Shocking Results Came Back - Parents Sent Their Kids' Face Masks to A Lab for Analysis.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Neobucket

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Realtruth

These are all common, you'd find them on most children's clothes. Swab any child's mouth and nose and you get similar data

This sounds like the parents let their kids wear the same masks for a couple of days without washing them or using a UV decontamination lamp.

Fault is with the parents for being lazy.

Proving you only respond to the headline with knee jerk responses, a man of science if I ever met one!

Not at all, the article clearly states that they worse them for 6-8 hours without washing them. I merely stated what was in the article already.

it’s very nice to agree, you are not at all one of science, your bias to see affirmation of your beliefs is evident here.

Can you quote where the article states “ the parents let their kids wear the same masks for a couple of days without washing them or using a UV decontamination lamp. ” as you’ve stated is in the article? That would be the context of what we are discussing.

a reply to: Rolci

f masks worked the studies would've shown that. They show the opposite:

Also if the masks worked, they wouldn’t have to put the disclaimer on the box that they don’t protect from viruses.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
There isn't, that number is fake news, created out of thin air by counting all kinds of deaths as CV19 deaths...

Well, at least we can stop filling the thread with silliness.

Kids... masks ... Take a minute and allow that smile while watching ...

Israeli Children Told They No Longer Have to Wear Masks | No Big Deal to Kids Right?

...Carry on now

originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: tanstaafl
Well, at least we can stop filling the thread with silliness.

Pretty please...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Pretty please...

It is done since you went from "99% was flu" to "all kinds of deaths".

I'm glad some independent studies are finally being done here. For anyone wondering, here is a link to the results from the lab.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Oh I read it plenty slow enough buddy here is your quote

"If someone is wearing the same mask day in day out and not sanitising it properly, of course there’s going to be issues."

Does not sound like you acknowledged they were clean there . So Read your own words Slowly. Goes to show you will ignore any evidence given to you and cower like a scared child wearing your mask for the rest of your life. I am willing to bet you are one of those that drive around in your car , by yourself, wearing a mask.

Ok. Now that I’ve had time to run through this, I have a few things to note. All of these pathogens are ones we come into contact daily, and unless you are immunosuppressed, you are not at risk. Makes sense they’d show up on masks.

Now to the study. Notice how there are no mentions as to who performed the test. What lab was it? Why are the 0 references? This doesn’t look like a read like a real study at all. The results have no header, author names, location, or anything! This is not good scientific practice and raises HUGE red flags.

Now on to the Rational Ground website. The team running the site have no qualifications in biology, chemistry or healthcare. Why should I trust them?

There is no data table showing the proteins that were identified. The excel spreadsheet that is referenced does not exist.
There is a huge chunk of info missing here:

1. The mass spectrometer graphs showing the peaks for different amino acids.

2. How did they connect these mass spectrometer peaks indicating certain amino acids to the actual proteins? All proteins are made of the same 20 amino acids, just in different orders and in different length chains. Identifying the amino acid composition of a protein doesn't actually identify it at all.

3. Even if they did identify the proteins, how did they connect the protein to the specific bacteria? Since some proteins are common to humans and bacteria, this is a huge question. What reference source did they use?

4. And now that I'm asking that question- where's the references???? No references listed at all. HUGE red flag.

Do you research everyone.

a reply to: LordAhriman

The OP said they were washed.

Ask the manufacturers whether their products are scientifically capable of stopping viruses. They are, obviously, not

Only cotton cloth masks should be used. Synthetic masks as shown in the picture are not as effective.

Mask has to disinfected and washed daily. If washing is not done, then sweat in the mask will breed bacteria.

Using mask is not a foolproof method to avoid Covid19 or other diseases, if not used properly.

originally posted by: ShakeNBake
I'm glad some independent studies are finally being done here. For anyone wondering, here is a link to the results from the lab.

Is anyone going to say anything about controlled conditions on this?

Oh - nvm - you did that in the following post.

a reply to: Chadwickus

I'll tell you how. It's called sharing schoolroom space and other public spaces with illegals who come over the border with no health vetting at all. Those diseases come over the border with them.

We've had TB outbreaks in schools in this city that have the so-called "undocumented" in them and that has always been the source.

Also interesting to note is that for a measure designed to prevent us from spreading our viruses ... no viruses were found.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Also interesting to note is that for a measure designed to prevent us from spreading our viruses ... no viruses were found.

