I’m in favor of masking mandates only for the recently vaccinated so that you guys are less likely to shed your dirty little spike proteins all over me.

https://thecovidblog.com/2021/06/08/editorial-my-story-of-potential-exposure-to-spike-protein-via-shedding-from-vaccinated-people-and-the-potential-suramin-shikimic-acid-pine-needle-tea-cure-and-prophylaxis/

Wear it like the cone of shame so that everyone knows that you make bad decisions and we won’t accidentally give you too much responsibility.

Show me on the doll where the spike proteins hurt you…

But seriously, what do you think the spike proteins, by themselves, if they even are shed by vaccinated people which I really doubt, do to cause harm?

While it’s true that I haven’t seen anyone here explicitly advocate rejecting masks, I certainly have seen quite a bit of information that doesn’t follow logic and physics (“…totally useless…”).  Also, there are certainly people with loud voices in the public space that appear to be advocating complete rejection.
[snipped]

That's not "information".  That's an opinion.

Do we have to label opinions now just so you can see the difference?

Why are you now changing focus from this forum's members to "people with loud voices in the public space?"  if you want to discuss THOSE PEOPLE, then start another thread.  it just muddies the water tossing out what someone else said -- someone who isn't participating in the discussion.

Celebs interject their opinions into high profile issues all the time.  It might be a good discussion starter, but to argue over their comments as being a position you disagree with is one thing.  To bring their opinions up as if others here are voicing the same is dishonest and a deflection.

You seem to like bantering over definitions, details and nuance.  If that's what you want to do, then it would be nice if you could adhere to the facts and avoid labeling opinions as information.

That's not "information".  That's an opinion.

Do we have to label opinions now just so you can see the difference?

Why are you now changing focus from this forum's members to "people with loud voices in the public space?"  if you want to discuss THOSE PEOPLE, then start another thread.  it just muddies the water tossing out what someone else said -- someone who isn't participating in the discussion.

Celebs interject their opinions into high profile issues all the time.  It might be a good discussion starter, but to argue over their comments as being a position you disagree with is one thing.  To bring their opinions up as if others here are voicing the same is dishonest and a deflection.

You seem to like bantering over definitions, details and nuance.  If that's what you want to do, then it would be nice if you could adhere to the facts and avoid labeling opinions as information.

Opinions are information.  So are facts.  Opinions are not (necessarily) facts.

There are folks on this forum that, as I see it, stigmatize and attack those who believe masks have value in reducing the spread of COVID.  Even if they don’t say it specifically, it seems pretty close to a complete rejection of masks.  You may not see it that way, but it’s pretty apparent to me.

Definitions are important, because if we don’t share common definitions, it’s almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.  When I’m voicing an opinion, I try to make that clear by using language like “as I see it,” “it appears,” “in my opinion,” etc.  When I’m referring to logic, reason, and data, I try to make that clear as well.  I apologize if I’m not always successful.

Opinions are information.  So are facts.  Opinions are not (necessarily) facts.

There are folks on this forum that, as I see it, stigmatize and attack those who believe masks have value in reducing the spread of COVID.  Even if they don’t say it specifically, it seems pretty close to a complete rejection of masks.  You may not see it that way, but it’s pretty apparent to me.

Definitions are important, because if we don’t share common definitions, it’s almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.  When I’m voicing an opinion, I try to make that clear by using language like “as I see it,” “it appears,” “in my opinion,” etc.  When I’m referring to logic, reason, and data, I try to make that clear as well.  I apologize if I’m not always successful.

That's what I like to call 'your opinion.' 

You have a right to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.

That's what I like to call 'your opinion.' 

You have a right to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Absolutely true, but seems to me to be backed up by evidence.  I think we can find, without even looking very hard, where folks on this forum have tried to shame people who believe masks have some effectiveness. Like maybe not even five posts ago in this thread…

I was not really referring to the spread of the virus(C19) but more to the spread of the totally 100% safe and effective totally not experimental MRNA not vaccine people have been injected with.  I know the virus can spread through aerosolized means, not so much droplets.  The vax is what is being spread through fluid transfer(B milk, blood, saliva etc).  I know there was talk about shedding post injection, not too sure if the means of transmission is restricted to fluids or is air born.

So do you take the same approach to all prescription and OTC pharmaceuticals?  Because each and every one, prior to getting approved, was… experimental.

Do you have any actual evidence that the vaccine is being shed/spread through fluid transfer?  Because I think that can only happen with attenuated live-virus vaccines, which the COVID vaccines aren’t.

