What a f**king POS LIAR.
The ONLY reason this remains a “controversial topic” is because of asshats like this who disregard the CLEAR science showing there has been NO benefit whatsoever from masks in preventing spread of Covid19 or any OTHER URI virus. If masks worked for this purpose, we would have been using them globally, seasonally, since “The Great Influenza” of 1918-1919, but they didn’t, we don’t, and again, virtue signaling to the globalist masters is starting again.
This is not an RCT. The locale isn't correctly controlled. For a viral infection, the exposure is often dictated by the isolation of the individual, or in this case the village.
My response. If someone wants to wear a stupid face mask...be my guest. Wear 2...or 5...or 10. Makes no difference to me.
Just don’t force me to wear one.
“Ward off” is a rarely used medical or scientific term. It is commonly used to explain evil spirits and werewolves, however.
The gaslighting and presumptive close combo meal.
Experiment and get back to me, like one person wear what you need to enter a BSL-3 facility and the other wear a face panty. Cough COVID into their faces. See who gets infected across 10,000 people.
Then tell me they are effective.
The only thing I can guarantee to be 100 percent scientific fact is that no scientist wants their funding cut.
Nope! And we are not putting up with the lies this time.
Since it’s a basic influenza virus, technically your eyes are still susceptible. Just put a plastic bag over your head, seal it with a zip tie or duct tape. You won’t catch covid, I promise. You won’t even need to be triple vaxed after doing this. One h3ll of a convenience.
Do it now before all of the waiting lines get out of hand.
Pure BS. Masks do not stop viruses period. They’ve known that for the last 100 years. Get these nefarious pseudo scientist in jail for crimes against humanity.
We didn’t see anyone wearing a mask in N. Cali in the month of October: at church, our grocery store, the post office annex, filling station or what/where ever.
Neither did any of our adult relatives in other nearby Cali cities/counties see anyone wearing a mask for months.
The same with our relatives/friends on the east coast, mid west, and southwest: zero masks being worn.
Friends and relatives in Floriduh, can’t remember seeing anyone wearing a mask.
Wow what an idiot. The Danish study was not too small. It had 5,000 people, that is huge. Found no statistical benefit with masking.
The Bangladesh study was propaganda. It has been disproven with several published studies that re-analyzed their data.
• A cluster-randomized trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh found a 9.3% reduction in symptomatic covid-19 seroprevalence as well as a further 11.9% reduction in covid-19 symptoms with surgical masks….. as among people who consistently used masks, 7.6% reported symptomatic infections, compared to 8.6% in the control group (Science. 2021;375:6577 DOI: 10.1126/science.abi9069). This study included both self-reported “COVID-like symptoms” and positive COVID serology tests, and so the absolute reduction was a bit smaller. Moreover, a reanalysis of the raw data from the study did not show even this small benefit (“Re-Analysis on the Statistical Sampling Biases of a Mask Promotion Trial in Bangladesh: A Statistical Replication,” Trials. 2022;23:786, doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06704-z). In the villages randomized to surgical masks (n = 200), the relative reduction was 11.2% overall (aPR = 0.89) and 34.7% among individuals 60+ (aPR = 0.65). The symptomatic seroprevalence was 0.76% in comparison villages, 0.74% in cloth mask villages and 0.67% in surgical mask villages. WHO-Defined COVID-19 Symptoms were seen in 8.6% of comparison villages, 7.9% of cloth mask villages and 7.5% in surgical mask villages. There was no significant decrease seen in symptomatic seroprevelence in anybody wearing cloth masks. With surgical masks there was no benefit for anybody less than 50 years of age but did decrease disease by 23% in 50-60 yo’s and by 34.7% in 60+ yo. This study stated that it could not reject that cloth masks have zero or only a small impact on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Of note, the surveillance staff was not blinded to the interventions nor were the villages blinded to the surveillance staff. Data revealed imbalances in the starting size— likely because the trial failed to achieve concealment, leading more people to sign up in the intervention arm (who may be less committed to report + Covid symptoms; biasing results). Furthermore, absolute event differences were very small. The cost of this intervention as estimated to have been between $10K and $52K per life saved. The study had several flaws. If masks were the cause of the decrease, why would that only be in patients over fifty years of age? People in every younger decile showed no significant reduction. Should that not prompt the idea that older people had a different reason to account for that, since we know that every age group in the village experienced the same impact from others masking? The study tested only for antibodies—did these people become antibody-positive during the study, or were those antibodies pre-existing from a prior infection, even before the study? No testing for virus was performed, so the infection per se was not tested. Only 40 percent of symptomatic agreed to testing for antibodies—that introduced selection bias. Antibody testing has significant false positives and false negatives—would that eliminate all the statistical significance in that one age group, too? And logically, if less than half of villagers in the mask-wearing villages actually wore masks, would that account for significantly fewer symptomatic cases, when we know that masks do not even protect mask wearers themselves? A subsequent re-analysis of the study by statisticians at Cornell University found that there was in fact no benefit at all (https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.01296). “we find that the behavior of unblinded staff when enrolling study participants is one of the most highly significant differences between treatment and control groups, contributing to a significant imbalance in denominators between treatment and control groups. The potential bias leading to this imbalance suggests caution is warranted when evaluating rates rather than counts. More broadly, the significant impacts on staff and participant behavior urge caution in interpreting small differences in the study outcomes that depended on survey response.”
Fake protection against something no scientist, researcher, doctor or lab has ever isolated or identified.
Looking at a few of Le Page’s other blogs. He’s an environmentalist whacko.
Absolute B.S. There have been many studies that have shown masks do no good.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
10% fewer...
Without saying how many actually got a transmittable viral infection.
Did 10 people get sick in one village and 9 get sick in another? 20 and 18? 40 and 36?
In any event, it is statistically insignificant.
Tell me that is 90% effective and THEN you have something.
“Simon Sez....”
“Citing many studies” and ignoring more studies that say that masks are ineffectual. Our scientific community is as corrupt as are the Democrats, FBI, DOJ, ATF and IRS.