Dr. Dan Wilson, Covid-19 Mask Science |490|

#2
While I did give this link before on the main Covid thread, it is useful and relevant enough to be repeated here (especially since it was apparently missed by many that time):


P.S. If you have no time or desire to sit through the whole hour-and-a-half back-and-forth of the dialogue, see this short summary of Rancourt's anti-mask arguments:


P.P.S. Alex, the link to the show itself in the thread's original post is somehow missing... Like the evidence that masks are working. Yet, unlike this absent evidence, it can be definitely found and installed... ;)
 

Alex

Administrator
#3
P.P.S. Alex, the link to the show itself in the thread's original post is somehow missing... Like the evidence that masks are working. Yet, unlike this absent evidence, it can be definitely found and installed... ;)
can you explain further
 
#4
Hi Alex. You mention a list of papers from someone called "Dennis". Is that list available someplace, or can you post it here?
 
#5
I hope Dan will come on to discuss his work.

Ithought Dan came across as rather heasitant, and I think it might be an idea to use a pre-interview with such people which would just extract some of the main issues and not be published, and then give the interviewee the chance to check up on his facts ahead of the actual podcast.

One thing that neither of you really honed in on, is there are two issues with any study of a potential treatment - be it masks or statins or whatever. One is whether a study reaches statstical significance, and the other is whether the result is clinically useful. For example, if you did a study of a drug on 500,000 people and found that there was definite statistical evidence that the treated group did better, but the gain they received was on average 10 days of life in return for taking a drug for life (maybe with some side effects), would a patient consider it useful?

I wish there had been less of a docus on masks, and maybe more on papers such as this one

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29
The epidemiology of influenza swarms with incongruities, incongruities exhaustively detailed by the late British epidemiologist, Edgar Hope-Simpson. He was the first to propose a parsimonious theory explaining why influenza is, as Gregg said, "seemingly unmindful of traditional infectious disease behavioral patterns." Recent discoveries indicate vitamin D upregulates the endogenous antibiotics of innate immunity and suggest that the incongruities explored by Hope-Simpson may be secondary to the epidemiology of vitamin D deficiency. We identify – and attempt to explain – nine influenza conundrums: (1) Why is influenza both seasonal and ubiquitous and where is the virus between epidemics? (2) Why are the epidemics so explosive? (3) Why do they end so abruptly? (4) What explains the frequent coincidental timing of epidemics in countries of similar latitude? (5) Why is the serial interval obscure? (6) Why is the secondary attack rate so low? (7) Why did epidemics in previous ages spread so rapidly, despite the lack of modern transport? (8) Why does experimental inoculation of seronegative humans fail to cause illness in all the volunteers? (9) Why has influenza mortality of the aged not declined as their vaccination rates increased? We review recent discoveries about vitamin D's effects on innate immunity, human studies attempting sick-to-well transmission, naturalistic reports of human transmission, studies of serial interval, secondary attack rates, and relevant animal studies. We hypothesize that two factors explain the nine conundrums: vitamin D's seasonal and population effects on innate immunity, and the presence of a subpopulation of "good infectors." If true, our revision of Edgar Hope-Simpson's theory has profound implications for the prevention of influenza.
This relates the fascinating fact that influenza outbreaks are really hard to understand. Dr Hope-Sympson did a set of studies in which he tried to transmit Spanish flu from patients to healthy volunteers. He tried successively more severe techniques, endin up with experiments that transfered snot and mucus to the mouths of the volunteers! He did not succeed in transmitting the virus, and speculated that for someone to fall ill from the disease something else had to be wrong. The something else is now thought to be shortage of vitamin D. A number of studies have shown that this seems to be true for COVID also - yet no serious effort has been made in Britain to ensure that everyone is taking 2000 units of vitamin D (preferably D3)!

This shows how science can be used selectively.

David
 
Last edited:
#6
It seemed to me this interview ended as inconclusively as it began. Although the debate whether mask wearing has any effect re the spreading of the virus may rage on, certainly the inconvenient irritation of having to wear one is beyond debate. we all want it to be over and done with. So, if taking the vaccination will free us, we'll take it!
....why am I suspicious...?
 
#7
It's the censorship that concerns me. That and taking away constitutional rights.

This Canadian man decided it was better to accept a $880 fine which he can fight in court rather than be tested for covid and possibly be sent to a secret government covid detention facility that you have to pay $2000 for.

