Side note: his comment about decreased O2 is garbage. 3% diff, small N, and the ppl had no subjective effect
I have noted he has put this in print before.
The intro suggests the harms are severe, but pulling the _citations_, which I should not have to spend my time doing, revealed that they were about acne.
He also wrote this piece on behalf of the @WHO, which was meant to support droplets, but actually proved ventilation was great because they didn't check their citations well enough.
No effect of N95 masks. 1 hr slow walking = nothing. 4 hours = slight increase in respiratory effort prob the moisture.
When a view doesn't accord with actual science, the arguments become more specious and desperate. I leave to readers to decide if we hit that point.
It would be noteworthy and that's it, if it weren't deadly. No mask _will_ statistically lead to death.
No mask, or surgical vs N95. I treat them the same because surgical masks are not designed to stop aerosols. Period.
The arg against is technical, to say this study or that study is not proof ENOUGH that they work.
But since surgical never meant for aerosols, we are done here
Interesting side note:
Copernicus discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
This upset lots of established people. They really wanted the Earth at the centre. They attacked Copernicus' ideas.
Want some fun?
Tolosani attacked Copernicus and his ideas.
What did he say?
** You have not sufficiently PROVEN your theory. **
Does this sound familiar?
What do I keep saying about humans repeating repeating repeating everything?
The nice thing is that when you have looked at the totality of the evidence and you see that these things all spread in small aerosols and infection is statistics, you can just sit back and wait. You know the sea change is coming.
(Different strains in animals may yes be more transmissible. They mght bind less well to the recipient cell receptor. Or bind only to a receptor deeper in the lung. But this is observing how well, not how, they transmit.)
Psst, in actual fact, @WHO's committee on COVID-19 transmission modes is logjammed by some of its members. They refuse to admit SARS-CoV-2 is in the air.
So @WHO has to quote any old doc mentioning "air" to get around its own committee
Not very actively, apparently, since it's April 2021 now and no change.
The clear statement that SARS-CoV-2 transmits via droplets (that fall to ground) is found also in @WHO's mask guidance from June 2020 @ apps.who.int/iris/handle/10….