Experimental Requirements?

FDA & OSHA have stated publicly that "only respirators, not masks, are considered valid PPE to block transmission of respiratory virus'", hence why you will find a disclaimer somewhere on your mask box that will say "Does NOT protect against COVID-19".

So masks don't work? Eh, they work...just not the way you expect. As mentioned many times in the past, only a N95 would be suitable, and even then, you would need to have it fitted correctly first and foremost. I'm a plumber, have been for 10 years. I've worked on World Trade Center One, Domino Sugar Factory, Hudson River Yards, ect. You know what you're not allowed to have on any of these jobs if you're required to wear a mask?

Beards. These are large union jobs, so everything is done by-the-book.

Liability issues. If you have even a short stubble of hair on your chinny chin chin, you just failed your N95 safety mask test and are now breathing in asbestos and silica particles. When I say "masks need to be fitted", I do not joke or say it lightly. Furthermore, you take an OSHA class, today its 30 HR OSHA. In your OSHA class, you spend a good hour + learning just about your mask, how to use it, how to apply it, and how to properly store it.

So how did the government get around mandating ineffective PPE? Emergency use authorization... Oh, you thought the vaccine was the only EUA? Masks too.

On April 18, 2020, in response to concerns relating to insufficient supply and availability of face masks,1,2 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authorizing the use of face masks for use by members of the general public

www.fda.gov...

Ironically, they say the following:

"A face mask is a device, with or without a face shield, that covers the user's nose and mouth and may or may not meet fluid barrier or filtration efficiency levels."

www.fda.gov...

The following link is the official requirements for wearing an N95 mask (if you're mandated, it's the same as being on a job where you NEED to wear one in this circumstance).

www.osha.gov...

This would require:
Fit Testing,
Training
Proper breaks
And a medical exam in order for governments or businesses to demand that people use them in various settings.

What have we established? As per the FDA/OSHA, a "MASK" is considered an "EXPERIMENTAL" medical device under the EUA because it has been stated, documented and well known (even with the disclaimers on the boxes) that the typical masks people wear are not effective against c19, hence the "experimentation".

Now we ask the question, does the government have the ability to coerce a person into taking an experimental or using an experimental drug/item?

Not unless you give your consent and permission.

"Well, you have to do it anyway, or we'll punish you"

And that's how Nuremberg ties into this.

The FIRST sentence in the FIRST point of order:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

As early as 1969, in Strunk V. Strunk, Judge Samuel Steinfeld argued that the Nuremberg code should apply to American jurisprudence

*Disclaimer, Big thanks to John Rich last night on Pim Tools podcast for bringing this point up that's been minimally hashed out already.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Ask anyone with hazardous materials training about how effective masks really are.
Especially on those with facial hair...

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

*sigh*, you are going to make me post that meme of the NPC's pissing on each other's legs aren't you.
Sure the masks (made from T-shirt material) work as well as putting fishnet stockings over you head, but studies have been done, and while they are massively flawed, the conclusions they came up with (before the studies were even thought of) state clearly that masks work. We don't need to dig any deeper into that answer, like asking how well they work, just "trust the science".

2020: the year that moisture condensation on a solid surface became a liberal hoax.

a reply to: LordAhriman

“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

- "The Science"

originally posted by: LordAhriman
2020: the year that moisture condensation on a solid surface became a liberal hoax.

ATS, a site where you need not read the OP, or linked articles, just tell everyone about your feelz.

Isn’t a conclusion without evidence an assumption?

If I recall correctly an assumption is permissible in a contract. Makes me wonder if there’s a not for profit out there called the science.

Also makes me wonder how many ways there are to agree to make a contract.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

*sigh*, you are going to make me post that meme of the NPC's pissing on each other's legs aren't you.
Sure the masks (made from T-shirt material) work as well as putting fishnet stockings over you head, but studies have been done, and while they are massively flawed, the conclusions they came up with (before the studies were even thought of) state clearly that masks work. We don't need to dig any deeper into that answer, like asking how well they work, just "trust the science".

I think I posted links to the FDA that refute that claim.

Quote again, and bolding:

"A face mask is a device, with or without a face shield, that covers the user's nose and mouth and may or may not meet fluid barrier or filtration efficiency levels."

Hence......

Emergency Use Authorization to authorize the use of "experimental" devices that are not 100% known to work....Without a Emergency Use Authorization, the government cannot authorize and coerce you to do something that they can be held liable for..especially with the foreknowledge and data that shows contrary results to their expectation.

I'll include more relevant information:

Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions

www.fda.gov... /emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization

The words are on the page.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LordAhriman

“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

- "The Science"

No one ever claimed it was perfect. If you don't understand how some of the projected moisture from your mouth and nose is stopped by even the most basic mask, I am surprised that you are able to use the internet to even be here.

a reply to: LordAhriman

Tell me how mandating an admitted flawed strategy helps the overall cause.

