-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
What you didn't read all those masters degreed Taubes and Teicholz books about Fat can do no wrong?
Whether they work a lot, a little bit, or not at all no one seems to know absolutely for sure...For that reason we should definitely all be wearing masks...its a small inconvenience but there is a good case that they work at least a little bit to help prevent spreading
CDC and WHO were way off on this...another example of why you can’t trust modern day health ‘experts’ as perhaps if we all wore even make-shift masks out of t-shirts back in March then things would have never gotten so bad...we may never know
Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
no so controversial, when fresh, most masks are better than no mask, except the fleece, which seem worse than no mask.
no so controversial, when fresh, most masks are better than no mask, except the fleece, which seem worse than no mask.
Last edited:
True in that we don’t act/live like carnivores anymore, but we have the worst obesity, diabetes, cancer rates, mental illness, etc. in the history of man-kind now. Meat consumption is also at all time lows now in the history of mankind. Coincidence?
Obesity and heart disease and cancer kill many more people than Covid ever will...and having poor physical health makes Covid much deadlier...my gosh, look at all the overweight kids, what a travesty for modern day mainstream health/medical advice —> “eat your veggies, low fat foods, and exercise”
...we need to wake up to the fact that the real historic epidemic going on (obesity/diabetes/metabolic-syndrome) is not because of eating red meat since we keep being told to eat less and less than ever before yet get worse and worse...the health problems (including making Covid more deadly than it otherwise should be) is precisely because of the lack of red meat in our diets...we are being told to eat the opposite way that our bodies were designed to eat for millions of years of evolution. We hunted large mammals in tribes up until 10-20k years ago...our bodies cannot evolve to have plant-based diets in 10-20k years
Look up Dr. Weston Price
Weston Price - Wikipedia
You can think I’m nuts, but do your own research on this stuff from both sides (just like it’s important to hear both sides of TSLA bull vs. bear arguments/research), experiment eating on both sides even (like try driving a an ICE car and then a Tesla to compare experiences)...the difference here is that its not your investment accounts, it’s literally your life that depends on how thorough you can be in this nutrition/health research. I did and I am the healthiest I’ve ever been now at 41 (in as good shape as I was at 21 as a personal trainer) And got a CAC score of 0 to be sure and my blood pressure is perfect now too + many more benefits (E.g. imagine very rarely needing to use toilet paper, that’s how nature intended that function to work)
Goodluck as we all have our own journey on this front
Funny you bring them up...i have been thinking for a while that i will likely donate a significant portion of my TSLA gains to The Nutrition Coalition
more controversial
Fitted N95 is least droplet count
Valved N95 is still less than median and mean average of the masks tested.
there is an obvious conclusion here, even if not expressed in the article, is that while a valve degrades the performance of the best mask for non wearers, it still is better than the majority of masks, the logic must be that a valves ability to agglomerate and drop droplets is better than 1/2 the masks ability to filter droplets.
or in simple words, half the masks tested are less effective at protecting others, than a valve.
Last edited:
polydisperse NaCl aerosol test 2010
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
''Common fabric materials and cloth masks showed a wide variation in penetration values for polydisperse (40–90%) as well as monodisperse aerosol particles in the 20–1000 nm range (40–97%) at 5.5 cm s−1 face velocity. The penetration levels obtained for fabric materials against both polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols were much higher than the value for the control N95 respirator filter media but were in the range found for some surgical masks in previous studies. Penetrations of monodisperse aerosol particles slightly increased at 16.5 cm s−1 face velocity, while polydisperse aerosols showed no significant effect except one fabric mask with an increase. The penetration values obtained for common fabric materials indicate that only marginal respiratory protection can be expected for submicron particles taking into consideration face seal leakage''
point is, for self protection, the cloth masks are marginal, the tested range from low effectiveness (~40% penetration) to virtually useless (97% penetration) against the salty test medium.
(context, my sister's elderly father in law is somewhat diabetic, he wants a cloth mask so he can feel protected and safe to go out. How many others are willing to indulge in activities that they would otherwise avoid because they are feel protected by a cloth mask (or HCQ for that matter)?
