Masks

Away With The Fairies

Yes: valved

bush wrote: »

I've seen someone wear one of those it looks like they aren't wearing anything from a distance. How are they held in place? It just goes to show people will wear any old ****e to abide the rule.

That's because HSE is saying it's ok. People don't know any different.

washman3

i_surge wrote: »

Multifactorial problem

It is known that deaths go down during recessions/depressions and this was the same. Fewer traffic and work accidents and so on.

So there are two sides to that see-saw.

Both traffic and workplace deaths are higher so far in 2020 than in 2019.
Another theory blown out of the water.
Total deaths from all causes so far in 2020 are nearly 700 less than 2019.
Still looking for somebody to explain.
Was there a Pandemic in 2019 that we did'nt know or were'nt told about...!!!

odyssey06

washman3 wrote: »

Both traffic and workplace deaths are higher so far in 2020 than in 2019.
Another theory blown out of the water.
Total deaths from all causes so far in 2020 are nearly 700 less than 2019.
Still looking for somebody to explain.
Was there a Pandemic in 2019 that we did'nt know or were'nt told about...!!!

46 people died in workplace accidents in 2019, and 150 in traffic accidents.
Those figures are dwarfed by:

Ireland's excess mortality for March to June was 1000 - 1300 deaths higher than expected.
Similar excess mortalities have been reported all across Europe.

You seem to have figures about total deaths from all causes for 2020 and a query about same.
Suggest masks thread is not the best place to look for answers other than to say that as we have maintained better hygiene practices, distancing, mask wearing since coming out of lockdown it could well be that that there are less other germs \ viruses etc out there circulating.

saneman

Yes: surgical

bush wrote: »

I've seen someone wear one of those it looks like they aren't wearing anything from a distance. How are they held in place? It just goes to show people will wear any old ****e to abide the rule.

The visor you're referring may be something like this:

https://8qw7vvsv2i-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/PR999-Easy-Fit-Face-Shield-9-600x600.jpg

There are valid medical reasons why someone may not be able to wear a mask. We can't know by looking, but the individual is at least making an effort.

washman3

odyssey06 wrote: »

Suggest masks thread is not the best place to look for answers other than to say that as we have maintained better hygiene practices, distancing, mask wearing since coming out of lockdown it could well be that that there are less other germs \ viruses etc out there circulating.

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

odyssey06

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

I think you already know the explanation if you have been paying any attention to the phased easing of restrictions in this country.
We're not in lockdown any more.

Also, our case count and death count dropped dramatically in late April when mask wearing was rolled out in general use in health and care settings.

dwayneshintzy

Yes: to protect myself and others

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

Is your contention that mask wearing is to blame for the increase in cases?

saneman

Yes: surgical

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

Yeah, but for some reason there appears to be a lot of resistance to the actual wearing of masks. Maybe that, tied with the initial easing of restrictions, & the issues arising in the meat factories would start to explain it.

I mean it's just a bit of fabric, you don't have to staple gun them to your face, they have ear loops...

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

Can you explain the science behind your theory of how masks have increased transmission for us?

washman3

robinph wrote: »

Can you explain the science behind your theory of how masks have increased transmission for us?

Point out where i said mask wearing increased transmission.
You are the one suggesting this.
Read my post again.

washman3

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think you already know the explanation if you have been paying any attention to the phased easing of restrictions in this country.
We're not in lockdown any more.

Also, our case count and death count dropped dramatically in late April when mask wearing was rolled out in general use in health and care settings.

Mask wearing was rolled out in general use only a few weeks ago, certainly not April. Maybe it was in healthcare settings.
In shopping centres in late July only a minority were wearing masks.

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Point out where i said mask wearing increased transmission.
You are the one suggesting this.
Read my post again.

Here you go:

washman3 wrote: »

Explain why positive cases have rocketed since mask wearing has become mandatory in the last few weeks.
Was'nt mask wearing supposed to REDUCE the number of new cases.??

You can't have forgotten posting that already surely?

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Mask wearing was rolled out in general use only a few weeks ago, certainly not April. Maybe it was in healthcare settings.
In shopping centres in late July only a minority were wearing masks.

Hang on, are you now claiming that mask wearing has nothing to to with any current changes in the number of infections due to it being common among the general public only more recently?

Or are you sticking with wearing masks is the cause of the increase in infections?

washman3

robinph wrote: »

Hang on, are you now claiming that mask wearing has nothing to to with any current changes in the number of infections due to it being common among the general public only more recently?

Or are you sticking with wearing masks is the cause of the increase in infections?