Absolutely true, but seems to me to be backed up by evidence.  I think we can find, without even looking very hard, where folks on this forum have tried to shame people who believe masks have some effectiveness. Like maybe not even five posts ago in this thread…

That tells me they aren't convinced by your 'evidence.'  Maybe because too much unscientific "information" has been spread by the government and media the last few years.  Difficult to trust the same people who now admit mask mandate caused more harm than good.

The C.D.C. concedes that cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks.  Yet, they told us to use such masks to make scarce N-95 masks available for "front line" workers.  How is following that policy in any way following the science?

From the NYT quoting CNN:

The CDC’s announcement comes shortly after CNN’s Leana Wen admitted that
“cloth masks are not appropriate for this pandemic.” So for over 22 months, the
public has been walking around with a useless piece of fabric over their faces to
blindly comply with a completely useless mandate. The CDC previously stated
that surgical N95 masks were appropriate “when supplies are available,” but has
since updated that guidance to say “wear the most protective mask you can that
fits well and that you will wear consistently.”

"Completely useless mandate."  Not my opinion -- someone who has a public media soapbox working for "the most trusted name in news."

That tells me they aren't convinced by your 'evidence.'  Maybe because too much unscientific "information" has been spread by the government and media the last few years.  Difficult to trust the same people who now admit mask mandate caused more harm than good.

The C.D.C. concedes that cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks.  Yet, they told us to use such masks to make scarce N-95 masks available for "front line" workers.  How is following that policy in any way following the science?

From the NYT quoting CNN:
"Completely useless mandate."  Not my opinion -- someone who has a public media soapbox working for "the most trusted name in news."

“Cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks.”  Did I, or anyone else for that matter, say they did?  A full-face respirator with a fresh filter is probably more effective than an N-95, which is probably more effective than a surgical mask, which is probably more effective than a cloth mask, which is probably more effective than not wearing a mask.  You keep calling me out for claiming folks on this forum said things they didn’t, and then claim I said things I didn’t.  And yet when others post claims about vaccinated people shedding spike proteins and causing unspecified problems for other people, or the vaccine causing some mass die0ff, with zero evidence or logical reasoning to back them up, I hear crickets…

Do you have a link to that NYT piece?  I’d like to read it.

“Cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks.”  Did I, or anyone else for that matter, say they did?  A full-face respirator with a fresh filter is probably more effective than an N-95, which is probably more effective than a surgical mask, which is probably more effective than a cloth mask, which is probably more effective than not wearing a mask.  You keep calling me out for claiming folks on this forum said things they didn’t, and then claim I said things I didn’t.  And yet when others post claims about vaccinated people shedding spike proteins and causing unspecified problems for other people, or the vaccine causing some mass die0ff, with zero evidence or logical reasoning to back them up, I hear crickets…

Do you have a link to that NYT piece?  I’d like to read it.

It's behind a NYT paywall.  I used this:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cdc-admits-cloth-masks-ineffective-armstrong-economics

which contains a link to the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/cloth-masks-covid-cdc.html

So do you take the same approach to all prescription and OTC pharmaceuticals?  Because each and every one, prior to getting approved, was… experimental.

Do you have any actual evidence that the vaccine is being shed/spread through fluid transfer?  Because I think that can only happen with attenuated live-virus vaccines, which the COVID vaccines aren’t.

Uhm what?  I guess you missed my other post.

Even if you don't want it you can still get it.
Doc Pete McCullough
https://www.bitchute.com/video/AtxZPJ2hPOVz/

Reaction bit to someone who i would trust alot more than you. 
Spike protein(aka the mrna injection aka the vax) is being shared through fluids.  Transfer is documented, not opinion.  I was wondering if it was being passed along via air as fluid is already established.
I sure don't know what OTC pharm has to do with anything but as far as I am aware of those have to go through safety testing too.  And its not a vaccine, it doesn't stop or hinder anything.  Lessening of symptoms is conjecture with no quantifiable basis.
Off the top of my head i remember reading something along the lines of n95 masks having a 10-12% efficiency(efficacy?) at stopping airborne pathogens.  Cloth masks were something like 0% or negative.

It's behind a NYT paywall.  I used this:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cdc-admits-cloth-masks-ineffective-armstrong-economics

which contains a link to the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/cloth-masks-covid-cdc.html

So what you said was the NYT quoting CNN, was actually Armstrong Economics running what appears to be an opinion piece on LinkedIn, referring peripherally (and inaccurately) to something published in the NYT that we can’t confirm because neither of us wants to pay the NYT $50 for a subscription.

