There is a surge of articles denouncing pandemic policy along with emerging research showing the destruction caused by intentional government policy.
I have made note of many of these articles and hope to start discussing them.
In this post:
- Metastudy of 78 randomized control experiments finds masks have no benefit.
- Pro-mask is anti-science. Anti-mask is pro-science. (Pro-mask is actually a religion.)
Our political, public health, educational, and religious leaders have much to answer for.
2/10/23 – The Spectator – I’m pro science. That’s why I’m anti-mask – The former brand president at Levi Strauss was hounded out of her job because she had the audacity to ask, in a company that presumably doesn’t actually hire any toddlers, whether a mandatory mask for toddlers was harmful.
She was accused of being “anti-science.” Oh the horror! Off with her head!!
Research from the Cochran study, which will be discussed more later, analyzed 78 studies covering 1 million people. The conclusion?
“Face coverings make little to no difference.”
Part of the issue is people don’t wear their facemasks technically correct every moment they are on and sometimes people don’t wear them at all. The author points out that if people don’t or won’t comply with a requirement, it doesn’t matter whether said policy is effective or not.
Oh yeah, and the masks aren’t effective anyway except in a lab with perfectly controlled conditions and manikins who never move or do anything.
Author points out the scientific method is to make an observation, develop a hypothesis, test said hypothesis, evaluate results, and then reach a conclusion.
When it came to masks at the start of the pandemic, what happened was the decision-makers (like the CDC and other public health officials) reached a conclusion first and then skipped the research.
On 2/8/23, the CDC director explained why there was no testing of mask efficacy, specifically random controlled trials. Her reason? They didn’t consider it necessary to do any testing because, as the article says, “it was obvious that masks work.”
So instead of our supposed leaders applying the scientific method, us serfs and peasants suffered a mask mandate because the CDC believed it would work. That is faith. They said: here’s our conclusion, we believe it because it is obvious true.
Now I don’t have a problem with faith driving one’s beliefs and actions. I believe the Bible is true on the basis of faith and faith alone. That drives a vast majority of my beliefs and a huge portion of my actions.
Faith however is not the basis for developing medical policy that affects every person in the country.
In fact, that approach is anti-science. That is the opposite of science.
That is a corruption and perversion of the scientific method.
Yet that anti-science methodology is how the CDC’s developed COVID policy.
The powers that be in public health, media, politics, and the religious worlds decided what was right and wrong during the pandemic based on their blind faith and personal agendas. They decided what was good and bad and therefore you were good or bad patient based on whether you had the same faith.
The author of this article was one of the “them”, one of the bad people so she was, in her words, “smeared as a racist, fat-phobic, unemployable villain.”
How does this reasoning process work? The author says it is “enthusiastic, religious devotion” to the prescribed faith. It is religion. Here’s the thought process as she described it:
“I mask therefore I am good. I mask my children therefore I am loyal to the Democratic Party and public health diktat. I mask therefore I care. I am a loyal follower of “the science.” My faith is unwavering.”
That is not science.
That is religious dogma.
2/8/23 – The Washington Free Beacon – This Study Could Be “Scientific nail in the coffin” for Masks – Not many articles have discussed the Cochran study. I will start here.
This is a mega study of 78 other randomized controlled trials (RCT). Article points out RCT is the gold standard for medical research.
The study concluded that a mask “probably makes little or no difference” for reducing illness. Even if health care workers step up to the N95 masks there is no visible benefit.
The reason the study of 78 randomized controlled trials is so important is the evidence trotted out to support muzzles, I mean masks, are based on small samples with weak methodology. Article explains the studies find some measurable beneficial result from masks only by comparing one location where people wore masks to another location where people did not.
Article points out the devastating, fatal flaw in this methodology is the failure to isolate any other variable. For example are people who wear masks more cautious in general?
Is there something in the environment in this situation compared to that which would explain the difference? Perhaps better or worse airflow? Perhaps closer or more distant regular contact? None of those variables are isolated in the flimsy studies which support masks.
The article quotes a clinical professor of pediatrics who says “this amounts to the scientific nail in the coffin for mask mandates.”
Astoundingly, there are petty dictators running school districts in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey which re-imposed mask diktats in January.
Article points out concerns for the impact of masks on children focuses on restricting speech development and slowing social development. This concern was raised exquisitely early in the pandemic. A variety of articles, which I will not cite, pointed out the children are now suffering from speech development and poor social development.
Those dangers were known at the beginning of the pandemic. Yet alleged experts in the educational system demanded children wear masks anyway.
The alleged elites have much to answer for.