 

Alex

Administrator
#8
Hi Alex. You mention a list of papers from someone called "Dennis". Is that list available someplace, or can you post it here?
sure... in support of yt linked above:
Links and references provided by Denis Rancourt, PhD 1) https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/m... 2) https://www.cfp.ca/content/66/7/505 3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti... 4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB... 5) https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking... 6) https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/... 7) https://www.scribd.com/document/46246... 8) https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/...
 
#9
This interview illustrated the most fundamental problem we are experiencing in Society right now, a fundamental break from Reality.

Alex showed that the science says masks are not efficacious, and quotes from the many scientific studies concluding that.

Dr. Wilson completely ignores reality and says: "Right, but the science shows they are".

It is not possible to share a polity with people who have abandoned basic logic and reason to this degree.
 
Last edited:
#11
can you explain further
Oops. Must have been some temporary glitch on my side. The link is working. Sorry. :eek:

What about the videos I posted? Hope they were of use... Oh, I see that you posted the Rancourt's study links yourself.

Debate is still worth watching anyway, it is hilarious how easily Dennis wins and how hysterical and empty of argument his pro-mask opponent is.
 
#13
Not finished the episode yet, but thoroughly enjoying it.
A couple of things popped in my head.
1. There's no evidence that seat belts will stop all accident deaths. However, we know it does save lives. Masks are the same thing. We're talking about what percentage right now. These things take a long long time to do longitudinal studies. 10 years.
2. I've heard the complaint over and over again as to why the masks have suddenly been used when not used before. I refer people to the word "novel" in Novel Coronavirus. The global health community had (and still isn't sure) as to how infectious it is. Knowing that's the case, doesn't it make sense to be as safe as possible? In other words, recommend as many practical solutions as possible.
3. Practical solutions would include mask-wearing, social distancing, and keeping as clean as possible.
4. Whatever happened to the flu? I'll tell you, it seems that masks have done such a good job preventing COVID that it has unintentionally diminished any flu outbreaks as well.
5. I live in Nova Scotia. We have prided ourselves on the few outbreaks. That's because the people have worked very carefully to make sure that we work together to follow the recommended health protocols. Places in Canada doing worse are those that don't do that. Result? We've been mostly open because of it.

Do we need more research? Always. Regardless, it strikes me as we're doing the best with what we do know.

Finally, from a spiritual perspective. Wouldn't a good NO-cebo be that if we told people that masks and social distancing would help, that we could measure clearly that it does simply from the way we would perceive our safety.
J
 
#15
Personal anecdote:
I'm pretty sure I picked up COVID while standing in line (while wearing a mask) at the only open grocery store in downtown Austin during the first day of the polar vortex snowpocalypse (storm Uri). I didn't get tested because I didn't want the hassle. Also didn't want another positive result to justify more lockdowns. It was a typical cold ...slight fever and cough for a couple of days with achy sensitive skin. I was almost over it but then had a stressful weekend without much sleep and it came back and slammed me on my back for a few more days of fever and exhaustion all while I was trying to move apartments. Fortunately I got somewhat better the morning the movers showed up and am now mostly back to feeling normal. My wife and 18 month old never got it despite the fact that I was coughing all over the place for two weeks.
 
#16
Hi Alex: As always, an excellent show — #490 Dr. Dan Wilson, Covid-19 Mask Science. No doubt, with your inviting title “Dr. Dan Wilson has a doctorate in biology, but misfires on the science to public health policy link,” you’ve got your finger applying direct pressure on this Covid-19 mandatory mask pulse BS.

Here’s one for you to think about: Why Science is Wrong … About Almost Everything — Dr. T’s take: Dr. T & Fun With Science.

With Dr. T’s take on your thesis, the question that logically follows is: What else can one expect from a recently minted PhD— Dr. Dan Wilson—who now is in search of his hustle—a hustle to be funded by potential corporate sponsors? —What else can one expect but “scientific proof” of current policies, i.e., mandated masks and PPE, put in place by the money and power of those very same potential corporate sponsors?

The one thing missing from your approach to such outright double-talk nonsense on show #490 (Please don’t make me go back and listen to Dr. Wilson’s feeble attempts to shield himself from any matter of policy, while at the same time curiously skewing “science” toward those same current inane corporate-funded policies!) —The one thing missing from your approach was an alternate source—other than yourself—to call Dr. Wilson to task.