Also, which science should I follow since there is a clear break in the messaging?

Go, show me how to use these interwebs.

Good OP.

I'm a tradesman as well, (boiler industry) and I have been telling folks the same since this crap began. I've been fit tested many times over my career, N95, half face filter and full face filter. So only too obvious how ridiculous it is to think a loose fitting chin diaper is going to save us all from getting sick on a plane 🙄

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LordAhriman

Tell me how mandating an admitted flawed strategy helps the overall cause.

Also, which science should I follow since there is a clear break in the messaging?

Go, show me how to use these interwebs.

Everything is flawed. If it's not perfect, it's flawed.

I went to the doctor in 2018 with the flu, and they asked me to wear a mask.

They help. They're not a forcefield, but they help. It's stuff we figured out about 100 years ago.

Do your own science. If (blank) then (hypothesis).

If you breathe on a mirror what will happen? If you put on a mask and do it again what will happen?

SARS-COV-2 travels in moisture from your breath.

My hypothesis is that if you have a mask on, then there will be less moisture on the mirror, if any at all.

a reply to: LordAhriman

What part of that represents the reasons for mandating masks?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LordAhriman

What part of that represents the reasons for mandating masks?

At what moment did any of you actually follow the "mandate"?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LordAhriman

What part of that represents the reasons for mandating masks?

At what moment did any of you actually follow the "mandate"?

Thats beside the point.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LordAhriman

What part of that represents the reasons for mandating masks?

At what moment did any of you actually follow the "mandate"?

Thats beside the point.

It is not. You can't say it didn't work if half of the country didn't participate.

a reply to: LordAhriman

You, nor the govt, met any bar evidence to reinforce mask mandates.

Even fauci declared as much.

a reply to: LordAhriman

Do your own science.

OK.

You are correct in that a cloth mask will block some of the moisture coming from one's mouth. You are also correct in saying that a substantial portion of exhaled virus particles travel in moisture. No argument there. Now let's go a step beyond that: what happens after one breathes out those particles in moisture and they are trapped by the cloth?

Hint: they don't just disappear. That's magic, not science.

If we assume for the moment that the moisture is all (or even mostly) captured, then the cloth will become wet. Wet cloth creates a barrier to the free exchange of gases, since the surface tension of the water will cause the water to "stretch" across the gaps in the mask. That means one has to breath harder to get the same amount of gas exchange. Lungs are not designed to produce pressures as great as what is needed to compensate for this needed additional pressure, so gas exchange is restricted.

Open air generally contains about 21% oxygen and 0.04% carbon dioxide. However, since the human body uses oxygen and produces carbon dioxide in exothermic cellular reactions, exhaled air contains on average 16% oxygen and 4% carbon dioxide. Normally, the act of exhaling and then inhaling moves the carbon dioxide away from the face so the next breath can be of open air. However, since the free exchange of gases is restricted when wearing a mask, this cannot happen. Even though some fresh air will enter the mask and some exhaled air will exit the mask, this amount will be far less than without a mask.

Ever walk into a crowded room and noticed the air feels "stuffy"? That's a high carbon dioxide level, typically between 1000 and 3000 ppmv. For reference, fresh air presently runs around 400 ppmv carbon dioxide. Now, consider that instead of a small room, say for example 1200 cubic feet with four people in it, a face mask which is sealed and moist encloses maybe a couple of cubic inches of volume... that would be around 0.0012 cubic feet or 1/1,000,000 (one millionth) as much space. Only one person is breathing into it, but cutting the input to a fourth is insignificant when the volume is cut to a millionth.

So if we make that assumption, we admit that the excess carbon dioxide buildup becomes dangerously high while the oxygen levels drop dangerously low. That's science... here's a link to a study published by the Smithsonian. Here's the results in chart form on IQ comparisons:

Now let's make the assumption that the masks only partially block the moisture, by a low enough amount to make the previous argument moot. For that to happen, there must be a free exchange of gasses, which means the cloth cannot become saturated with moisture to the point that surface tension becomes an issue. In this case, the air flow is unrestricted and the air is exchanged freely with the surrounding air. That would mean that the majority of the components of the exhaled air, including the virus particles, would exit the mask as though it wasn't even there. In that case, the mask has done nothing to prevent the exhalation of virus particles.

At least one of our assumptions must be correct, although it is also possible both are correct in varying degrees. So at least one of two things must be happening as a result of wearing a face mask: either the wearer is starving themselves of oxygen and blocking the release of carbon dioxide from their bodies, the masks are ineffective, or a combination of both.

Still want to talk about science?

By the way, your two weeks that started in early 2020? They're up. Check your calendar.

TheRedneck