3 ms·
> > Are you able to prove that there are no deleterious effects? > That's not how it works - the side making a claim has to provide evidence. Lol! Who is mak
by feralimal 6y ago
> > Are you able to prove that there are no deleterious effects?
> That's not how it works - the side making a claim has to provide evidence.
Lol! Who is making the claim? Is it me who's saying that we should be able to breath as nature intended (without masks)? Or you who's saying that we should wear masks? Who has to prove their case do you think?!?
And a breaking story - "Covid-19 study on mask-wearing efficacy rejected by journals"
https://www.rt.com/news/504219-danish-mask-study-rejected-coronavirus/ https://www.rt.com/news/504219-danish-mask-study-rejected-co...
No one will publish the study...
- edmundsauto 6y ago> Lol! Who is making the claim? You are making the claim that masks hinder respiration. This has not been supported by evidence, theoretical or outcome based. What is your hypothesis for the mechanism? We know that gases diffuse through the material. > No one will publish the study... The fact that a single study is problematic - without specifying why it's problematic, and without any mention of the many other studies - is not a very strong discussion point. I appreciate the time you put in, but I think we're so far apart that I don't see any reason to continue this thread.