Kyle over and over argued that it didn't make any difference if masks were harmful. All we cared about was effectiveness. And if they prevented Covid -- well that was good enough for him, and, therefore should be good enough for all of us.
But why do we want to prevent Covid? Isn't it to save us from harm? So if we kill ourselves to prevent dying from Covid--surely that is not an optimal solution?
Denis. I am impressed by your stance during the debate. I am sure I would not be able to maintain a calm voice in the same situation, against an allegedly expert in logic, shouting at me complete illogical arguments:
- Kyle assumes that masks work, because they filter stuff.
- You show that, no. They don't work in the real world. And offer plausible arguments why is that. But this is just something you do because you are a nice person. You don't really have to.
- Kyle says: but they do work. They filter stuff. I have proved it to you (tip: no, he hasn't).
And so on and so on.
It is a pity that the format of the event did not gave you the opportunity to properly refute his example of your misrepresentation of the SARS related study. That was your only weak point during the debate, as far as I am concerned.
Also, I fear that this video has not aged well for poor Kyle.
That was definitely as entertaining as I remember it from 3 years ago!
I'll always be tremendously thankful for your "Masks Don't Work" article on a personal level. It was one of the very early signs that indicated something was truly amiss with this whole unfortunate situation. It helped me to seek the truth about what was happening and not get caught up solely in what was presented in the mainstream media. Thank you again for being a beacon of truth!
Hands down, Denis wins. I occasionally used a mask (N95 or KN95) COVID-19 and prior to COVID-19 when I was immunocompromomized from chemotherapy) BEFORE entering an enclosed/confined area with other peope who may be sick.l
I watched this around February '21. Excruciating. What a low-life debate opponent. The corruption of superior education is almost a total by now. These kind of people never knew any virtue.
I just finished a course in epidemiology taught by IPAK-EDU.ORG. Double blind randomized studies are not the only studies that can show/prove efficacy. I wasn't a good student, but I think case control studies and observational studies and other kinds of studies can also provide useful evidence. Many people argued that VAERS adverse reactions are only coincidental--no proof of causation. But Jessica Rose argued that there were these laws that enabled her to argue causation was probably. The one rule I remember was propinquity in time. I.e. if people are more likely to drop dead from anaphylactic shock immediately after vaccination--this is a strong argument for causation. She stated that if the association was just coincidental or random, the adverse reactions would not be correlated in time but spread out throughout the year. But that didn't happen. Adverse reactions were far more likely to occur in the first 2 weeks after injection. A strong argument, then, that they were associated. I did argue in one class that relying only on randomized double blind trials panders to big pharma. Because large pharmaceutical companies are virtually the only players capable of funding such studies. That means, usually, that it is very hard to complete studies that go against the corporate donors. Gary Null argued years ago that it is virtually impossible to get a study completed or published testing supplements, generic or off label drugs (vitamin D? Vitamin C injections against sepsis? Hydroxycortisone?) And big Pharma won't put any money into developing drugs for rare diseases or, increasingly, even cures. Their favorite model is a drug that has to be taken by healthy people (viagra), or vaccines (ditto because you take them when healthy) or drugs for chronic conditions that you need to take for the rest of your life (like hormone therapy for menopause or sex change or to prevent body from rejecting transplants. Etc.
Wow, that was painful to watch. Has anyone suggested to Kyle that there may be a health risk involved in his consuming large amounts of his kids' adderall? Also, i just feel the need to point out that psychology is a great place for people who want to pretend to have sciencey skills, but suck at math, to hide their limitations, but if you find youself there please don't believe your own hype.
Kyle, speed kills and it is never too late to hire a tutor to help with the numbers. And don't worry, "12 steps" is not an equation, just a life goal. It might help.
I'm trying to imagine myself in a lecture with this slabbering loon ball. Notice how often he wipes his nose, how often he goes off screen. He comes across as a coke head.
Hands down Denis wins. I have occasionally worn masks (N95 OR KN95) during COVID-19 and before COVID-19 (while immunocompromomized due to chemotherapy), BEFORE entering an enclosed or confined area where I believed sick people may have contaminated the air with their germs. And I made sure the mask was properly fitted before entering the area. I never got sick. These masks are designed to protect the user from particles greater than 0.3 microns in diameter. The 95 means that it will block 95% of such particles. If wearer is sick and coughs or sneezes, their germs will absolutely escape around the edges, so mandating everyone to wear masks to protect others is nonsensical. And the are many risks and drawbacks. To arue that this debate should ignore the risks and drawbacks of masks is a desperate attempt by the loser. I am excited that engineers, statisticians, and true scientists such as physicists have begun to scrutinize and expose the narratives, studies with dishonest conclusions or even fraudulent conclusions put out by the medical industrial complex and big Pharma. This debate gave me more insight on the methods, techniques, and tricks used by someone who is trying to win an argument no matter what, despite what is correct and good.
