Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4312
    MEMBERS
  • 85632
    MESSAGES
  • 19
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

A Group Of Parents Sent Their Kids' Face   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started Jun-18 by WALTER784; 711 views.
WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jun-18

A Group Of Parents Sent Their Kids' Face Masks to A Lab for Analysis. Here's What They Found

Posted: Jun 15, 2021 9:00 PM

We've been told for well over a year that widespread forced public masking should be implemented because, even if only moderately to slightly to negligibly effective at curbing the spread of COVID-19, there are ZERO drawbacks. 

"What's the harm?" they ask.

"It's only a minor inconvenience," they bleat.

"If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it!" they implore.

Meanwhile, we on Team Reality have not only continued to point to real-world data that shows masking to be entirely ineffective, we've also maintained that forced public masking, especially long-term, has negative societal and even health ramifications that the powers-that-be are all-too-happy to ignore in subservience to their newfound face mask god. 

It only stands to reason that one of those health ramifications would be the fact that millions of people, particularly children, have been forced to wear and carry around pieces of cloth they've continually breathed through for hours on end. What lurking pathogens might be found on these disgusting contraptions being incessantly handled, stuck in pockets, and mindlessly tossed on books, tables, and desks? Well, one group of Florida parents sent a batch of masks worn by their children to a lab to find out. And yeah, you'll probably need to make sure you aren't eating dinner anytime soon before you digest THESE results. 

Via press release:

Gainesville, FL (June 16, 2021) – A group of parents in Gainesville, FL, concerned about potential harms from masks, submitted six face masks to a lab for analysis. The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria. No viruses were detected on the masks, although the test is capable of detecting viruses.

The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:

• Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia) 

• Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis) 

• Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis) 

• Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis) 

• Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs— resistant to antibiotics) 

• Escherichia coli (food poisoning)

• Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)

• Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)

• Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires' disease) 

• Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates) 

• Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.

The face masks studied were new or freshly-laundered before wearing and had been worn for 5 to 8 hours, most during in-person schooling by children aged 6 through 11. One was worn by an adult. A t-shirt worn by one of the children at school and unworn masks were tested as controls. No pathogens were found on the controls. Proteins found on the t-shirt, for example, are not pathogenic to humans and are commonly found in hair, skin, and soil.

A parent who participated in the study, Ms. Amanda Donoho, commented that this small sample points to a need for more research: “We need to know what we are putting on the faces of our children each day. Masks provide a warm, moist environment for bacteria to grow.”

These local parents contracted with the lab because they were concerned about the potential of contaminants on masks that their children were forced to wear all day at school, taking them on and off, setting them on various surfaces, wearing them in the bathroom, etc. This prompted them to send the masks to the University of Florida’s Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center for analysis.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/06/15/a-group-of-parents-sent-their-kids-face-masks-to-a-lab-for-analysis-heres-what-they-found-n2591047

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jun-18

How were children exposed to all those pathogens and not get sick with the diseases they cause?

WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jun-18

Showtalk said...

How were children exposed to all those pathogens and not get sick with the diseases they cause?

Well, had the mask not caught them, then could have gone into the child's mouth... due to the mask, they were caught in the fibers which prevented them from entering their mouths. But as the masks themselves had the pathogens on them, touching those masks with one's hand and then putting that hand in mouth could infect one.

Just one more reason not to wear the same mask several days without thoroughly cleaning it, or dispose of it each day or perhaps even several times a day.

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jun-18

Definitely yes.

Was that on the outside the masks or the inside of the masks? And was this after they had been worn all day, or was it new out of the box?

Those details make a huge difference as to whether the masks are a source of infection, or they did their job and caught a huge amount of stuff in the air that they otherwise would have inhaled.

If they were new, fresh from the wrapper and never worn, and tested for that kind of pathogens, then I'd be wondering what kind of squalid conditions they were manufactured under.

WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jun-18

$1,661.87 in cats (ROCKETMAN_S) said...

Was that on the outside the masks or the inside of the masks?

The report didn't say, but I would presume the outside.

$1,661.87 in cats (ROCKETMAN_S) said...

And was this after they had been worn all day, or was it new out of the box?

The article said: >>>It only stands to reason that one of those health ramifications would be the fact that millions of people, particularly children, have been forced to wear and carry around pieces of cloth they've continually breathed through for hours on end. What lurking pathogens might be found on these disgusting contraptions being incessantly handled, stuck in pockets, and mindlessly tossed on books, tables, and desks? Well, one group of Florida parents sent a batch of masks worn by their children to a lab to find out.<<<

So it seems they were either worn or carried around with them all day, so not new... out of the box!

FWIW

So it was more of a report on what kind of stuff is airborne in a typical school, that kids can catch and how nasty that the school is, that some people morphed into an indictment about the ineffectiveness of masks. Sounds to me like a case of examining the air filter on a pickup truck after going up and down oil field roads all day, noticing the amount of dust and grit and bugs and pollen and things that could destroy an engine, and saying it was proof that oil filters don't work, rather than noting the amount of stuff stirred up on a dirt road.

WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jun-19

Quite similar... sounds like the school itself might be quarantined and investigated to find out why those things are rampant at the school!

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jun-19

Yes, those pathogens are in the air they breathe, but they weren’t getting diseases from them.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jun-19

I want to know about that too.

TOP