And this is how the virus goes on and on and on. The anti maskers, the vaccine nonbelievers, and the wait and see-ers are the reason we are still in this mess. It is not that difficult to wear a mask, and get a shot. After all, we’ve been getting shots in the arm since we were all babies. The only way out to is follow the science. My husband and I are fully vaccinated and it felt like a weight off our shoulders to get that done.

This paper has one author. The title of the paper is "Face Masks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis." Note the word "hypothesis." It was published in the journal "Medical Hypotheses" which says its purpose "is to publish interesting theoretical papers. The journal will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed."

In a nutshell, it's just this guy's opinion. This paper is crap.

Hope not, my second shot made me sicker then a dog for 8 days!

Interesting article. And from the NIH too. If I am not mistaken, this kind of reinforces what Golfing Eagles has said all along. :thumbup:

I understand that the NIH has a pretty good reputation. Do you have some reason to disagree? Perhaps if this same article was published in the NYT, it would pass scrutiny?

Maybe we "wear socks, or other clothing" for comfort. I don't wear a mask which hinders my breathing for COMFORT.

The NIH keeps a listing of all scientific papers, good or bad, as does the Library of Congress. The NIH did not write this paper. Just like your local library does not write the books that are on its shelves. The LinkedIn page of the author is below. He is a "Clinical Exercise Physiologist" (not a physician) and is currently unemployed. But sure, forget the opinions of physicians, virologists, and epidemiologists in the world who study this full-time, this exercise physiologist has it all figured out.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-v...boim-5591b532/

Ok, good. Now tell me what you disagree with from the article. I can accept disparaging of the "Clinical Exercise Physiologist" as not meeting your standards of "Expert" but I am interested in the errors you might have found. I am always open to "FACTS" but it seems we get opinions from many "EXPERTS." Thank you for your response.

The NIH is basically a catch-all for published medical-related papers. It doesn't discriminate between double-blind peer reviewed studies, and op-ed conspiracy pieces. It will publish someone's paper suggesting that the aliens from the planet 14.9992 in the 78th Galaxy have infiltrated our DNA and the human race was actually supposed to be origami cranes, but the Zrrk that injected the DNA misstepped with a gene and so here we are.

As long as the paper is "coherently expressed" they'll publish it.

I enjoy reading what exercise physiologists have to say - about exercise physiology.

If you click under "Author Information," all of that info is false. He does not work at VA Palo Alto Health nor Stanford University, and there's no evidence he ever has. So right off the bat, his credibility is an issue.

More to your point, an example from the article: He suggests that wearing a mask can cause hypoxemia (oxygen deficit) without citing any studies that show mask-induced hypoxemia. He provides info about the dangers of hypoxemia, (“It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 [hypoxemia] and increased levels of CO2 [hypercapnia] even for a few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality.”) So he does a great job scaring us about the dangers of hypoxia, then does not provide single reference to a paper linking mask-wearing to hypoxia.

Excellent response.
However, is there any contradictory evidence to suggest that his(?) opinion is flawed? Just wondering. I hear a lot of opinions that are framed as fact on here, and some folks back up their statements with links to articles. An article that is accepted by NIH surely must have some legitimacy, or am I mistaken? Personally, I find it interesting BUT difficult to accept the author's opinion, primarily based on how many medical professionals and scientists utilize masks for hours, daily. But, that is only my opinion.

The odds of GETTING Covid after full vaccination as pointed out by Our resident Doc, Golfing Eagles, is .0006 %, so of course there are a FEW who might contract it with little to no risk of dying. If you want to go hide, that's your right. Just don't expect the rest of us to be afraid of living life. As far as Fauci goes, he goes wherever the wind blows. I have lost all faith in his pronouncements.

Maybe That cause there all being counted as COVID deaths? :ohdear:

There doesn't need to be. That's now how science and research works. It's on the researcher to prove his hypothesis. If he injects false information into his study, then the entire study is flawed and not credible. That's the end of the study. No one needs to prove that his hypothesis is incorrect. He's already invalidated it with false data.

WOW! You must have the immune system of a 16 year old. Good for you!

I'd like to see GE weigh in on this abstract.

Golfing Eagles.....where are you?

Nobody knows the long term effects of these synthetic mRNA vaccines. They haven't been used for even a year yet. They are not FDA approved. The government has promised to idemnify the manufacturers against any lawsuits resulting from long term problems. They said it would take 3 years to develop a vaccine, yet these arrived in months, thanks to Trump's "Warp Speed" approach. If anything goes wrong in the future, Trump will likely be blamed.

The NIH did not review this paper and say "this is a great paper, let's put it on our website." They put ALL papers on their website without review, even crappy ones like this.

Here's the thing. If he makes a hypothesis, he should support it with data. Why should I disprove his hypothesis when he didn't prove it in the first place?

I am a very bottom line person. For me the vaccine was a choice to die now or die later. We are still here, all of us. We may not be able to bear children in the future or we may all switch in three years to being FISCAL CONSERVATIVES.....or we may grow warts on our fannies. If a person is over seventy they were at more than moderate risk from dying from Covid-19 if they contracted it. That was o.k. for some people but for the people who are smart and sassy and vocal and feisty and who live in The Villages, they apparently weighed the risk and even if they voted (cough) the way they voted and the media says they are anti-vaccine, about 70% of us here in The Villages got the shot(s). Good for us. Now we will wait and watch. Please try not to get pregnant or impregnate others.

Not exactly -

The mRNA revolution: How COVID-19 hit fast-forward on an experimental technology

I have to laugh at all those folks who insist the mRNA vaccines were "fast tracked". They are so wrong about that. I've known for quite some time now that these vaccines had their origin stages many years ago. This is a great article. Thanks for posting.

I read that New Atlas article several days ago.

And thanks for taking part in the experiment!:icon_wink: