No prob. You just aren't clear on the definition of "Jesus freak".

You clearly aren’t familiar with the definition of bigot.

"You clearly aren’t familiar with the definition of bigot." Nah, crystal clear on that ... I was raised Catholic, lol. I see bigots everyday, going into church and praising Jaaaysus, then turning around voting against same-sex marriage.

Here, I’ll help you. Bigot - a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. You being raised Catholic has absolutely nothing to do with it, by definition you are a bigot. If you don’t like it, I suggest you change your ways.

No he is not. He is stating a solid fact.

1. "that you say we should trust" ... Nope. Didn't say that. 2. Not sure what the rest of your post is saying. No, that wasn't "the end of science". No, the discussion wasn't ended. No one said there is "one truth in such complex areas". No, there the pro vax/mask absolutely did NOT get it COMPLETELY wrong ... oh jfc, you are out of your MIND on that one.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@ John Harrison, it saddens me to see that you get very defensive aggressive now instead of engaging into the content. You are word picking just to prove me wrong, you said "should listen to" I translated that to "should trust" While technically you are absolutely correct, what is the intent of your words? People should listen to Experts but not trust in what they say? If the discussion was not ended how dare you say I'm out of my mind? Instead of engaging into the discussion about it? I strictly follow the science I read an enormous amount of research papers. Yet here we are you telling me I'm out of my mind, while praising a scientist whose life was ruined by people claimed his research was out of his mind, oh the irony... now this is very important: we don't talk about opinion we talk about scientific approach. That means if there is no data there is no conclusion. What many people do wrong here is they go "this sounds reasonable, I believe it".

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

To show you how complex that is using the example of masks. There was a study of certified medical mask in a hospital. But there was no study done on the effectiveness of masks used in the general public. So science didn't have an answer to that. There was just an assumption that they help. Research was done, is still in progress. Now we have multiple data sets that suggest multiple conclusions: medical masks reduce the infection rate by 10% but that study was limited to 1 town, there was no bigger study. People infect themselves at places where no masks are used anyway so no hard data on how effective they are. With the mass produced masks chemicals were used as allowed by industrial standards, but tests showed that their concentration in the air behind the mask and can go beyond what is considered save for health. There are many other viruses and our immune system needs exposure to them to stay in shape. So you have multiple sets of data that need to be balanced against each other.

@Mathias, that study didn't need to be done, and masks are about NOT INFECTING OTHERS. Let me repeat that if you didn't hear the shouting... Not. Infecting. Others. Also against inhaling particulate matter that can infect the mask-wearer, of course. Also, I'm a medical doctor, we wear masks for hours, our oxygen saturation is 98-99.9% ------ well above anything considered "unsafe". Get with the real science, please. Signed, a medical researcher.

2/2 depends on the type of mask, medical masks are about not infecting others, FFP2/N95 protect the wearer very well.And of course studies are required to know how effective that is. For two reason: to know the amount of security they offer and to know if they have the desired effect on the pandemic or if other measures are required. And I have no idea why you, as somebody who says he works as a medical researcher, doesn't want to know that. The doctors here had so terribly wished to have that information. So as said they did one study in Vietnam that did show -10% infection rate with medical masks, no effect with non certified masks. Austria on the other hand made FFP2 masks mandatory but interestingly enough it had no effect on the infection rate while in theory they should have offered much better protection for everybody. So the suspicion was that people get infected where they don't wear masks. But no further research done. I have no idea why you don't want to know why this is?

OK, nothing you said made any relevant sense to my points whatsoever. I am a researcher. We don't need to repeat studies that are already repeated ad nauseum. Unless you think the principle of "spray lysol into a bunny's eyes" is a great way to confirm what's known (that is, don't spray that into eyes) after we've proven it with umpteen studies? Also, I specialize in infectious disease. I know the studies done in Austria. I also know people don't sterilize FFP2s properly between uses, that Austria had overall only a 55% mask compliance rate (I just double-checked that, you're welcome), and how can you say masking had no effect on the infection rate? We don't know what it was without masks because the masking rate wasn't zero! FFP2s were only a couple percentage points less effective than KN95. that's not enough to warrant spending millions mid-pandemic. They can study it when we've got Covid in the same place as flu: an annual, bearable burden.

Leo Dmoitrix, Funny how often you stress that you are a researcher... well I wouldn't dare to assume a researcher doesn't know how to determine in statistics that prediction and measurement deviate by using multiple sources of different limitations. But I do find it amusing that you try to negate my argument by using the very argument I have made. Mr researcher... :)

@Leo Domitrix, 1 / 2 Funny, you didn't even read my posting but immediately assumed I'm "one of those" and answered to arguments that is used by anti-mask but was not written in my posting (because they are wrong about it). I didn't write about oxygen saturation but saturation of (potentially) harmful chemicals beyond the what is considered save. The problem is in the industrial process the chemical concentration in the airflow put trough the mask is measured, but when you wear the mask there is not one directional airflow but in and out all the time. So between the mask and face the concentration can increase. It depends on the materials used for the mask. It's funny how you say no study is needed instead of demanding further study to use different materials to ensure the safety of people. Especially if you were them all day that should be in your own interest. But hey what do I know, maybe it's all about believing what is good and why do we need evidence in medicine?

" ... it saddens me to see that you get very defensive aggressive now instead of engaging into the content. You are word picking just to prove me wrong ... " Mathias, it saddens me to see that you deign to read other peoples' minds, so as to position them as an aggressor, and yourself as being attacked. It saddens me to see you are intentionally mislabeling my post as "word-picking" in an attempt to distract from the actual content of what I said. It saddens me to see you're pulling this same passive-aggressive routine with Leo. And frankly, what's most saddening to me is that there are insufferable snobs walking this planet that actually try to mask their derisive tone with euphemisms like, "I'm saddened".

@John Harris, your reply is absolutely fascinating, thank you so much for these insights in your mind. Life is fun tough :)

@mathias " thank you so much for these insights in your mind" Your welcome, and may I say your capacity for spurious passive aggression is boundless. Hats off to you, sir.