Australia did a far better job of saving lives than the U.S. did. When their policies were in full effect, like the policies in Japan and New Zealand, Australia kept infection rates incredibly low in comparison to the U.S. As a high-risk elderly person, I have a problem with choosing the economy over lives, which is exactly what the US and eventually Australia did to keep the peace.
Covid is a completely preventable disease. But to bow to the people who don't want to protect themselves or wear masks to protect others, they take away the restrictions and let them pass the bug around freely. Since these people are younger, they survive. Since they home test, the health services no longer know what the infection rates really are. Everyone just accepts that once in a while they may get it. However, here in the US, roughly 100 elderly are dying of covid every day. It is still the third largest cause of death. That is now the new "normal." I clearly must object, since those 100 people look mostly like me and my husband. So, we still need to wear N95s in public.
For an amusing example, the CDC had a conference at which masks were optional and 35 people were documented to have gotten the bug at the conference. In the follow up, these 35 infected a documented 110 other people -- and probably more that didn't know it.
Australia also had some of the best research on covid particle size, dispersion of particles, surface survival, and more. You may not know it, but particle physicists and infectious disease experts from Australia made a worldwide big impression during the pandemic. Look up the work of Lidia Morawska as an example.
Can you comment on Morawska? How many "untruths" can you find in her comment?
My friend also disputes the Cochrane report which found no correlation between masking and Covid. I think my friend is in charge of Covid policy at a major NY hospital. She is 88 and quite feisty. I feel sad that she is so scared. I would like to say Covid is a completely TREATABLE disease. And prevention can happen also with antiviral nasal sprays, vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, quercetin, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. But she rejects all these findings. She is a specialist in ventilation, so that's one good thing she promotes.
I told her I would wear an N95 mask if I visited her. She cried tears of joy because the unvaccinated will usually NEVER listen to reason. I probably will never visit her, though. Problem is that I don't own any masks. I'm really sorry for her fear. She lives with 96 year old husband who almost died from Covid. Maybe that way he has natural prevention?
Infection rates in Australia WERE really low. When did they start rising? After the vaccines? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
I liked Kyle's argument about how masks might work. In fact I found it fascinating. I think it's great to have theories about the mechanisms that might support a certain outcome. If I understand his argument he states that very large particles like droplets from coughing, sneezing would be captured by the mask so they couldn't pass through and infect anybody else (your mask protects me.) He kept arguing that even small particles that COULD pass through would be repelled through Brownian motion. I don't understand how that works. In 2020, a lot of scientists still didn't realize that respiratory diseases like Covid don't spread from fomites. So you don't have to spray your broccoli or your newspapers. Droplets were all the rage. However, now we realize that ventilation is the real deal. I also loved his idea that it was good enough to reduce risk by diminishing the amount of viral load. Peter McCullough also makes this argument for anti viral nasal sprays. If we can reduce our viral load at the very beginning of Covid infection (or any viral infection, for that matter), we will be far less likely to be hospitalized. Your counter argument that masks fail because they are not skin tight and viral particles stay in the air for hours where they can pass through the sides or top of the mask, bypassing the fabric is a great rebuttal. I talked to the receptionist at my chiropractor's office who was wearing an ill fitting N95 mask that was at least 1/2 inch away from her cheek. I pointed out that she was unprotected there. But she countered, but doesn't it stop the air from entering my nose and mouth? As if air doesn't circulate. Another great point you made is that people do not use masks properly. They take them off. They don't cover the nose, but only the mouth. They don't fit. There's one test for in vitro (dummy with mask taped shut). And another test should be performed for in vivo. It was a great lecture. I loved it when Kyle kept criticizing you and saying all the rules of logic that you violated, and you kept prodding him to "Ask your question." I kept imagining he was one of your students that you didn't need to grade because you could assess his performance another way. One assertion should be debated. Didn't he say that every country had a drop in mortality after masks were imposed? That is simply untrue. I think we should have AI robots carefully restating the arguments with flat affect and no emotion. K says there are no randomized controlled studies because they are unethical. D says there are at least 7 randomized double blind studies and they are ethical. Like that. I try doing it with Biden vs. Trump Trump says he won't impose vaccine mandates. Biden is challenging or appealing the court ruling that mandates can't be imposed on our military personnel. Biden says his patience is wearing thin and we must all be vaccinated.
Kyle over and over argued that it didn't make any difference if masks were harmful. All we cared about was effectiveness. And if they prevented Covid -- well that was good enough for him, and, therefore should be good enough for all of us.
But why do we want to prevent Covid? Isn't it to save us from harm? So if we kill ourselves to prevent dying from Covid--surely that is not an optimal solution?
