Those damned face diapers are meant to deliberately make one sick and weak and stupid from lack of oxygen and psy-op conditions the wearer to be a frightened hypochondriacal faceless robotized SLAVE OBEDIENT TO THEIR TECHNOCRATIC PREDATOR GLOBALIST ELITE OVERLORDS!

Expand full comment

As well as to ritualistically indicate yourself as a willing sacrifice to Satan.

Expand full comment

Abaluck sabotaged himself making it very hard to determine anything. He focused too much on the minutaie of technical issues and less on where it matters most: Masks and its impact on public health. We're humans. Not machines. He then picked up his ball and went home because he didn't like curve balls and wanted straight low velocity fastballs with no movement. Or slow pitch. Whatever.

And I'm not a fan of mechanical engineering lab controlled environments to study masks. I want real world stuff.

Expand full comment

Those engineering studies are worthless since they examined solid particles. Droplets evaporate and you end up with free, aerosolized virus. Large droplets which would fall to the floor if people exhaling them weren't wearing masks end up being turned into viral aerosols.

Expand full comment

I always wondered how the droplets worked and I think you explained it. So, if a virus is trapped in a droplet and the droplet evaporates does the virus simply escape once the droplet hits the ground and becomes aersolized? Did I get that right?

Expand full comment
Apr 16, 2022·edited Apr 16, 2022

In the masked case, large droplets are caught by masks and free virus aerosols are released. In the unmasked case, large droplets fall to the floor and viruses stay on or near the floor.

Physics-speak: Droplet evaporation rate varies with the ambient heat, ambient humidity, and with the ratio of surface area/mass. (There are also other factors which we will ignore for the present as we assume best case for the opposition.)

Translation: masks wick droplets and most droplets evaporate within microseconds, leaving free virus aerosol. That's my _expert_ opinion--and is backed by a Jan. 2022 physics research article published in "Nature".

It's known in physics of fluids that spherical droplets of <=5 micron diameter evaporate within microseconds. We can use that to calculate the surface area/mass ratio needed for microsecond evaporation.

Droplets evaporate, leaving residue, which includes viruses and bacteria. The residue is worked by air jets and masks, breaking it down physically so that viruses are released. This all happens very quickly.

There will be some short term, waning effectiveness from some masks which use electrostatically-charged fibers and Brownian Motion within layers to trap viruses. There have not been any studies done to evaluate the effectiveness curve for any of these masks of which I am aware. And I have looked. Search: "carrying capacity masks viruses covid" and look for anything from physicists or engineers.

Expand full comment

While I am not a “believer” in masks, I DO realize there is a very moderate amount of protection from what you guys are discussing. Thanks Tom! As I mentioned in the original post Dr LW did, there does seem to be protection against droplets but not hardly any against aerosolized. If I am misunderstanding you, let me know.

One question, I do keep hearing”electrostatic” applies to some masks. Can you explain? Which ones would be considered electrostatic?

Expand full comment

I'm not an expert but my understanding is that N95 filters use an electrostatic charge to capture some particles that are smaller than the actual size of the filter pores. However, two things to consider - N95 is not designed for oil particles and (according to Mike Deskevich) CoV is quite similar to an oil, and the evaporation issue would tend to release the virions as an aerosol shortly after being captured.

The other problem is the electrostatic properties of the filter degrade rapidly as the filter is used.

I think it's safe to say that N95 masks are not designed to filter out viruses. They are designed for particulates that are not wet or oily.

Of course, the Bangledesh study didn't use N95 anyway, they used surgical and cloth.. and huge amounts of the air goes around the sides of the mask making the whole concept an exercise in futility. The mechanical tests test droplet capture, not whether aerosols just go around the edges..

Expand full comment

Masks catch droplets and turn them into aerosols, generally speaking. Masks actually increase the amount of viral aerosol, so they are worse than going barefaced. This is because going barefaced allows large droplets to fall to the floor and leave the breathing zone, while masks catch large droplets and turn them into viral aerosols.

N95 masks use electrostatically-charged fibers in the mask to attract dust, including viruses.

Masks, other than N-100 and military masks, are unreliable for protection from viruses. Supplementing with vitamin D at 50 IU per pound looks like a solid strategy.

Expand full comment

I do appreciate the reply. My question was more one of physics or engineering, I’m not a mask believer per se but I AM willing to listen if there really IS some sort of efficacy.

Especially since this whole discussion is not simply brain food for me. It’s partly that but it’s also because I work for 6 MDs all of whom believe in masks. Why you ask? I have no clue.

When I have pushed back very recently, our practice administrator said “masks are not going away”.

I DO need help pushing back rationally. However, in this case I was kinda just intellectually curious, I admit.

Expand full comment

'viruses' are completely overrated anyway. Masks are a feature of a totalitarian state just as they were in 1918/19 when the elite were also killing people (a lot of them returned soldiers from the war) with jabs which in 1918/19 they blamed on germs. Now germs have turned into viruses. They're still completely harmless. The jabs arn't.

Expand full comment

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

Expand full comment

Were you having a debate with Jason? It felt more to me like you were interviewing him about the study. He wouldn't let you talk or finish your thoughts.

Expand full comment

Well , no offense to Dr LW (who is a much much better speaker and I actually loved his replies to Dr Abaluk), Dr LW did interrupt him too. Considering that I value LWs replies more than Abaluks I didn’t care.