Go on roundabouts all you like but the figures are there.
Mask wearing over the last few weeks has not decreased cases.
The cases have actually increased. I want you to explain that.
Forget this 'Meat Factory' bluff. All the meat factories were operating during the lockdown. And there were just as many house partys during the lockdown than there are now.
Nowhere did i claim that masks increased transmission.
But the evidence is there, cases are up. Explain why.!!

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Go on roundabouts all you like but the figures are there.
Mask wearing over the last few weeks has not decreased cases.
The cases have actually increased. I want you to explain that.
Forget this 'Meat Factory' bluff. All the meat factories were operating during the lockdown. And there were just as many house partys during the lockdown than there are now.
Nowhere did i claim that masks increased transmission.
But the evidence is there, cases are up. Explain why.!!

What has any of that got to do with masks then?

Did people wearing masks in shops suddenly cause outbreaks in meat factories? Did the wearing of masks cause more people to have parties? Did masks mean that authorities noticed more parties happening? Did the reduction in the number of pirates cause global warming?

You are the one bringing in other topics as a justification for not wearing a mask, you need to provide your reasoning behind those things to support your claim that masks are ineffective due to meat factories/ house parties/ pirates.

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

washman3 wrote: »

Point out where i said mask wearing increased transmission.
You are the one suggesting this.
Read my post again.

God, you suggesting connection between increase in cases and masks pretty clearly there.

washman3

saneman wrote: »

I mean it's just a bit of fabric, you don't have to staple gun them to your face, they have ear loops...

I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here.
When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!

The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital.
Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

washman3 wrote: »

I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here.
When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!

The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital.
Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)

The virus is part of much bigger droplet..... expert

odyssey06

washman3 wrote: »

I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here.
When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!
The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital.
Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)

This canard has been raised and rebutted multiple times on the thread already.
Organisations such as the CDC and ECDC are recommending wearing masks to contain droplets - the below explains why.
Frankly when the leading health organisations in the world recommend something, you'll have to come up with much better refutations that shouting 'guff' and some nonsense about surgeons. We're talking about community transmission of an infectious respiratory disease, not a surgeon operating in a sterile environment.
The CDC are the experts, we are following the evidence they have put out to explain their recommendations.

The tiny virus particle argument is rebutted by the below linked article, which includes links to the referenced studies.
It's a red herring. Masks are not about suppressing 100% of the viral load and every virus particle but blocking the majority of the highly infectious droplets.
It's the droplets that travel furthest and hang longest in the air without dispersal.
The more viral load you are exposed to the more chance you have of being infected and infected with severe symptoms.

Other studies bear this out in more detail, demonstrating that wearing masks does three important things:

• One, they reduce the total mass and volume of droplets put into the environment.
• Two, they reduce the distance that droplets travel and make physical distancing a much more effective preventative measure.
• And three, wearing a face mask always reduces the total droplet mass relative to not wearing a mask, due to a combination of mask filtration (especially of larger droplets) and droplet evaporation (which is more effective for smaller droplets).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/10/ask-ethan-what-is-the-science-behind-wearing-a-mask/#3f3298695f3c
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0015044

Dubl07

Yes: other

Sconsey wrote: »

So we say once someone hits 80 they are a lost cause, good riddance to them. It doesn't suit your lifestyle to make a really small effort to support them. Occasionally wearing a mask is that big of an imposition to you. Thanks God you are in the vast minority.

And thankfully Covid scars the testes so he's less likely to reproduce when he contracts it. Darwin rocks.

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!

So how does the virus travel around again then?

washman3

robinph wrote: »

So how does the virus travel around again then?

Just like the mad professor Luke O'Neill told you some time back...;)

robinph

No: I don't care enough

washman3 wrote: »

Just like the mad professor Luke O'Neill told you some time back...;)

Never heard of him, but guessing you don't mean a Wimbledon footballer which is all Google is giving me?

What did they say then?

xhomelezz

Yes: valved

washman3 wrote: »

Just like the mad professor Luke O'Neill told you some time back...;)

He says to clean your underwear..:D

https://www.newstalk.com/news/treat-mask-like-underwear-professor-luke-oneill-face-mask-hygiene-1050496

Ash.J.Williams

Yes: homemade

washman3 wrote: »

Go on roundabouts all you like but the figures are there.
Mask wearing over the last few weeks has not decreased cases.
The cases have actually increased. I want you to explain that.
Forget this 'Meat Factory' bluff. All the meat factories were operating during the lockdown. And there were just as many house partys during the lockdown than there are now.
Nowhere did i claim that masks increased transmission.
But the evidence is there, cases are up. Explain why.!!

we're not wearing masks to decrease cases, we're wearing them minimize the risk of infecting the elderly and people at risk in spaces where social distancing is difficult.

odyssey06

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

we're not wearing masks to decrease cases, we're wearing them minimize the risk of infecting the elderly and people at risk in spaces where social distancing is difficult.