May I present such a source here, Ms. Tammy Clark, an OSHA [Occupational Health and Safety] Credentialed Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Compliance Expert. Ms. Clark recently (3/1/2021) provided testimony to the New Hampshire House of Representatives Legislative Administration Hearing of Monday, March 1st. Her testimony appears from 1:24:18 – 1:32:34. I’ve provided a transcription of that testimony below:

NH Legislative Administration Chair: The Chair recognizes Tammy Clark.

Tammy Clark: Good morning. Can you hear me?

NH Legislative Administration Chair: We can. Thank you, and welcome.

Tammy Clark: OK. Thank you very much.

I was invited to speak today by Rep. Melissa Blasek. And I just wanted to offer some expert testimony on the whole issue regarding face masks and the mandatory wearing of PPE. I am, by career, an OSHA [Occupational Health and Safety] credentialed environmental and occupational health and safety compliance expert. I am a court approved legal expert—subject matter expert—on all things health, safety compliance, and PPE related.
When these mandates first came out, it was people like me—industrial hygienists, environmental health and safety professionals—that really started speaking up because what we are doing in mandating the forced wearing of face masks really flies in the face of OSHA standards.

For example, in the workplace, in the work environment, when there is a known hazard, when there is a risk of hazard exposure, an Occupational Health and Safety Expert will do a risk analysis to determine what the employee, or what the people, are exposed to. From that point, they follow what is called “The Hierarchy of Safety and Controls.” PPE is always the last line of defense. We never, ever, mandatorily use a blanket “one-size-fits-all” mandate to put people in any type of PPE—especially respiratory protection. This is the reason OSHA created the respiratory protection standard and the PPE standards in 1979.

By covering the mouth and nose, exerting energy, and going about our work tasks, we were giving people heart attacks. It is very taxing on the cardio-pulmonary system to cover the mouth and nose and forcibly require someone to go about their business or work, exert energy, without controlling the environment temperature, humidity, and implementing what’s called “Work/Rest Cycles.” In other words, the covering of the mouth and nose inhibits oxygen intake by up to 20%. This is proven and documented by NIOSH (The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) and OSHA’s own studies going back to 1970.

What OSHA has done and what the government has done [with mask mandates] has bypassed all of the Hierarchy of Safety and Controls and they have completely swept decades-worth of science and data on the wearing of face masks, on the use of PPE, and they have swept it under the rug as if it does not exist.

Those in my career field have been trying to sound the alarm, but we have been silenced. There is not one industrial hygienist, environmental health and safety professional, or occupational health and safety professional, or an occupational doctor, for that matter, on any of these Covid-19 task forces. —Why is that? —Because they don’t want to hear from us.

What we are saying is that we are taking the absolute wrong approach, and we are creating a greater hazard for the population, not only for working individuals, but also for children. The forced wearing of masks is extremely dangerous. We know this. We have the tests. We have the data. We have the science. We have randomized control tests—which is the mother of all scientific tests—with meta-analysis going back to the early 1970s on all of this. And yet, they’re telling us, “Just cover your mouth and nose” —with whatever, cloth, surgical masks, home-made face masks— it doesn’t matter. They’re telling you that will protect you. And it is absolutely false.

We have test after test after test that show not only does a surgical mask or a cloth face mask not protect you from respiratory viral transmission, but it also creates a greater hazard. This is why in a hospital setting doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers, when they wear surgical masks—which, by the way are not designed or rated to protect against a virus—they are only rated to protect against bacterial splashes—this is why there is rampant infection among healthcare workers in hospitals, with respiratory illnesses like influenza, flu, and things like this.

They have studied this. Why is it that healthcare workers are wearing surgical masks yet they pass the flu? —respiratory illnesses pass like crazy. Well that’s because the PPE that they’re wearing is not designed or rated to protect against viral transmission of respiratory infectious diseases.
So we know—we know through testing—we know through studies—which is very well documented and I will submit in my written testimony—that we cannot use anything that is homemade cloth, surgical masks, etc. to protect the wearer or somebody nearby the wearer from the spread of an infectious disease through a viron. The viruses are so tiny they will pass through the membrane of that material. The only PPE that is rated and tested—that will knowingly protect the wearer or those nearby the wearer from the spread of infectious disease through viron is what’s called a CAPR or a PAPR—these are the big spaceship-looking hoods. Anybody working on an infectious disease ward—you will see them working in these big self-contained respirators. They’re not wearing surgical masks on infectious disease wards. There’s a reason for this.

