I've got to admit...recently I've been feeling like we've entered the Twilight Zone.
I mean...it really seems like some of the things that we've been talking about for a long time are finally being accepted by the left.
Everything that we've been saying about the (forbidden illness) for the last year is actually finally being acknowledged as being true or legitimate.
For over a year now, we've been saying that we don't buy the story that the (forbidden illness) originated in a food market or through an animal. We've been saying that it is VERY possible given the evidence and testimony of a number of doctors that it could have originated in a lab.
Now, the Biden administration is actually admitting that it is a viable possibility but the Democrats act like this is brand new and that we haven't been saying that or that they haven't demonized everyone who claimed that theory. We were called conspiracy theorists and much worse, yet, this is one of two possibilities that they are still studying.
The other thing that we've been saying is that masks don't help control the (forbidden illness) and could potentially be worse for people. Now, a study - or I should say another story - has found that all of the mask mandates didn't slow the spread one single bit.
The study showed:
Prolonged mask use (>4 hours per day) promotes facial alkalinization and inadvertently encourages dehydration, which in turn can enhance barrier breakdown and bacterial infection risk. British clinicians have reported masks to increase headaches and sweating and decrease cognitive precision. Survey bias notwithstanding, these sequelae are associated with medical errors. By obscuring nonverbal communication, masks interfere with social learning in children. Likewise, masks can distort verbal speech and remove visual cues to the detriment of individuals with hearing loss; clear face-shields improve visual integration, but there is a corresponding loss of sound quality.
In summary, mask mandates and use were poor predictors of (forbidden illness) spread in US states. Case growth was independent of mandates at low and high rates of community spread, and mask use did not predict case growth during the Summer or Fall-Winter waves. Strengths of our study include using two mask metrics to evaluate association with (forbidden illness) growth rates; measuring normalized case growth in mandate and non-mandate states at comparable times to quantify the likely effect of mandates; and deconvolving the effect of mask use by examining case growth in states with variable mask use.
Honestly, I didn't need a study to tell me this, it was already apparent when you just compare the infection rates between states that mandated masks and those that didn't. North Dakota and South Dakota are perfect examples of this. The trends matched almost perfectly, yet one state mandates masks and one state didn't.