To more directly answer the question you posed (“How is following that policy in any way following the science?”):

1. There’s a new virus going around, and it seems to be pretty dangerous.
2. Medical personnel are likely to be at greater risk than the general populace, because they’ll be dealing directly with infected people on a daily basis.
3. Therefore, we should take steps to ensure medical personnel have the most effective means of mitigation.
4. N95 masks are more effective than cloth.
5. Ergo, encourage the general populace to wear cloth masks so the currently (at the time) limited supply of N95s can go to medical personnel.  Once production of N95s catches up to demand, it will be better for everybody to wear N95s because they’re more effective than cloth masks, which is not to say that cloth masks are ineffective.

You seem to be focused on the mandates, which I understand… BUT I’M NOT TAKING A POSITION ON WHETHER THE MANDATE WAS GOOD POLICY OR BAD POLICY.  I’m saying that the claim that cloth masks are/were useless, or that masking in general has no value, or that people who choose to mask are “mak[ing] bad decisions,” is not supported by evidence.  Neither is the idea of a mass die-off from the vaccine, and neither is the idea that vaccinated people are shedding spike proteins that are harming others.

So what you said was the NYT quoting CNN, was actually Armstrong Economics running what appears to be an opinion piece on LinkedIn, referring peripherally (and inaccurately) to something published in the NYT that we can’t confirm because neither of us wants to pay the NYT $50 for a subscription.

To more directly answer the question you posed (“How is following that policy in any way following the science?”):

1. There’s a new virus going around, and it seems to be pretty dangerous.
2. Medical personnel are likely to be at greater risk than the general populace, because they’ll be dealing directly with infected people on a daily basis.
3. Therefore, we should take steps to ensure medical personnel have the most effective means of mitigation.
4. N95 masks are more effective than cloth.
5. Ergo, encourage the general populace to wear cloth masks so the currently (at the time) limited supply of N95s can go to medical personnel.  Once production of N95s catches up to demand, it will be better for everybody to wear N95s because they’re more effective than cloth masks, which is not to say that cloth masks are ineffective.

You seem to be focused on the mandates, which I understand… BUT I’M NOT TAKING A POSITION ON WHETHER THE MANDATE WAS GOOD POLICY OR BAD POLICY.  I’m saying that the claim that cloth masks are/were useless, or that masking in general has no value, or that people who choose to mask are “mak[ing] bad decisions,” is not supported by evidence.  Neither is the idea of a mass die-off from the vaccine, and neither is the idea that vaccinated people are shedding spike proteins that are harming others.

Florida and Georgia made decisions in opposition to CDC guidance.  They showed no more transmission of COVID than states like NY which locked down businesses and schools.

Without mandates or lockdowns, Florida
better managed COVID than New York

When the final history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written it will likely conclude
that most of the non-pharmaceutical public health measures taken to combat the
disease — that is, mask mandates and lockdowns — were largely ineffective.

Not my opinion.  Not an anti-vaxxer's opinion.  Not a clinical study.  Just a very obvious reality-based example.
Dr. Joel Zinberg, MD, is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
and director of public health and wellness at the Paragon Health Institute.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/23/without-mandates-or-lockdowns-florida-better-managed-covid-than-ny/

Uhm what?  I guess you missed my other post.Reaction bit to someone who i would trust alot more than you. 
Spike protein(aka the mrna injection aka the vax) is being shared through fluids.  Transfer is documented, not opinion.  I was wondering if it was being passed along via air as fluid is already established.
I sure don't know what OTC pharm has to do with anything but as far as I am aware of those have to go through safety testing too.  And its not a vaccine, it doesn't stop or hinder anything.  Lessening of symptoms is conjecture with no quantifiable basis.
Off the top of my head i remember reading something along the lines of n95 masks having a 10-12% efficiency(efficacy?) at stopping airborne pathogens.  Cloth masks were something like 0% or negative.

You appear to be concerned that the vaccines were experimental.  Prior to getting FDA approval, ALL prescription or OTC drugs/vaccines/medical devices/etc. were experimental.   Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have gotten full FDA approval, so aren’t “experimental” anymore.  I was asking if you take the same approach to all other prescription/OTC drugs/vaccines/etc. that were previously experimental, but have now gotten FDA approval.

They ARE vaccines. All vaccines trigger an immune response in your body to produce antibodies against whatever disease the vaccine targets.  No vaccine promises 100% protection against all infection, but they do allow your body to fight the virus more effectively.

The guy in the video you linked (a cardiologist, not an immunologist) based his claim of spike proteins transferring between people on a single paper.  Even the person who published that paper “urged caution, saying in an interview… that this type of transmission is ‘only hypothesis’ and that further study is needed.”

