for those looking for a compendium of mask studies this set from swiss policy research looks useful and has some good links and discussion.

also attaching 2 past debunkings of widely disseminated US studies that health officials have attempted to

first, the kansas study spread by CDC and so many "twitterdocs" and politicians.

it's a master class in cherry picking and misusing data through truncation.

the data proving it was false was widely available at the time it was published.

https://t.co/qY66ZaNnsn
also the mass general study, a classic of the "sun-dance" variant: use no control group and then presume that any action undertaken was the result of some thing you did.

ignore the fact that the whole rest of (unmasked) massachusetts got the same result

https://t.co/IBVypJbjPI
the fact that CDC has been spreading studies like these and using them alongside flimsy lab bench experiments with no clinical outcomes or even real world measurement speaks poorly of both CDC & the evidence for masks

the good studies do not support use

https://t.co/viMzUDYm29
and lab bench droplet projection studies are meaningless.

it's one tiny aspect of a large system and may actually be counterproductive if masks are nebulizing droplets and making virus more aerosol in spread and more deeply penetrating.

https://t.co/nFD9onkjrn
is this the case and can it dominate droplet spread reduction? maybe. we don't really know. does it account for edge leaks and the benefits of coughing into a hand or handkerchief?

there are 1000 variables. this is why you need actual clinical outcomes studies not lab models
anyone trying to pass those lab models off as proof is essentially arguing "hey, it killed cancer in a petri dish, it will work in your body!" then you drink bleach. oops.

this is not the way actual science is done and it's embarrassing to watch it get passed off as such.
masks are a visible in-group talisman with little or no real scientific backing.

they are playing the role of tribal signifier rooted in superstition and superstition.

calling that science is just doubling down on the same.

i suspect this is why the debate is so rancorous.
no one likes having their holy talismans demeaned or demonstrated to be false and tribes rally around them when challenged.

attacking masks is attacking a religion, not a scientific practice.
such secular religions are tricky. the converts do not realize it's religious in nature. their very dogma is that "it's science"

but it's not. science asks questions and addresses data

this is self delusion about one's own superstitions reinforced by tribal virtue signaling.
the end result is that almost nobody can really convince anybody to change their mind.

but take a deep breath and take a dispassionate look at the data. it may help.

i began with the presumption that masks ought to work.

then i looked for data.

i presumed it was a slam dunk.
but it's not. at all. the data for masks is limited, sparse, situational, and mostly poorly gathered

many of the studies are outright junk

as i read through the literature, it seemed that the better the study design, the less efficacy it showed

ultimately, it changed my mind
and i came to the view that masks look to have no material effect and are likely causing more harm than good even before adding in the psychological factors.

try it yourself. there are lots of studies.

hold your priors loosely, be open to data, and read them.
if you are not willing to do that, (and let's face it, most are not) then you really need to stop claiming to be "on the side of science" because that's what science is.

it's open minded questioning, not regurgitation of dogma and submission to credentialism.

food for thought.

More from el gato malo

did you consider checking the facts before buying into such hysterical claims?

this is LA department of health services hospital census. it's essentially identical to the levels from last year.

the media have had a severe tendency to overstate these issues. https://t.co/ktTPIbKcdQ


as you can see, visits to emergency departments have been quite stable for 4 months.


and ICU bed availability has been flat for the whole month of december.

keep in mind that 90-100% ICU capacity is normal this time of year and that all ICU's must be able to flex to 120% (by federal law) and most can hit 150%.


and if you will not take my word for it, just ask the CEO's of the hospitals in texas everyone was so breathless about this summer.

they were not worried. and they were


hospital census in LA seems to be about 3000 patients below where it was in july.

this seems to imply a drop in staffed beds which, contrary to the narrative is not from "exhaustion" but rather from people being laid off or staying home because kids are not in school.
this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.

hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.

it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.

getting them is like pulling teeth.


we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:

this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.

that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that

this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.

"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.


90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.

staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.

and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.

the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.

61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.

can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
from the "make orwell fiction again" files:

google has memory holed the great barrington declaration

not only have they wiped it from the top results, they have salted it with false claims about "climate denial"

it's pure, simple propaganda

here's bing (who plays it straight)


simple, right? here's the declaration, here's the wiki page.

you can see the authors, kulldorf, gupta, bhattacharya's names and know this this was written by medical professors at harvard, stanford, and oxford.

there's no slant, not editorializing, it's primary source info.

now let's have a look at google.

pretty different looking results, huh? not only do they not lead with the declaration itself or its authors, they lead with dishonest hit pieces.

they try to tie it to climate denial and fake science.

um, no. this is "fake search."


the google results for "great barrington declaration" are simply not search results at all.

it's a propagandistic hit piece ducking the science, ignoring the credentials of the authors, failing to show the declaration, and spinning it as some kind of fringe cabal of "deniers."


it's staggeringly blatant once you see it, but will anyone?

or will they be fooled by this because it's subtle and you think google is a search engine, not a radicalized editorial column.

and it's now EVERYWHERE.

reddit will not allow users to see

More from Society

You May Also Like

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/