Denis. I am impressed by your stance during the debate. I am sure I would not be able to maintain a calm voice in the same situation, against an allegedly expert in logic, shouting at me complete illogical arguments:
- Kyle assumes that masks work, because they filter stuff.
- You show that, no. They don't work in the real world. And offer plausible arguments why is that. But this is just something you do because you are a nice person. You don't really have to.
- Kyle says: but they do work. They filter stuff. I have proved it to you (tip: no, he hasn't).
And so on and so on.
It is a pity that the format of the event did not gave you the opportunity to properly refute his example of your misrepresentation of the SARS related study. That was your only weak point during the debate, as far as I am concerned.
Also, I fear that this video has not aged well for poor Kyle.
Scientific proof the Covid 'pandemic' was a hoax? Research by Dr. Denis Rancourt https://rumble.com/v2z6yqi-there-was-no-pandemic-a-bold-statement-yes-but-first-view-the-evidence-then.html
That was definitely as entertaining as I remember it from 3 years ago!
I'll always be tremendously thankful for your "Masks Don't Work" article on a personal level. It was one of the very early signs that indicated something was truly amiss with this whole unfortunate situation. It helped me to seek the truth about what was happening and not get caught up solely in what was presented in the mainstream media. Thank you again for being a beacon of truth!
Hands down, Denis wins. I occasionally used a mask (N95 or KN95) COVID-19 and prior to COVID-19 when I was immunocompromomized from chemotherapy) BEFORE entering an enclosed/confined area with other peope who may be sick.l
Thank you for posting Denis; that’s probably the best laugh I’ll get all week. Do you think that Kyle had to have some soy afterwards? 🤣
I watched this around February '21. Excruciating. What a low-life debate opponent. The corruption of superior education is almost a total by now. These kind of people never knew any virtue.
I just finished a course in epidemiology taught by IPAK-EDU.ORG. Double blind randomized studies are not the only studies that can show/prove efficacy. I wasn't a good student, but I think case control studies and observational studies and other kinds of studies can also provide useful evidence. Many people argued that VAERS adverse reactions are only coincidental--no proof of causation. But Jessica Rose argued that there were these laws that enabled her to argue causation was probably. The one rule I remember was propinquity in time. I.e. if people are more likely to drop dead from anaphylactic shock immediately after vaccination--this is a strong argument for causation. She stated that if the association was just coincidental or random, the adverse reactions would not be correlated in time but spread out throughout the year. But that didn't happen. Adverse reactions were far more likely to occur in the first 2 weeks after injection. A strong argument, then, that they were associated. I did argue in one class that relying only on randomized double blind trials panders to big pharma. Because large pharmaceutical companies are virtually the only players capable of funding such studies. That means, usually, that it is very hard to complete studies that go against the corporate donors. Gary Null argued years ago that it is virtually impossible to get a study completed or published testing supplements, generic or off label drugs (vitamin D? Vitamin C injections against sepsis? Hydroxycortisone?) And big Pharma won't put any money into developing drugs for rare diseases or, increasingly, even cures. Their favorite model is a drug that has to be taken by healthy people (viagra), or vaccines (ditto because you take them when healthy) or drugs for chronic conditions that you need to take for the rest of your life (like hormone therapy for menopause or sex change or to prevent body from rejecting transplants. Etc.
Wow, that was painful to watch. Has anyone suggested to Kyle that there may be a health risk involved in his consuming large amounts of his kids' adderall? Also, i just feel the need to point out that psychology is a great place for people who want to pretend to have sciencey skills, but suck at math, to hide their limitations, but if you find youself there please don't believe your own hype.
Kyle, speed kills and it is never too late to hire a tutor to help with the numbers. And don't worry, "12 steps" is not an equation, just a life goal. It might help.
I'm trying to imagine myself in a lecture with this slabbering loon ball. Notice how often he wipes his nose, how often he goes off screen. He comes across as a coke head.
Johnson is obviously well versed in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Peter Josic had to mute him to sign off! 😁
"What is really interesting about the use of Alinsky’s simplistic tactics is that they were designed to be used by people with low intelligence..."
https://bolenreport.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-radicals/
Hands down Denis wins. I have occasionally worn masks (N95 OR KN95) during COVID-19 and before COVID-19 (while immunocompromomized due to chemotherapy), BEFORE entering an enclosed or confined area where I believed sick people may have contaminated the air with their germs. And I made sure the mask was properly fitted before entering the area. I never got sick. These masks are designed to protect the user from particles greater than 0.3 microns in diameter. The 95 means that it will block 95% of such particles. If wearer is sick and coughs or sneezes, their germs will absolutely escape around the edges, so mandating everyone to wear masks to protect others is nonsensical. And the are many risks and drawbacks. To arue that this debate should ignore the risks and drawbacks of masks is a desperate attempt by the loser. I am excited that engineers, statisticians, and true scientists such as physicists have begun to scrutinize and expose the narratives, studies with dishonest conclusions or even fraudulent conclusions put out by the medical industrial complex and big Pharma. This debate gave me more insight on the methods, techniques, and tricks used by someone who is trying to win an argument no matter what, despite what is correct and good.
