DARPA has done some really intriguing and groundbreaking research over the years. Its involvement isn't necessarily the red flag we think it is. And since the research does have direct implications for soldiers who may end up facing biological warfare attacks, they have a legitimate interest in the research.

The NIH funds 2/3s of all medical research in this country, so that's not quite the red flag we think it is either.

For me, the red flags are Billy Gates and CDC. CDC lied to me too many times with COVID, and I'm beyond tired of deconstructing their Bravo Sierra commentary when it comes to respiratory disease. They're trying to cover their backsides and pretend like they didn't change all of their definitions and statistical methodologies to push the COVID hoax by now acting like all of that was normal and good science.

I haven't read the study yet, but I'm going to guess right now that its methodology is highly specific and tailored to produce this result, and that this methodology looks absolutely nothing like real world use of these devices. If people don't wear them right, you don't get the advertised benefits.

Edit: just read the article, which is NOT the actual study, but they claim that cloth masks outperformed everything but the duckbill N95. That should send everyone's BS detector into the red.

DARPA has done some really intriguing and groundbreaking research over the years. Its involvement isn't necessarily the red flag we think it is. And since the research does have direct implications for soldiers who may end up facing biological warfare attacks, they have a legitimate interest in the research.

The NIH funds 2/3s of all medical research in this country, so that's not quite the red flag we think it is either.

For me, the red flags are Billy Gates and CDC. CDC lied to me too many times with COVID, and I'm beyond tired of deconstructing their Bravo Sierra commentary when it comes to respiratory disease. They're trying to cover their backsides and pretend like they didn't change all of their definitions and statistical methodologies to push the COVID hoax by now acting like all of that was normal and good science.

I haven't read the study yet, but I'm going to guess right now that its methodology is highly specific and tailored to produce this result, and that this methodology looks absolutely nothing like real world use of these devices. If people don't wear them right, you don't get the advertised benefits.