly: stopping a viral particle with a cloth bandanna (or N95 mask I would add) is like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence. Well put.AuthorConcerned AmericanPosted on

20 thoughts on “From A Reader: War On Truth”

  1. Gundersonsays:Whatever became of that Aesop guy?P.S. “SPORKY” dead ahead.Reply
    1. Ultramaroonsays:Gunderson,
      Aesop is alive and well (well, maybe not so well; he’s working overtime at a SoCal ED).
      https://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/Reply
  2. Code3says:When I clicked on this link, my virus protection immediately told me I had the “one half” virus.Reply
  3. Shinmen Takezosays:Okay CA, this video applies to this post.
    Put on the main please…https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=g-RADQwmJ3w&feature=emb_logoReply
  4. Red State Redoubtsays:Avoid CCP owned enemedia and the social media sewer which is Criminals IN Action owned.
    Think for yourself, question authority.
    So glad to have grown up in the would you jump off a bridge if everyone else was doing it era.
    An English teacher once gave me a passing grade because of thinking for myself.
    Those days are long gone.Reply
  5. Anonymoussays:Nobody’s perfect.There is some truth in what they say, particularly regarding the depopulation agenda and the immense pressure that state medical boards routinely exert (imagine 28 years of schooling and decades of experience terminated in a heartbeat by a low IQ affirmative action gentile with an axe to grind)—but— most respiratory transmission is in the form of droplets, NOT free aerosolized viral particles. For that reason the “chain link” analogy is flawed. N95 and P100 masks are sufficiently effective in filtering droplets as to be useful. In a proper setting, masks are neither superstitious nor nonsense. Do a scholar.google.com search and pick your favorite study.Since the 1980’s we have known that about 25-40% of the “peer-reviewed” medical literature is incompetent and/or mendacious. Significant errors of study design and results interpretation abound. The more money at stake and the more contentious the public policy at issue, the higher the rates of mendacity. The carefully-crafted “factoids” (sound like facts but are lies, polemics) of the 1990’s medical literature touting gun control (“43 times as likely” and “9 times as likely,” and all the rest of the rubbish contrived in the midst of dramatically falling rates of both overall violence and “gunviolence”—yeah, “gunviolence” almost became one word) could have been your first clue. Your second clue would have been Big Pharma’s financial support for studies publishing congenial conclusions about expensive treatments (recently, Remdesivir) and disparagement of inexpensive alternatives (recently, hydroxychloroquine).Dare I also mention that big egos correlate highly with medical diplomas? further correlating with specialists (and even nurses) not staying in their lanes? True facts.Reply
  6. Phlogistonisrealsays:“ One of the physicians in this interview, on a previous occasion, described the mask inadequacy thusly: stopping a viral particle with a cloth bandanna (or N95 mask I would add) is like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence.”Of course, it will stop the expelled little gobs of spittle and mucus the virus hitches a ride upon, but you do you.I know one person who got it – an athletic 25 year old; said it’s no joke.Reply
    1. sigproshootersays:We’ve had 54 confirmed cases where I work as of today. Mostly contractors if that matters as we all work in close proximity and touch the same objects.
      A friend of mine just returned to work from a 3 week fight with this virus.
      He was one of the “I’ve already had it” it’s nothing types.
      Until he actually got infected with it.
      He gave me the rundown, it’s very serious. But it isn’t Ebola or what the media paints it as.
      It’s a nasty virus, it’s real, keep your immune system strong, be ready for a long fight when you catch it, because eventually we all will.
      But it’s not a world killer.
      HtoH rabies would be what the media so desperately wants this to be.
      Be happy this isn’t that, Mad Max would be the pg-13 version of the world if rabies ever gets to that form.Reply
  7. JPsays:Don’t forget this:https://youtu.be/kUNQTyH76j0Don’t believe ANYTHING politically-oriented from ANY academic.Reply
  8. NW Hermitsays:Using published data and noting virus size and bandana hole size in the weave as a starting ratio, if the virus was the size of a golfball, then the hole in the cloth would be 75 yards in diameter. Just sayin.Reply
  9. Trost Oslersays:Just want to touch on a small technicality. A lot of people seem to be misinformed as to how N95 (and similar) masks actually work, and from a preparedness standpoint it is important to understand the functional behaviors of your equipment. If you do not understand how your water filter works, or your air filter, or your rifle, then you will be weak to their failures and therefore unnecessarily vulnerable.I should also preface this by saying the information herein should be considered in the context of biological threats in general. We have COVID now, but there are other threats, and we may face far more serious scenarios in the future in which we really do need to be damn careful about protecting our airways.So.The magic of an N95 mask is that it filters in two ways. The first way is just as you say, putting fibers in the path of particles. This