And incidentally, I didn’t hear him say in the video that transfer was actually documented; if you listen close, he mentioned the paper, but then everything he said about spike proteins being present was about vaccinated people… not people who had contact with vaccinated people.

More info here: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33398EC

Florida and Georgia made decisions in opposition to CDC guidance.  They showed no more transmission of COVID than states like NY which locked down businesses and schools.

Without mandates or lockdowns, Florida
better managed COVID than New York
Not my opinion.  Not an anti-vaxxer's opinion.  Not a clinical study.  Just a very obvious reality-based example.
Dr. Joel Zinberg, MD, is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
and director of public health and wellness at the Paragon Health Institute.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/23/without-mandates-or-lockdowns-florida-better-managed-covid-than-ny/

You left out the word that appears on the line prior to the headline in the NY Post story: “Opinion.”

This is an opinion piece, not reporting.  It may well be true that Florida did better than New York.  Leaves an important question unanswered: why?  Correlation ≠ causation, lots of factors may have had an effect on their differing outcomes, like population density, weather, etc.  Will be interesting to see future studies.

You left out the word that appears on the line prior to the headline in the NY Post story: “Opinion.”

This is an opinion piece, not reporting.  It may well be true that Florida did better than New York.  Leaves an important question unanswered: why?  Correlation ≠ causation, lots of factors may have had an effect on their differing outcomes, like population density, weather, etc.  Will be interesting to see future studies.

It's the opinion of a medical professional, not some random guy who submitted his thoughts to an editorial page.

Given the state of our fake news MSM, i prefer to get my news directly from people who know what they are talking about, not someone who will edit and omit the things they don't agree with.

You sound like you only trust information that journalists feed us.  That's rather scary. 

You appear to be concerned that the vaccines were experimental.  Prior to getting FDA approval, ALL prescription or OTC drugs/vaccines/medical devices/etc. were experimental.   Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have gotten full FDA approval, so aren’t “experimental” anymore.  I was asking if you take the same approach to all other prescription/OTC drugs/vaccines/etc. that were previously experimental, but have now gotten FDA approval.

They ARE vaccines. All vaccines trigger an immune response in your body to produce antibodies against whatever disease the vaccine targets.  No vaccine promises 100% protection against all infection, but they do allow your body to fight the virus more effectively.

The guy in the video you linked (a cardiologist, not an immunologist) based his claim of spike proteins transferring between people on a single paper.  Even the person who published that paper “urged caution, saying in an interview… that this type of transmission is ‘only hypothesis’ and that further study is needed.”

And incidentally, I didn’t hear him say in the video that transfer was actually documented; if you listen close, he mentioned the paper, but then everything he said about spike proteins being present was about vaccinated people… not people who had contact with vaccinated people.

More info here: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33398EC

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I remember you can not get the 'approved' variant of the 'vaccine', that may have changed but they are still EUA if I am correct.  I don't think the Comirnaty variant ever became available, which is legally distinct and carries liability with it.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-updated-bivalent-covid-19-vaccines-children-down-6-months
December 08, 2022
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of the updated (bivalent) Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines to include use in children down to 6 months of age.

Yes, it says transmission, meaning giving something from one to another.  Not necessarily infected but transferred.  If it was present in the samples that means the baby is consuming the tainted milk.  Whether the baby can separate out the protein or destroy it through its gut and not become infected is another thing.
Nobody said 100%, Claims of 90+ percent protection comes to mind, but what science was that based on?
BTW, here is the article.  It consists of a measly 11 participants 5 of which showed leakage.  So roughly 45%. 
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2796427
You can disseminate this one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8351783/
Seperately, what was the projected mortality of the virus to what is the actual mortality?  I think it ended up something along the lines of the common cold.  Was the response proportional?

It's the opinion of a medical professional, not some random guy who submitted his thoughts to an editorial page.

Given the state of our fake news MSM, i prefer to get my news directly from people who know what they are talking about, not someone who will edit and omit the things they don't agree with.

You sound like you only trust information that journalists feed us.  That's rather scary.

Mayo Clinic: “Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.” https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

Published on CDC.gov: “Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection — California, February–December 2021
Kristin L. Andrejko1,2,*; Jake M. Pry, PhD2,*; Jennifer F. Myers, MPH2; Nozomi Fukui2; Jennifer L. DeGuzman, MPH2; John Openshaw, MD2; James P. Watt, MD2; Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD1,3,4; Seema Jain, MD2; California COVID-19 Case-Control Study Team

Author affiliations: 1Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California; 2California Department of Public Health; 3Division of Infectious Diseases & Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California; 4Center for Computational Biology, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California.

