I completely agree about the filtration; the airline presidents were completely correct in their testimony.
I have some depressing (for the purposes of this conversation) video showing leakage on N95 masks from my lab using Schlieren imaging. You will be astonished at the leakage, especially around the nose, of a professionally fitted, …
I completely agree about the filtration; the airline presidents were completely correct in their testimony.
I have some depressing (for the purposes of this conversation) video showing leakage on N95 masks from my lab using Schlieren imaging. You will be astonished at the leakage, especially around the nose, of a professionally fitted, fresh N95 mask. But I have no idea how to post it. I can reduce it to one PowerPoint slide with two embedded videos that will give you pause. If you want to create a one-use email address (or post one you do not mind posting) I will send you the slide (assuming you have PowerPoint).
Well it turns out it is too big to attach to an email...surprised even me. But Adobe gave me a link (who knew I had this option?...lol) so here it is. You will have to download it to play the two videos -- the link displays a pdf but has a download icon to get the powerpoint. Let me know if you can pull it off.
Yeah, got it. Though not entirely sure what I'm looking at . But you're right, there still is significant flow....but no where near as much as with the surgical mask.
Curious as to what you think of nasal sprays. Seems to be better RCT trial research data (see link below) using very dilute povidine iodine nasal sprays as a virucide than any research data supporting the use of masks.
Glad you could see it. The experimental subject is essentially on the left of the picture with the nose at the top. You are correct that the surgical mask shows that it is useless which I expected, but I was personally surprised by the extensive leakage of the professionally fitted N95 mask. Close to useless except not quite as useless as the surgical mask.
I am generally familiar with the nasal iodine spray and everything I see says that it is a far better solution (no pun intended...) than the masks. At least it does SOMETHING one can document. I know a fair number of folks who are using the iodine sprays and swear by them, but, of course, that is all anecdotal. But it cannot hurt and looks like it might actually help. That is a great leap forward from most of the things being used/proposed these days.
FWIW here's something I wrote on the subject of nasal sprays including a clip from Dr. McCullough. I just wanted to get your point of view before sharing any of my own thoughts on this item
I had an additional thought on this subject of mask studies, which was similar to how I felt about the vaccine trials. Both types of studies are ethically constrained. If you treated humans like rhesus monkeys, you could get better data.
So say you get 10,000 people all of whom have never been previously infected as confirmed by t-cell and antibody tests, etc. Split those into five groups each with an N of 2000 all with a similar balance of demographic make-up. So you have one group without masks, one with cloth masks, one with surgical masks, one with N95 quality masks, and one with fitted N95 quality masks.
Then take each of those groups and sit 1000 of them in a poorly ventilated room full of airborne aerosolized virion for a half hour and the other 1000 in the same conditions for an hour.
At the end of each 1/2 and hour for each group, take several PCR swabs at different cycle threshold levels, say 20 CT's, 24 CT's, 28 CT's, 32 CT's and 35 CT's.
And voila now you have some actual data, and the RCT isn't just a very confounded numbers game where most people in the study never get exposed.
The Danish study, published in Annals, came about as close as one could get, although there were only two groups. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 But 3,000 in each group. I reviewed the original study, but then other reviewers made them water down the strong conclusions about no value to making until it became milquetoast-y. But it still makes the point that there is virtually no RCT verifiable benefit to masking. The Bangladesh study to which Vinay sometimes refers is so flawed as to make it useless. And the rest that in any way support masking are, frankly, so bad as to have been unpublishable at any other point in history.
The Danish Study kind of demonstrates my point. At the time that study was done, the virus prevalence was very low so not many people in either group were that randomly exposed, and even fewer got infected...plus compliance with the mask wearing arm was low. So basically nothing other than masks not working could be concluded from that study.
Thus, my completely unethical study design gets rid of all that happenstance and treats humans just like lab rats.
I am, of course being facetious, and really just pointing out the ethical constraints of doing this research if your name isn't Josef Mengele
I completely agree about the filtration; the airline presidents were completely correct in their testimony.