works great for larger particles such as dust, larger droplets, and so on.However, the second way an N95 filters is with electrostatic charges inherent to the synthetic fibers the mask is made of. You know how if you rub two polyester blankets together you can make sparks? Like that but on a microscopic scale. These charges deflect and attract the tiniest particles. This, by the way, is why N95 masks do not protect you after 8 hours of use (give or take), as the electrostatic behavior becomes saturated with particulate and no longer functions. This is also why N95 masks cannot be safely re-used or sterilized by UV light, heat, sterilization solutions, etcetera, because all these mechanisms destroy the electrostatic properties and render the mask useless against small particles.The splitting point between “large” and “small” is 0.3 microns. This is why 0.3 microns is used as the standard testing particle size. 0.3 microns is the sweet spot, with just enough inertia to avoid electrostatic deflection, while small enough to punch a good distance through a mask.As you know, coronavirus particles are much smaller than 0.3 microns. As such, they will punch right through a mask that does not use electrostatic filtration. A homemade mask made of out fabric store leftovers does not use electrostatic filtration. These are effective for large particles only, different fabrics have differing filtration efficiency, the most you will get is about 60 percent (i.e. 40 percent punches through the mask). So, better than nothing, but totally insufficient if you are dealing with a biological threat.That said, N95 masks (so long as you don’t buy counterfeit masks) do use electrostatic filtration and therefore are capable of stopping particles less than 0.3 microns, even though the pore size is bigger than that.N95 masks still let 5 percent through. If you are dealing with infected individuals, that’s a lot of virus to be inhaling. P100 cartridges on an elastomeric respirator (for example) are a much higher option as they offer better filtration at a reasonable price, and last for months.This does not touch the questions of ethics or politics regarding the wearing of masks, only the pure technical behavior of these devices.In summary, large particles have a lot of inertia, don’t really deflect or change course when they encounter filter media, and get directly blocked by fibers. Small particles have a lot less inertia and are collected by electrostatic charge (without which they would punch right through the mask).Love the blog, glad you were able to get it back up and running.Reply
  10. J Alfred Prufrocksays:https://makeorwellfictionagain.com/Reply
  11. Prairie Firesays:Your site during your 13 years of running it, has always been real sparse with editorial comments. (For newbies, this was prior to tFat and DMV Gringo establishing their tentacles here .)So after reading those I had to scroll up and read again just to make sure that CA was actually writing it at all. A clue may be in play, with all that not-often-seen comments from our host here.Re the mask of of submission thing, my Elmer put it this way on how those cloth masks may work: how many of you have broke the seal on an M17 mask in the gas chamber? If done and have got the t-shirt, you know the problem right quick, and you know that the wearing of a cloth mask is just that, a sign of submission with no value at all attached to it.Reply
    1. Concerned Americansays:Hard to post well on a handheld; hence the title change. This was a reader’s post.I have a Independence Day post which will be shorter than I would like, but I try not to keyboard too much – especially in these times.Reply
    2. Walter Zoomiesays:“…the wearing of a cloth mask is…a sign of submission with no value at all attached to it.”I love you, man! 😉Reply
    3. tfA-tsays:aw poor little guy had his sensitive emotions hurtyou would have never made it in the Infantry sissyboiloser ass murkins deserve all they getbroke ass working class scum are the worstget a real job and pay your fucking taxes prarie fairyLOSERReply
      1. sigproshootersays:Tfat
        Stop with the hate brother.
        We’re here for the same reasons, so that tells me were not totally different, except for the occasional gew haters, they’re a group of their own.
        Since we’re basically on the same side, let’s BE on the same side.
        All your venom is aimed at the wrong target man, so check your fire.Reply
        1. Bonaventuresays:Stop with the hate brother.That’s all he’s got.We should start a WRSA pool: How many days after the festivities start will it take before tFat gets fragged?I’m going with three.Reply
  12. suzanna grovesays:Hello,
    Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
    I am not an MD or PhD scientist, rather an RN and a college
    grad. B4 PC/communist college. It is common sense to avoid
    wearing a mask. There are exceptions, usually in medical or
    nursing practice, and they are few. Don’t wear a mask because
    it impairs one’s breathing, and the longer it is worn?, the worse
    that condition becomes. The whole idea is very unhealthy. IMO
    the mask is virtue signaling nonsense.Reply
  13. Paulosays:Bottom Line – One of Faucci’s love letter to Hiligula:
    https://cdn.newspunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/fauci-love-letter-2.jpg.optimal.jpgNuff said…

Author: Alfred E. Neuman

EDITOR ONLY, 74 year old geek, ultra-conservative patriot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.