What is added by this report?

Consistent use of a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings was associated with lower odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (adjusted odds ratio = 0.44). Use of respirators with higher filtration capacity was associated with the most protection, compared with no mask use.“ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

Johns Hopkins Medicine, from Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H.: “ Can wearing a face mask prevent coronavirus from spreading?

Yes. Since the coronavirus can spread through droplets and particles released into the air by speaking, singing, coughing or sneezing, masks are very helpful to prevent the virus from spreading in crowded indoor public places, especially those that contain a mixture of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Cloth Masks

In non-health care settings, multiple-layer fabric cloth masks are excellent barriers for containing respiratory droplets and interrupting viral transmission if they are worn consistently and properly, covering the nose and mouth.“ https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know

And there are a bunch more where those came from, all from medical doctors and/or public health experts, none filtered through the MSM.

I’m not saying you do this, FJ, but I’m amazed by how people will latch on to one source and ignore hundreds of others… because the one conforms to their political beliefs the hundreds don’t.

Person A: “This one doctor on bitchute/rumble/truth social with no background in immunology or infectious diseases, who also happens to be selling a book and/or miracle cure, says the vaccine makes you magnetic!” (DISCLAIMER: I haven’t actually seen anybody on this forum say that; I’m trying to illustrate a thought process.  Although, I haven’t read through all 496 pages of this thread…)

Person B: “Sure, but hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors who have studied infectious diseases and vaccines for years, from prestigious medical schools and public health organizations throughout the world, say that’s not possible, and there are no documented cases of it actually happening.”

Person B: “Fake news!  I can’t believe you believe those quacks!” 

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I remember you can not get the 'approved' variant of the 'vaccine', that may have changed but they are still EUA if I am correct.  I don't think the Comirnaty variant ever became available, which is legally distinct and carries liability with it.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-updated-bivalent-covid-19-vaccines-children-down-6-months
December 08, 2022
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of the updated (bivalent) Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines to include use in children down to 6 months of age.

Yes, it says transmission, meaning giving something from one to another.  Not necessarily infected but transferred.  If it was present in the samples that means the baby is consuming the tainted milk.  Whether the baby can separate out the protein or destroy it through its gut and not become infected is another thing.
Nobody said 100%, Claims of 90+ percent protection comes to mind, but what science was that based on?
BTW, here is the article.  It consists of a measly 11 participants 5 of which showed leakage.  So roughly 45%. 
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2796427
You can disseminate this one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8351783/
Seperately, what was the projected mortality of the virus to what is the actual mortality?  I think it ended up something along the lines of the common cold.  Was the response proportional?

The approved versions of the vaccines are chemically identical to the vaccines administered under the EUA.  As I understand it, if the vaccine was manufactured before FDA approval was granted, it has to be administered under the EUA, even if it’s exactly the same stuff that got approved.  I believe use in young children is still under the EUA because the process is not yet complete to grant full approval for use in children.  Use in adults has been fully approved.

You originally said the vaccine was spreading through “b[reast] milk, blood, saliva, etc.”. Now it’s just through breast milk to nursing infants?  That’s not what Dr. McCullough said in the video; he said you can get the spike protein through kissing and sex.  Where’s the evidence of that?  Is there any evidence of harm to nursing infants who’s mothers have been vaccinated?  Any evidence that anyone, anywhere got the spike protein from somebody who was vaccinated, other than nursing infants?

Do masks work? See the review of over 150 studies below:
https://centerforneurologyandspine.com/do-masks-work-see-the-review-of-over-150-studies-below/
Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747?login=false
COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

Do masks work? See the review of over 150 studies below:
https://centerforneurologyandspine.com/do-masks-work-see-the-review-of-over-150-studies-below/
Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747?login=false
COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

I didn’t make it through all 150 entries in the first link, but the sample I looked at (about 30%) seemed focused on how well a mask protects the wearer.  It’s been a couple of years now that they’ve been saying the mask is to reduce the amount of respiratory droplets an infected individual (who may not even know they’re infected) puts out into the environment.  Also, he included one of his own papers (red flag), and an article from zerohedge, which I’m pretty sure isn’t a medical journal.

Second link also focuses on how well masks protect the wearer, not how well they reduce the spread when worn by infected people.

Third link also primarily about how well masks protect the wearer, not the other way around, and includes the sentence “Wearing a cloth mask or face covering could be better than doing nothing, but we simply don’t know at this point.”  That was April of 2020.  I think we’ve probably learned a bit about the virus and how it spreads in the last two years.