Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022Liked by Alasdair Munro
This is unacceptable behavior by scientists! May I also add to your report reason number three? That would be that even though they knew it was filled with errors they went ahead and accepted it to support their greedy and controlling narrative. And they banked on most folk’s short attention span and lack of knowledge.
Thank you for sharing this! And for researching it so thoroughly and explaining it so well!
"The paper gives zero- yes literally zero - details of how the papers were selected from the literature search, yielding a total of only 13 from over 1700."
That's interesting. The CDC went to hospitals and discussed masking with COVID victims back in 2020. 85% of COVID victims report 'always' or 'almost always' wearing a mask. Then I look at all the studies and there were no statistical differences for flu-like RVIs (published by the CDC, WHO, JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, etc), as well as those for COVID, etc.
And masks didn't work. And there has been a LOT of literature starting in the 1990s to futility of masking for RVIs. We're talking HUNDREDS of studies.
Just reading "243 subjects were infected with COVID-19, of whom 97 had been wearing masks and 146 had not" from multiple studies made me realize this was junk. Performing a study in a single large school setting would yield larger numbers than that; in fact 850 cases in a study of 140 000 class meetings at Boston University, where masking and vaccination virtually eliminated classroom transmission (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2794964).
I really want to share this post, but am I now intellectually obliged to read the medRxiv paper in question to check it is as you describe?
This is unacceptable behavior by scientists! May I also add to your report reason number three? That would be that even though they knew it was filled with errors they went ahead and accepted it to support their greedy and controlling narrative. And they banked on most folk’s short attention span and lack of knowledge.
Thank you for sharing this! And for researching it so thoroughly and explaining it so well!
"The paper gives zero- yes literally zero - details of how the papers were selected from the literature search, yielding a total of only 13 from over 1700."
That should not even get published.
I think we should all bookmark the study so that it’s handy when we need it!
That's interesting. The CDC went to hospitals and discussed masking with COVID victims back in 2020. 85% of COVID victims report 'always' or 'almost always' wearing a mask. Then I look at all the studies and there were no statistical differences for flu-like RVIs (published by the CDC, WHO, JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, etc), as well as those for COVID, etc.
And masks didn't work. And there has been a LOT of literature starting in the 1990s to futility of masking for RVIs. We're talking HUNDREDS of studies.
And then we have this magic study....
Are there any valid studies of whether N-95 masking is effective? It would be good to know one way or the other after all this time.
It was easy, censorship took out the truth, propaganda remained, people dug in and brainwashed themselves.
Could we get links to the tweets and at least some of the news articles?
Just reading "243 subjects were infected with COVID-19, of whom 97 had been wearing masks and 146 had not" from multiple studies made me realize this was junk. Performing a study in a single large school setting would yield larger numbers than that; in fact 850 cases in a study of 140 000 class meetings at Boston University, where masking and vaccination virtually eliminated classroom transmission (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2794964).
Could you please give the names of famous people who shared the paper?