You are the second person to say this, but there is one on the list.

originally posted by: BlankUsername
a reply to: Chadwickus

Oh I read it plenty slow enough buddy here is your quote

"If someone is wearing the same mask day in day out and not sanitising it properly, of course there’s going to be issues."

Does not sound like you acknowledged they were clean there . So Read your own words Slowly. Goes to show you will ignore any evidence given to you and cower like a scared child wearing your mask for the rest of your life. I am willing to bet you are one of those that drive around in your car , by yourself, wearing a mask.

How come you missed my first sentence?

I’ve taken a screen shot for you so your lies are layer out for all to see…



So how I say The masks “tested” weren’t filthy though, at least according to the article.?

The rest is in reply to Salander in regards to their dentist comment.

As for your comments, I haven’t worn a mask once since this pandemic started. Never needed to because where I am, we aren’t brain dead idiots. But hey, you keep on being you, it works so well.

originally posted by: ShakeNBake
Ok. Now that I’ve had time to run through this, I have a few things to note. All of these pathogens are ones we come into contact daily, and unless you are immunosuppressed, you are not at risk. Makes sense they’d show up on masks.

Now to the study. Notice how there are no mentions as to who performed the test. What lab was it? Why are the 0 references? This doesn’t look like a read like a real study at all. The results have no header, author names, location, or anything! This is not good scientific practice and raises HUGE red flags.

Now on to the Rational Ground website. The team running the site have no qualifications in biology, chemistry or healthcare. Why should I trust them?

There is no data table showing the proteins that were identified. The excel spreadsheet that is referenced does not exist.
There is a huge chunk of info missing here:

1. The mass spectrometer graphs showing the peaks for different amino acids.

2. How did they connect these mass spectrometer peaks indicating certain amino acids to the actual proteins? All proteins are made of the same 20 amino acids, just in different orders and in different length chains. Identifying the amino acid composition of a protein doesn't actually identify it at all.

3. Even if they did identify the proteins, how did they connect the protein to the specific bacteria? Since some proteins are common to humans and bacteria, this is a huge question. What reference source did they use?

4. And now that I'm asking that question- where's the references???? No references listed at all. HUGE red flag.

Do you research everyone.

Don’t question the official conspiracy narrative mate, only confirmation bias is to be used here.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Do you have a comprehension problem?

You do understand that cloth masks are not advertised as single use?

Why reusable face masks are the eco-friendly and better option.

3sixtyhome.co...

Let’s protect people and the planet with reusable face masks

www.greenpeace.org...

Wearing a reusable mask, which can be made at home, may sound like a small thing compared to the big picture, but it is actually a very critical and positive action you can take for yourself, for others, and for the environment.

Are you saying people should not use home made reusable masks? Especially when there was a time that was the only available option for some?

DOJ, 3M Crack Down on COVID-19 Price Gouging

By Michelle Llamas
1 YEAR AGO

www.drugwatch.com...

Homemade face masks get creative amid global shortage
26.04.2020

m.dw.com...

Anyway. Back to your reading comprehension problem.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Realtruth

These are all common, you'd find them on most children's clothes. Swab any child's mouth and nose and you get similar data

This sounds like the parents let their kids wear the same masks for a couple of days without washing them or using a UV decontamination lamp.

Fault is with the parents for being lazy.

Hello. As pointed out numerous times.

Right from the article

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.

townhall.com... 1047

What do you not get about “ The face masks studied were new or freshly-laundered before wearing ”?

You don’t have an agenda or anything.

Sorry you bought into wearing cheap a$$ masks somehow does something effective.

You do realize humans have been wearing masks in various scenarios for over 100 years now.

In the last 40 or so extensively, especially following research on Occupation Safety and Health guidelines, plus the public choosing to wear them in many countries due to pollution factors.

They have been proven to save millions of lives.

No evidence to show they take lives.


You are a bit late to the party trying to scare people into not wearing them. Except maybe snowflakes and people who are so wrapped in cotton wool / privileged , they never had to wear one.


Your OP is literally as useless as tits on a bull.


FYI. I am a Mortician who wears a mask all the time. And was in the Military where wearing a mask for very long time periods is also a thing.

My bet is you are one of these new Americans who are too soft to handle reality. Pathetic, weak and you probably have a therapist on speed dial.






a reply to: Realtruth

Been saying this for almost a year now... about time someone actually did a test.

It's telling that so many people make excuses that are literally stated otherwise, too. Yeah, follow the scientism...

TheRedneck