Expand full comment
Apr 16, 2022·edited Apr 16, 2022

The idea that a debate like this has a real "winner" seems very odd to me. One or the other participants might be declared to have scored more points, or to have spoken with more knowledge or panache. A few listeners might even change their minds. But in broader society, the debate rages on.

Since Steve Kirsch is constantly making offers of massive rewards for participating in such "debates" (A hundred thousand dollars! A Million Dollars! Name Your Price!!) I am curious whether any honorarium was paid for Dr. Abaluck? If Kirsch really wants to encourage more of these debates, he needs to make those payments -- even if (in his perception) his opponent is a "loser", incompetent, or worse.

Expand full comment

My offers are to incentivize public authorities. No offer was extended to Jason, nor did Jason request a fee.

Expand full comment

 ? Is that so you can search on your posts elsewhere?

Expand full comment

But aren't public authorities supposed to rely on information provided by scientists and academics? And who is more qualified to speak about the science, than the first author of a relevant, peer reviewed journal article? (Although as a professor of economics, it's a little odd to find Abaluck in this role.)

It isn't true that these offers have been made only to "public authorities".

For example, here's a $1 million bet open to literally anyone who can convince a three-judge panel, that the mRNA vaccines killed <1000 people as of 11/1/21:


Here's a $1 million grant offer, open to any academic who can publish a paper showing errors in Mathew Crawford's vaccine excess death analysis:


Here's a $250K offer to MIT, Stanford or Harvard, for a faculty member to debate mask effectiveness, with Norman Fenton and Stephen Petty as judges:


Of course the problem with these offers, is that the reward is based on performance, and not just participation. And in at least the first case, if you lose you pay -- which is an extreme disincentive for anyone who isn't a billionaire like Steve.

Here's another offer to pay tuition expenses for any medical student who can answer 20 questions:


This is pretty vague about the success criteria. To win the money, does the entrant just have to answer the questions? Or is it necessary to convince Steve to change his mind? If it's the latter, I wouldn't waste the time -- even if I were 100% convinced that the mainstream narrative is correct.

If the goal is to incentivize participation, the most encouraging offers are the ones that don't put anyone in the judgment seat. Such as, for example, this "name your price" offer, open to any infectious disease professor, for a three-hour discussion session:


I brought this up once before, and Steve's answer was that I could put my own money in. Maybe we could set up a GoFundMe? I bet we could raise some funds to match Steve's incentives, and get some more discussions going.

Expand full comment

James, my dear man, you truly have the patience of a saint.

Two hours with that guy, was beyond my limit. I got through the first 30 minutes, trying to follow his fast-talking while saying nothing, then gave up.

I've bookmarked Steve Kirsch's page, so I'll try again when I can gather my own patience.

Thank you, so much for this!

Expand full comment

It almost doesn't matter whether or not they work; the most important thing to TPTB about the masks is that they are still being worn, even by those who know or believe they don't work. If by "work" we mean "as a symbol of conformity" or as "following orders," it seems they are doing a bang up job, and that's what really matters to them.

Expand full comment

Agree, this is where the most harm is. But they're still bad as well increasing water vapour and CO2 retention by up to 700%. So they make you sick.

Expand full comment

You know which side your readers are on. I’d rather do a poll of the other side. But unfortunately you can easily find their mask comments on YourLocalEpidemiologist substack. Her site is Revealing of the mentality of supposedly intelligent people.

And yes, if any of you (those that believe masks work) are here on Dr Lyons Weiler Substack trolling, feel free to comment and try to counter my assertion that you’ve left all intelligence behind, especially if you wear a cloth mask.

Expand full comment

I thought that Mike made a ton of excellent points which I'd love to hear a response to from the study authors. Dr. Abaluck had a tendency to latch onto pedantic, easily provable points and waste a lot of time on them, such as the argument about perfect correlation showing up in a random set of 300/600 clusters. Abaluck is correct that perfect correlation is statistically impossible. But the question is not whether the correlation is perfect, it only needs to be significant! JLW could have backed up and said, "well, I didn't mean perfect", maybe that would have saved me pulling out a few hairs.

The salient points Mike brought up were:

* the "N" value should have been 600 not 300000 because of a lack of independence within each cluster

* only testing 10K for seropositivity further reduces the power (although this only applies to incorrectly using 300K as N)

* I don't understand what the symptomatic seropositive metric even means, did they also test these people prior to symptoms so they know they hadn't already had it? Did they wait the 30 days or so required to establish post-infection seropositivity?

* the differences in the control subgroups were as large or larger than the claimed effect size.

* the claimed effect size was very small, and on the same order as the false positivity rate for the tests

Expand full comment

Havn't watched, but such technical jargon just hides what we all know. That masks are useless or harmful. And that their only use as seen from elite level is to make you submit.

Expand full comment

I certainly believe that a picture tells a thousand words. And simple graphs simply tell the story.

Expand full comment

James I'm biased. And I'm not Steve's biggest fan either.

No way in hell do masks work. I'm with Steve on this one.

Expand full comment

Never mind the mask studies where are the studies showing that the new virus actually exists?

Turns out there are no studies showing that a new virus exists, turns out all of the methods used in virology to identify any virus are complete guff.

Expand full comment