And also to keep clusters confined to known sites where we can contact trace, to avoid community transmission in places where tracing is difficult such as buses and shops.

lee_baby_simms

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

we're not wearing masks to decrease cases, we're wearing them minimize the risk of infecting the elderly and people at risk in spaces where social distancing is difficult.

But in June a number of cherry picked observation studies apparently proved that masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%.

https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13319/face-masks-considerably-reduce-covid-19-cases-in-germany-a-synthetic-control-method-approach

When you look at the graphs of countries that introduced mandatory masks there is absolutely no impact on the falling trends.

In fact its actually the opposite now, detected cases are going up in the majority of regions where masks are mandatory.

I'm not really interested in arguing about masks, I'm happy to wear one if it allows business to open and life to get back towards normal, but the science is so weak on them and looking at real world data the impact of them has been negligible.

saneman

Yes: surgical

washman3 wrote: »

I know exactly what they are. Have been wearing them for years on end at work. Safely can say that i may know more about them than many here.
When i hear someone suggest that a piece of cloth covering your nose and mouth will prevent a virus one millionth of a millimeter from passing through, i don't know whether to laugh or cry. Forget about this 'virus in droplet guff..!!

The only mask that may be in any way viable is the surgical type used in operating theatres, but those are only effective in such environments, which are sterile and single use only. Do you ever see a surgeon wearing one walking around a hospital.
Would love to check and see what some of you folks round here were 'experts' on a year ago....;)

I've been working in the PPE industry for 15 years... you're wrong

Sconsey

No: other

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

But in June a number of cherry picked observation studies apparently proved that masks reduce the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%.

https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13319/face-masks-considerably-reduce-covid-19-cases-in-germany-a-synthetic-control-method-approach

When you look at the graphs of countries that introduced mandatory masks there is absolutely no impact on the falling trends.

In fact its actually the opposite now, detected cases are going up in the majority of regions where masks are mandatory.

I'm not really interested in arguing about masks, I'm happy to wear one if it allows business to open and life to get back towards normal, but the science is so weak on them and looking at real world data the impact of them has been negligible.

There is tonnes of scientific evidence, studies and published papers that say the opposite. I think your understanding of the science is weak.

odyssey06

A timely article from The Journal debunking some common anti-mask canards:

Wearing a face mask does not 'disrupt pH levels', carbon dioxide levels or increase cancer risk
https://www.thejournal.ie/face-masks-co2-ph-balance-5181214-Aug2020/

lee_baby_simms

Sconsey wrote: »

There is tonnes of scientific evidence, studies and published papers that say the opposite. I think your understanding of the science is weak.

A trial with no controls or one that is observational is inherently weak.

There has been 12 RCTs on masks within healthcare environment and real world since 2010 and they all indicate that outside of a medical environment they are ineffective in controlling spread of influenza. These trials involved a total randomised denominator of 13,259 participants.

The torrent of “evidence” that suddenly appeared in June is dominated by studies that either lack controls or are observational in nature.

Again, I’ll wear a mask in the shops but if people think masks are saving lives or even making a measurable impact on spread then they’re deluded.

Sconsey

No: other

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

A trial with no controls or one that is observational is inherently weak.

There has been 12 RCTs on masks within healthcare environment and real world since 2010 and they all indicate that outside of a medical environment they are ineffective in controlling spread of influenza. These trials involved a total randomised denominator of 13,259 participants.

The torrent of “evidence” that suddenly appeared in June is dominated by studies that either lack controls or are observational in nature.

Again, I’ll wear a mask in the shops but if people think masks are saving lives or even making even a measurable impact on spread then they’re deluded.

More nonsense, as I said, an absolute torrent of scientific resaerch in the area but you choose to ignore it. Good for you but don't think anyone is impressed with your nonsense.

CalamariFritti

I am. Maybe impressed is too strong a word but at least it shows there are still people out there who can put 1 and 1 together and dont arrive at 3.

odyssey06

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

A trial with no controls or one that is observational is inherently weak.
There has been 12 RCTs on masks within healthcare environment and real world since 2010 and they all indicate that outside of a medical environment they are ineffective in controlling spread of influenza. These trials involved a total randomised denominator of 13,259 participants.
The torrent of “evidence” that suddenly appeared in June is dominated by studies that either lack controls or are observational in nature.
Again, I’ll wear a mask in the shops but if people think masks are saving lives or even making even a measurable impact on spread then they’re deluded.

