Annals Of The American Thoracic Society

De Transcription | Bibliothèque patrimoniale numérique Mines ParisTech
Révision datée du 22 novembre 2025 à 23:35 par VelvaBryce17638 (discussion | contributions) (Page créée avec « <br>Outlets like American Conservative Movement, Tech Startups, and Gateway Pundit promoted the article by publishing several articles like this one, this one, and this on... »)
(diff) ← Version précédente | Voir la version actuelle (diff) | Version suivante → (diff)
Aller à : navigation, rechercher


Outlets like American Conservative Movement, Tech Startups, and Gateway Pundit promoted the article by publishing several articles like this one, this one, and this one which went viral on social media in April 2021, altogether receiving more than 50,000 interactions on Facebook. The articles printed by American Conservative Movement and Gateway Pundit claimed that the examine was carried out by Stanford University and had been printed on the website of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnological Information (NCBI), which is a part of the U.S. National Institutes for Health (NIH). However, the declare is inaccurate. The article by Vainshelboim was revealed within the journal Medical Hypotheses, which belongs to the publishing company Elsevier. The NCBI’s inclusion of the article in its online repository PubMed is akin to stocking a book in a library. It doesn’t imply that Vainshelboim’s article was printed by, requested, funded or BloodVitals health in any approach related to the NIH, as claimed.



Secondly, Vainshelboim’s claim to be affiliated with Stanford University, particularly with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto BloodVitals health Care System was refuted by Stanford University. In truth, the university just lately declared in a statement to Associated Press that Vainshelboim was by no means employed by the college and has no present contractual relationship whatsoever with Stanford University. In the Medical Hypotheses article, Vainshelboim put forward two statements concerning the use of face masks: that they don’t cease the spread of a virus and that they've a collection of dangerous effects on well being. However, the prevailing evidence doesn’t help both of these hypotheses, contrary to what Vainshelboim claimed. In this evaluation we present that these hypotheses are unfounded. This claim is based on the following reasoning: "SARS-CoV-2’s diameter is one thousand occasions smaller than the thread diameter of non-medical facemasks", so "SARS-CoV-2 can simply move by any facemask". However, this reasoning is fundamentally flawed.



These droplets are divided into two groups relying on their measurement, large droplets (more than 5 micrometers in diameter) that fall rapidly to the ground and are thus transmitted only over brief distances, and small droplets (less than or equal to 5 micrometers in diameter) that remain suspended in air for longer periods of time and might be inhaled, forming a small cloud known as aerosol. Therefore, even if the particle measurement is smaller than the gaps in the masks, the masks are capable of remove most of those small particles from the air. Several studies assist the effectiveness of masks in filtering aerosols. This efficacy is even better when medical-grade masks are used. Evidence additionally exhibits that using face masks prevents transmission of COVID-19, especially if this measure is accompanied by others comparable to frequent hand-washing and bodily distancing. Lastly, here is a listing of peer-reviewed scientific research on the efficacy of face masks in stopping COVID-19 transmission.



The results show overwhelming evidence that sporting a face mask reduces the chance of being exposed to the SARS CoV2 virus, and of transmitting the virus to others, if infected.