My pro mask friend wrote this:
Australia did a far better job of saving lives than the U.S. did. When their policies were in full effect, like the policies in Japan and New Zealand, Australia kept infection rates incredibly low in comparison to the U.S. As a high-risk elderly person, I have a problem with choosing the economy over lives, which is exactly what the US and eventually Australia did to keep the peace.
Covid is a completely preventable disease. But to bow to the people who don't want to protect themselves or wear masks to protect others, they take away the restrictions and let them pass the bug around freely. Since these people are younger, they survive. Since they home test, the health services no longer know what the infection rates really are. Everyone just accepts that once in a while they may get it. However, here in the US, roughly 100 elderly are dying of covid every day. It is still the third largest cause of death. That is now the new "normal." I clearly must object, since those 100 people look mostly like me and my husband. So, we still need to wear N95s in public.
For an amusing example, the CDC had a conference at which masks were optional and 35 people were documented to have gotten the bug at the conference. In the follow up, these 35 infected a documented 110 other people -- and probably more that didn't know it.
Australia also had some of the best research on covid particle size, dispersion of particles, surface survival, and more. You may not know it, but particle physicists and infectious disease experts from Australia made a worldwide big impression during the pandemic. Look up the work of Lidia Morawska as an example.
Can you comment on Morawska? How many "untruths" can you find in her comment?
My friend also disputes the Cochrane report which found no correlation between masking and Covid. I think my friend is in charge of Covid policy at a major NY hospital. She is 88 and quite feisty. I feel sad that she is so scared. I would like to say Covid is a completely TREATABLE disease. And prevention can happen also with antiviral nasal sprays, vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, quercetin, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. But she rejects all these findings. She is a specialist in ventilation, so that's one good thing she promotes.
I told her I would wear an N95 mask if I visited her. She cried tears of joy because the unvaccinated will usually NEVER listen to reason. I probably will never visit her, though. Problem is that I don't own any masks. I'm really sorry for her fear. She lives with 96 year old husband who almost died from Covid. Maybe that way he has natural prevention?
Infection rates in Australia WERE really low. When did they start rising? After the vaccines? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
I liked Kyle's argument about how masks might work. In fact I found it fascinating. I think it's great to have theories about the mechanisms that might support a certain outcome. If I understand his argument he states that very large particles like droplets from coughing, sneezing would be captured by the mask so they couldn't pass through and infect anybody else (your mask protects me.) He kept arguing that even small particles that COULD pass through would be repelled through Brownian motion. I don't understand how that works. In 2020, a lot of scientists still didn't realize that respiratory diseases like Covid don't spread from fomites. So you don't have to spray your broccoli or your newspapers. Droplets were all the rage. However, now we realize that ventilation is the real deal. I also loved his idea that it was good enough to reduce risk by diminishing the amount of viral load. Peter McCullough also makes this argument for anti viral nasal sprays. If we can reduce our viral load at the very beginning of Covid infection (or any viral infection, for that matter), we will be far less likely to be hospitalized. Your counter argument that masks fail because they are not skin tight and viral particles stay in the air for hours where they can pass through the sides or top of the mask, bypassing the fabric is a great rebuttal. I talked to the receptionist at my chiropractor's office who was wearing an ill fitting N95 mask that was at least 1/2 inch away from her cheek. I pointed out that she was unprotected there. But she countered, but doesn't it stop the air from entering my nose and mouth? As if air doesn't circulate. Another great point you made is that people do not use masks properly. They take them off. They don't cover the nose, but only the mouth. They don't fit. There's one test for in vitro (dummy with mask taped shut). And another test should be performed for in vivo. It was a great lecture. I loved it when Kyle kept criticizing you and saying all the rules of logic that you violated, and you kept prodding him to "Ask your question." I kept imagining he was one of your students that you didn't need to grade because you could assess his performance another way. One assertion should be debated. Didn't he say that every country had a drop in mortality after masks were imposed? That is simply untrue. I think we should have AI robots carefully restating the arguments with flat affect and no emotion. K says there are no randomized controlled studies because they are unethical. D says there are at least 7 randomized double blind studies and they are ethical. Like that. I try doing it with Biden vs. Trump Trump says he won't impose vaccine mandates. Biden is challenging or appealing the court ruling that mandates can't be imposed on our military personnel. Biden says his patience is wearing thin and we must all be vaccinated.
Interesting! I now know that contagion is a fraud!
"The Infectious Myth Busted"
https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/03/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-1-the-rosenau-spanish-flu-experiments-1918/