So to take this approach—that we’re just going to mandate that everybody wear a face mask—is so irresponsible. It is so unethical. And it drives me crazy because I look around and I see all these kids that are very, very sensitive to oxygen saturation. And I see all these children wearing face masks. I see everyday people walking around in face masks. And yet their environment is not a micro-controlled environment, such as a surgical center, or a hospital. And this is why doctors and nurses work in a carefully controlled environment—because they are wearing face coverings. So the temperature is lower. The humidity is lower. The oxygen output is higher. There are increased additional air cycle exchanges—for a reason. —Because they’re working with their mouth and nose covered. Even then, they have to stop and take Work/Rest Cycles. They are trained on how to properly don and doff that mask.

Are we all trained in the public? —No. —So people are touching their —

NH Legislative Administration Chair: We have to wrap this up a little bit.

Tammy Clark: OK.

So, overall, I just wanted to offer my expert, professional testimony because what these government officials are doing is putting the population at great risk. There’s no training for the public. We are seeing the infectious diseases like bacterial pneumonia, staph, perioral dermatitis skyrocket. And that is a direct result of inappropriate and irresponsible mandating of PPE wearing without following the OSHA standards.

NH Legislative Administration Chair: Thank you. Will you take questions from the committee?

Tammy Clark: Sure.

NH Legislative Administration Chair: Are there any questions from the committee? … Being none, thank you for your testimony.

Tammy Clark: Thank you.
 
Last edited:
#17
The science and cost/benefit ratio for throwing people in jail for not wearing seat belts is solid, and well-established.

The science and cost/benefit ratio for throwing people in jail for not wearing masks is not.
Why are we throwing people in jail? Did I miss something?
I'm assuming people won't be assholes and try to get other people ill. But if they aren't a fine is certainly enough. A hefty fine.
 
#19
Dr. Dan Wilson, Covid-19 Mask Science |490|
by Alex Tsakiris | Mar 2 | Skepticism
Share
Tweet

Dr. Dan Wilson has a doctorate in biology, but misfires on the science to public health policy link.
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were just an anti-masker Alex, judging by the way you interviewed Dr. Wilson. While I'm on the subject of an ad hominem fallacy masquerading (pun intended) as logic, I couldn't help but notice how your interviewee used the terms 'anti-vaxxers' and 'COVID deniers' early in his deliberations. Call me old fashioned, but I think that logic is important. In the case of ad hominem, it diverts the discussion away from the matter in hand towards the person who possesses a contrary opinion, or argument. To be fair to Dr. Wilson, I don't think he was doing this consciously. As a budding member of the coming technocracy that will be obeyed, it has been instilled into him throughout his many years of highly specialised schooling, to the extent that hubris is now second nature. A linguistic curiosity that he shares with so many other scientists is his habit of using the term 'mechanism' as a metaphor to describe biological processes. It's natural to them, they don't recognise that it is a metaphor and it's nearly ubiquitous in the language of the scientific community. The problem is that metaphors can shape how we define reality and, if truth were known, this particular mechanistic metaphor has a lot to do with why we're in this mess today.
 
#20
Not finished the episode yet, but thoroughly enjoying it.
A couple of things popped in my head.
1. There's no evidence that seat belts will stop all accident deaths. However, we know it does save lives. Masks are the same thing. We're talking about what percentage right now. These things take a long long time to do longitudinal studies. 10 years.
2. I've heard the complaint over and over again as to why the masks have suddenly been used when not used before. I refer people to the word "novel" in Novel Coronavirus. The global health community had (and still isn't sure) as to how infectious it is. Knowing that's the case, doesn't it make sense to be as safe as possible? In other words, recommend as many practical solutions as possible.
3. Practical solutions would include mask-wearing, social distancing, and keeping as clean as possible.
4. Whatever happened to the flu? I'll tell you, it seems that masks have done such a good job preventing COVID that it has unintentionally diminished any flu outbreaks as well.
5. I live in Nova Scotia. We have prided ourselves on the few outbreaks. That's because the people have worked very carefully to make sure that we work together to follow the recommended health protocols. Places in Canada doing worse are those that don't do that. Result? We've been mostly open because of it.

Do we need more research? Always. Regardless, it strikes me as we're doing the best with what we do know.

Finally, from a spiritual perspective. Wouldn't a good NO-cebo be that if we told people that masks and social distancing would help, that we could measure clearly that it does simply from the way we would perceive our safety.
J
God I don't know where to begin.....
 
Top