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
''Common fabric materials and cloth masks showed a wide variation in penetration values for polydisperse (40–90%) as well as monodisperse aerosol particles in the 20–1000 nm range (40–97%) at 5.5 cm s−1 face velocity. The penetration levels obtained for fabric materials against both polydisperse and monodisperse aerosols were much higher than the value for the control N95 respirator filter media but were in the range found for some surgical masks in previous studies. Penetrations of monodisperse aerosol particles slightly increased at 16.5 cm s−1 face velocity, while polydisperse aerosols showed no significant effect except one fabric mask with an increase. The penetration values obtained for common fabric materials indicate that only marginal respiratory protection can be expected for submicron particles taking into consideration face seal leakage''
point is, for self protection, the cloth masks are marginal, the tested range from low effectiveness (~40% penetration) to virtually useless (97% penetration) against the salty test medium.
(context, my sister's elderly father in law is somewhat diabetic, he wants a cloth mask so he can feel protected and safe to go out. How many others are willing to indulge in activities that they would otherwise avoid because they are feel protected by a cloth mask (or HCQ for that matter)?
Last edited:
Taleb has very good analysis on masks...even the 40% effective masks if everyone wore them could eliminate the transmission collectively by 80-90% he suggests
[Medium] The Masks Masquerade - Nassim Taleb
I don't have the references, but I believe Fauci said that the CDC advice was so that there would be enough masks for the health care workers. Basically he (was ordered to?) lie to the public. They should have locked down, then and there, instead.
Changing from meat to highly processed non-meat isn't an improvement. Changing from meat to real food is an improvement.
Sorry but I can't let this pass. While we're using anecdotes, I live in the South where the eating of all kinds of meat is not at an all time low. It's at an all time high. And folks around here are dramatically overweight and diebetes and heart disease are through the roof.
If we want science, How Not To Die by Dr. Michael Gregor leaves the issue without reproof that a plant based whole foods diet is scientifically by far the healthiest.
As @jerry33 said above, leaving meat to other processed food may not be an improvement, and possibly can be worse than meat. But changing to unprocessed plant based food results in far better health.
Your conclusion is correct (that we all should be wearing masks) but the subtext contains significant disinformation. Even using the classic catchphrase - "nobody knows for sure" - nope. We know for sure that masks reduce transmission vectors. They don't stop the process but they reduce it significantly. That's epidemiologically significant, invaluable, and necessary.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
We never did, other than some select groups in extreme environments. Those were temporary changes of behavior not evolutionary changes to our bodies.
Our evolutionary diets were established over hundreds of thousands of years, before we developed advanced hunting capabilities. We probably were foragers and scavengers, mostly plants and bugs, with occasional meat when available. That's not a carnivore. Also not sure why you think we stopped hunting large mammals 10-20K years ago, native Americans were doing it as well as likely other native populations. They also ate a lot of plants. Most long lived populations today are heavily plant based. And don't try to use the Inuit as an example of high meat consumption and good health, that was a myth that has been completely debunked.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Take it from an ex-mod: there's a thread somewhere else for the discussion about eating meat, and it has all been said before.
We must face facts - meat is the problem
We must face facts - meat is the problem
And, of course, it doesn't help that we are far more sedentary than we were even twenty years ago. Sixty to eighty hour work weeks are more common now. There are fewer factory jobs where you move around during the day, etc.
Nope. Wrong (or at least scientifically baseless) conclusion - that a valved n95 mask is better than 1/2 of all the other types of masks due to the valve. Probably not, but you have no genuinely scientific basis for that conclusion or for excluding the more obvious possibility that this mask does better than half the other masks because the rest of the mask is n95! Why do you insist on the most unlikely interpretation of the data? And of course not surprisingly the valved n95 mask is worse than the regular n95 mask. What a surprise!
Last edited:
We don’t know this. For example the inuits eat mainly fish and thrive, Maasai warriors eat mainly cow milk, cow blood and lamb meat and thrive.
I recommend this story about a missionary who got stranded with inuits. He and his crew ate only fish until they got rescued, meanwhile some of their chronic illnesses dissappeared. When they got back home, scientists refused to believe that you could thrive on only fish, so he did an experiment to prove it by letting people observe him eating only fish for a year. Here is his text from 1926:
Stefansson 1 - Eskimos Prove An All-Meat Diet Provides Excellent Health.
According to wikipedia, the latest science don’t even show that LDL is bad:
Cholesterol - Wikipedia
Although there is a link between cholesterol and atherosclerosis as discussed above,[97] a 2014 meta-analysis concluded there is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats for cardiovascular health.[98] A 2016 review concluded there was either no link between LDL and mortality or that lower LDL was linked to a higher mortality risk, especially in older adults.[99]
Similar threads