I have some depressing (for the purposes of this conversation) video showing leakage on N95 masks from my lab using Schlieren imaging. You will be astonished at the leakage, especially around the nose, of a professionally fitted, fresh N95 mask. But I have no idea how to post it. I can reduce it to one PowerPoint slide with two embedded videos that will give you pause. If you want to create a one-use email address (or post one you do not mind posting) I will send you the slide (assuming you have PowerPoint).
Well it turns out it is too big to attach to an email...surprised even me. But Adobe gave me a link (who knew I had this option?...lol) so here it is. You will have to download it to play the two videos -- the link displays a pdf but has a download icon to get the powerpoint. Let me know if you can pull it off.
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:eced91c5-a2b4-4b04-bbcb-d4ca3fa32de9
Yeah, got it. Though not entirely sure what I'm looking at . But you're right, there still is significant flow....but no where near as much as with the surgical mask.
Curious as to what you think of nasal sprays. Seems to be better RCT trial research data (see link below) using very dilute povidine iodine nasal sprays as a virucide than any research data supporting the use of masks.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=chowdhury%20covid%20povidone&btnG&fbclid=IwAR3KFNuzy-ACOe7jtLON6_i6A6zXn5VRY-JUIDTYnPGdNWzRq_U36YL2YvU
Glad you could see it. The experimental subject is essentially on the left of the picture with the nose at the top. You are correct that the surgical mask shows that it is useless which I expected, but I was personally surprised by the extensive leakage of the professionally fitted N95 mask. Close to useless except not quite as useless as the surgical mask.
I am generally familiar with the nasal iodine spray and everything I see says that it is a far better solution (no pun intended...) than the masks. At least it does SOMETHING one can document. I know a fair number of folks who are using the iodine sprays and swear by them, but, of course, that is all anecdotal. But it cannot hurt and looks like it might actually help. That is a great leap forward from most of the things being used/proposed these days.
FWIW here's something I wrote on the subject of nasal sprays including a clip from Dr. McCullough. I just wanted to get your point of view before sharing any of my own thoughts on this item
https://beyondspin.wordpress.com/2021/11/26/a-simple-way-to-reduce-viral-loads/
##
I had an additional thought on this subject of mask studies, which was similar to how I felt about the vaccine trials. Both types of studies are ethically constrained. If you treated humans like rhesus monkeys, you could get better data.
So say you get 10,000 people all of whom have never been previously infected as confirmed by t-cell and antibody tests, etc. Split those into five groups each with an N of 2000 all with a similar balance of demographic make-up. So you have one group without masks, one with cloth masks, one with surgical masks, one with N95 quality masks, and one with fitted N95 quality masks.
Then take each of those groups and sit 1000 of them in a poorly ventilated room full of airborne aerosolized virion for a half hour and the other 1000 in the same conditions for an hour.
At the end of each 1/2 and hour for each group, take several PCR swabs at different cycle threshold levels, say 20 CT's, 24 CT's, 28 CT's, 32 CT's and 35 CT's.
And voila now you have some actual data, and the RCT isn't just a very confounded numbers game where most people in the study never get exposed.
Darn ethics ... LOL.
The Danish study, published in Annals, came about as close as one could get, although there were only two groups. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 But 3,000 in each group. I reviewed the original study, but then other reviewers made them water down the strong conclusions about no value to making until it became milquetoast-y. But it still makes the point that there is virtually no RCT verifiable benefit to masking. The Bangladesh study to which Vinay sometimes refers is so flawed as to make it useless. And the rest that in any way support masking are, frankly, so bad as to have been unpublishable at any other point in history.
The Danish Study kind of demonstrates my point. At the time that study was done, the virus prevalence was very low so not many people in either group were that randomly exposed, and even fewer got infected...plus compliance with the mask wearing arm was low. So basically nothing other than masks not working could be concluded from that study.
Thus, my completely unethical study design gets rid of all that happenstance and treats humans just like lab rats.
I am, of course being facetious, and really just pointing out the ethical constraints of doing this research if your name isn't Josef Mengele