How do you suggest we have a controlled experiment for coronavirus with human participants, when we don't have a vaccine?
All the data we have is going to be observational re: this virus.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-face-mask-debate-reveals-a-scientific-double-standard/

After all, there aren’t any clinical trials proving that a 6-foot social distance prevents infection, as far as we know. (The World Health Organization only recommends a 3-foot separation.) Nor do clinical trials prove that washing our hands for 20 seconds is superior to doing so for 10 seconds when it comes to limiting the spread of disease in a respiratory disease pandemic. The scientific basis for that 20-second handwashing advice from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention derives from laboratory studies measuring virus on the hands after different washing times.

The scientific basis for health care workers using masks doesn’t come from clinical trials of influenza outbreaks or pandemics. It comes from laboratory simulations showing that masks can prevent viral particles from getting through—there are at least a couple dozen of those—and from case-control studies during the 2003 coronavirus epidemic that caused SARS. Those SARS studies weren’t limited to health care workers.

i_surge

3wayswitch wrote: »

When you touch an item and put it in your trolley, you only touch it for a brief period of time before you put in into your trolley and then the cashier only touches it for a few seconds while scanning it. Presumably you have also sanitized your hands while going into the store which should make it safer for both of you to touch your items. The risk here is minimal.

With cash however there are a lot of unknowns. Has the person been holding their coins in the hands for the past 30 mins before coming into the store? Has the person been storing their cash somewhere where they should like their bra where it might get exposed to sweat? (yes I have seen this happen in person). One contaminated coin in a cash register could contaminate other coins which then get handed out to multiple people. While I wouldn't consider money to be a high risk source of infection, it's easy to see why it would be a higher risk than the items in your shopping trolley.

If a single life could be saved by asking people to try using their credit cards instead of cash, then I think it's worth it.

Don't be silly. All things we share contact with have a similar risk.

Sconsey

No: other

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I am. Maybe impressed is too strong a word but at least it shows there are still people out there who can put 1 and 1 together and dont arrive at 3.

1 + 1 = 2
Mask are effective at limiting the spread of the virus.

lee_baby_simms

odyssey06 wrote: »

How do you suggest we have a controlled experiment for coronavirus with human participants, when we don't have a vaccine?
All the data we have is going to be observational re: this virus.

I agree completely. I just often wonder why suddenly masks became mandatory in June along with a flood of observational studies despite clear evidence for years that they're not effective outside of a hospital.

What was proved was that n95 masks that are worn correctly do work within a clean, healthcare environment. I'm fairly sure a filthy cloth mask in Tesco wouldn't be as effective.

Again I promised myself I wouldn't go down the mask rabbit hole, its just a big distraction.

I think if they allow businesses to open and they make people feel more comfortable in public then I'm more than happy to wear it.

odyssey06

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I agree completely. I just often wonder why suddenly masks became mandatory in June along with a flood of observational studies despite clear evidence for years that they're not effective outside of a hospital.
What was proved was that n95 masks that are worn correctly do work within a clean, healthcare environment. I'm fairly sure a filthy cloth mask in Tesco wouldn't be as effective.

Effective at what though?
Protecting the wearer directly as PPE?
Or protecting those in the vicinity of an infected person by containing their droplets?
I think that was the viewpoint shift in June.
Protecting someone as PPE needs a much higher standard of mask and of their correct usage and that seemed to dominate the thinking in spring - as did the lack of masks.
Using them to reduce droplets produced by an infected patient is a different standard entirely.

So I'm not sure how transferrable the influenza studies are if their focus was on protecting the wearer as PPE and those in their vicinity were not wearing them.
And also coronavirus seems to behave differently to influenza in terms of how infectious pre-symptomatic people are.

odyssey06

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I think if they allow businesses to open and they make people feel more comfortable in public then I'm more than happy to wear it.

Thumbs up on this very reasonable attitude

i_surge

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I agree completely. I just often wonder why suddenly masks became mandatory in June along with a flood of observational studies despite clear evidence for years that they're not effective outside of a hospital.

What was proved was that n95 masks that are worn correctly do work within a clean, healthcare environment. I'm fairly sure a filthy cloth mask in Tesco wouldn't be as effective.

