Of course it is. See the couple of posts above yours for reference.

Ignore the hypothesis if you want. The actual statistics they cite to form their opinions are valid, IMO. This is like using Wikipedia to write a research paper. You're not going to list Wikipedia on your bibliography, but those primary resources used to write the article aren't any less valid because of where they're cited.

Take it up with Stanford - one of the premier research institutions in America.

The science is becoming more and more clear by the day. Masks are useless at best, devastating to our long term health at worst. Neither are good reasons to wear one.

"Science Discovery for the classroom" says AMGEN.

AMGEN = A multinational biotechnical corporation based in the USA. Hmmmmmmm

The Stanford report is real. The findings are real. Its conclusions and science to support its Hypothesis seem to add up. In science experiments you do know one states a hypothesis then seeks to prove it. You know this right?

The crux of the AMGEN propaganda is so far removed from "science" the irony is thick.

I'd like to see what AMGEN and their "Science Discovery for the classroom" has to say about GoF studies conducted at a little ole class 4 lab in Wuhan, China.

Yeah, don't think they'll go there.

So much for "science" so much for critical thought. Sad what they teach the teachers these days.

I didn't even bother to address the AMGEN rebuttal. Among their 4 objections to the study were that it included a misspelled word, included an "indirect suggestion" they didn't like, and that the authors didn't list specific page numbers for the studies they cited.

Not even worth the time to debate, IMO.

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the point of this post beyond all of the crying.

It's been a year. Shut up.

Another substantive constructive post!

LOL

Year one: TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE!!!1!

Year two: nOt ThAt ScIeNcE!!!1!

Also year two: YoU'Ve AlReAdY bEeN fOlLoWiNg tHeSe StUpId RuLeS fOr A wHoLe YeAr So WhO cArEs?!??!11??

BAHAHAHAHA

The jokes write themselves. You are a walking stereotype.


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jWBTM5MBixE/maxresdefault.jpg

At some point you gotta stop coddling the babies and let them cry it out.

Yep, so a different website with a different political agenda says this is all fake science - OK, but do we ever ask why? Did you check any of the citations in the article to see if they did in fact support the authors claims of masking having health impacts? Like this piece, an actual RCT study done before COVID:

The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease

Methods: ESRD patients who received regular HD at National Taiwan University Hospital between April to June 2003 were enrolled. Each patient wore a new N95 mask (3M Model 8210) during HD (4 hours). Vital signs, clinical symptoms and arterial blood gas measured before and at the end of HD were compared.

Results: Thirty nine patients (23 men; mean age, 57.2 years) were recruited for participation in the study. Seventy percent of the patients showed a reduction in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), and 19% developed various degrees of hypoxemia. Wearing an N95 mask significantly reduced the PaO2 level (101.7 +/- 12.6 to 92.7 +/- 15.8 mm Hg, p = 0.006), increased the respiratory rate (16.8 +/- 2.8 to 18.8 +/- 2.7/min, p < 0.001), and increased the occurrence of chest discomfort (3 to 11 patients, p = 0.014) and respiratory distress (1 to 17 patients, p < 0.001). Baseline PaO2 level was the only significant predictor of the magnitude of PaO2 reduction (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours during HD significantly reduced PaO2 and increased respiratory adverse effects in ESRD patients.

Sure, nothing I would want to call completely conclusive, but it is valid and does support the authors contention. Why are you (and politifact) so quick to throw that out? Do you only believe the science that supports your preconceived notions then?

Many decades ago, before internet and the TV stations were all local and went off the air at 11PM, I was on the school newspaper staff and we were taught this.

The first paragraph of all articles had to have a synopsis of these things; who, what, where, when why and how. The most important part was a catchy headline to draw the reader's attention to the article.

Why a catchy headline and brief synopsis in the first paragraph? Because that is all people will read!

Nothing has changed, except now the headline is call "click bait," and everything is either a dumb video or an opinion piece repeating the popular headlines of the day.

Assuming the paper is from Stanford, I'd say it has far more weight than the AMGEN group. Maybe, unless one has a political and financial interest connection with the NIH.

"Amgen Inc. (formerly A pplied M olecular Gen etics Inc.) is an American multinational biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California. One of the world's largest independent biotechnology companies, Amgen was established in Thousand Oaks, California, in 1980."
2020 revenue, $25 billion.

So what stake does AMGEN have in disagreeing and essentially mocking Stanford?

https://www.amgen.com/responsibility...se-to-covid-19

• Amgen is participating in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Foundation for the NIH’s Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines partnership and the COVID R&D Alliance, a group of more than 20 R&D heads of the world’s leading biopharmaceutical and life science companies working to speed the development of potential therapies, novel antibodies and anti-viral therapies for COVID-19 and its related symptoms.

Fauci:

"The 80-year-old Dr. Fauci holds a medical degree from Cornell University and began his 53-year career at NIH in 1968. He assumed his NIAID Director position in 1984 and has advised every president since President Ronald Reagan, though he serves directly under the NIH Director Francis Collins."

You all be the judge.

Now do politifact