Again I promised myself I wouldn't go down the mask rabbit hole, its just a big distraction.

I think if they allow businesses to open and they make people feel more comfortable in public then I'm more than happy to wear it.

None of this evidence exists and is countered by the huge differences between countries that wore masks early and countries who didn't.

You are telling bare faced lies

CalamariFritti

i_surge wrote: »

None of this evidence exists and is countered by the huge differences between countries that wore masks early and countries who didn't.

You are telling bare faced lies

I dont understand this kind of language.

You have no way of knowing what you're saying is true. Conclusively you cannot accuse anyone who says the opposite of being a liar.

Yet you come out here with the strongest language.

Makes your argument look very weak. Doesnt do you personally any favours either.

arccosh

how do you deal with anti maskers who suggest youtube videos so I "educate myself", when I have decided to wear a mask because I have read journals and papers by virologists and respitory consultants who have swayed my opinion to wear it...

But yet, I am following main stream media by doing so, and not when I watch a suggested youtube video of prefiltered content?

odyssey06

arccosh wrote: »

how do you deal with anti maskers who suggest youtube videos so I "educate myself", when I have decided to wear a mask because I have read journals and papers by virologists and respitory consultants who have swayed my opinion to wear it...
But yet, I am following main stream media by doing so, and not when I watch a suggested youtube video of prefiltered content?

"They let anyone put up crap on Youtube."
"There's no peer review process on Youtube."
"Youtube? Corporate giant... whats their angle."

Depending on the audience...

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

arccosh wrote: »

how do you deal with anti maskers who suggest youtube videos so I "educate myself", when I have decided to wear a mask because I have read journals and papers by virologists and respitory consultants who have swayed my opinion to wear it...

But yet, I am following main stream media by doing so, and not when I watch a suggested youtube video of prefiltered content?

Simple continue to wear your mask and ignore what others are saying if you don't agree with what they are saying. I don't have a problem with other people choosing to wear masks I just don't want to wear myself. We should be allowed make choices.

GT89

No: I will wait for the HSE to recommend

odyssey06 wrote: »

"They let anyone put up crap on Youtube."
"There's no peer review process on Youtube."
"Youtube? Corporate giant... whats their angle."

Depending on the audience...

The same youtube that removed Dave Cullen's interview with Delores Cahill

i_surge

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I dont understand this kind of language.

You have no way of knowing what you're saying is true. Conclusively you cannot accuse anyone who says the opposite of being a liar.

Yet you come out here with the strongest language.

Makes your argument look very weak. Doesnt do you personally any favours either.

I do know

One statement is so easily refuted by the evidence available that it shows the other to be a lie. Simple.
.
I am human, i might be wrong, but it is unlikely in this case.

odyssey06

i_surge wrote: »

I do know
One statement is so easily refuted by the evidence available that it shows the other to be a lie. Simple.
.
I am human, i might be wrong, but it is unlikely in this case.

I think your radar might be a bit off in this specific instance.

The poster in question is looking for a level of evidence (RCT) that is appropriate usually when discussing medical matters.

Given the stakes and urgency of the current crisis, and the lack of vaccine to allow RCTs we have to rely on observational evidence, case studies, lab studies.
Also for many public health measures RCTs are not feasible.
So my view it is reasonable for eg CDC to base measures on such data.

i_surge

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think your radar might be a bit off in this specific instance.

The poster in question is looking for a level of evidence (RCT) that is appropriate usually when discussing medical matters.

Given the stakes and urgency of the current crisis, and the lack of vaccine to allow RCTs we have to rely on observational evidence, case studies, lab studies.
Also for many public health measures RCTs are not feasible.
So my view it is reasonable for eg CDC to base measures on such data.

I'm not following, i may have jumped the gun but i don't think so.

Masks are only effective inside hospitals or something? What is the exact point?

The weight of real world evidence precludes any small study imo.

Wibbs

Yes: other

GT89 wrote: »

The same youtube that removed Dave Cullen's interview with Delores Cahill

They should have left it alright, shine a light on idiocy, only label it as humour. Between Cullen's usual tinfoil hat nonsense and his silly mid Atlantic accent and Cahill's continuous stream of (obvious to anyone in possession of even the most basic long standing scientific knowledge) utter nonsense, humour is about all it is.

SeaBreezes

No: I don't care enough

odyssey06 wrote: »

"They let anyone put up crap on Youtube."
"There's no peer review process on Youtube."
"Youtube? Corporate giant... whats their angle."

Depending on the audience...

None of it will work.
They have decided and they BELIEVE.
Sigh.