Putting an end to any Governor Declaring that Masks Work and are Backed by Science

Please follow and like us:

Here is the report – (Danish Mask Study) this should put an end to any Governor declaring that masks work and are backed by science.

Officials and People are already bringing out all types of BS criticisms of the trial. It is entertaining in a sense, that individuals who simply accepted all the mask modeling mandates “research study” with no quibbles or hesitation are throwing all types of criticism at a real randomized trial, trying to respond to a real-life concern.

Before we get into the research study and its findings, let me make a number of initial observations.

I have actually read medical studies for 40 years, and science documents for even longer. When you read this research study and you understand the history of the effort to get it released, you will be struck by what the authors need to do to get any respectable journal to publish it.

They were asked to continuously describe restrictions and cautions about the study, and there is a conversation about the self-confidence periods regarding the outcomes that you never ever see in the released reports of the research study.

What type of science is it that chooses beforehand what the outcomes need to be, and attempts to reduce any research study that challenges those pre-ordained outcomes?

When I say that science has ended up being entirely politicized, you will see this in Exhibit A.

Unlike all the trash modeling studies the government does about the mask and mask-wearing minimizing cases, this was a real randomized trial on the issue — does using a mask in the neighborhood impact the level of transmission, the variety of cases, because of a neighborhood?

It is real-life, we aren’t using masks in a design simulation or in some speculative space. We use them in the neighborhood, in reality, effectively, touching them, not touching them, with spaces, without spaces, altering them often or not, cleaning them or not. That is the truth of mask-wearing. That is what this research study duplicated.

6000 individuals took part in the research study.

3030 were arbitrarily appointed to the mask group and 2994 to the control arm.

Out of the whole group, 4862 finished the research study duration.

These were grownups who invested more than 3 hours a day outside their homes and didn’t use masks at the workplace. Both the mask-wearing people and the non-masked were asked to follow social distancing.

The mask-wearing group was motivated/urged to use a mask outside their house and were provided with 50 surgical masks for this function. So, much better masks than fabric ones.

The main result was the difference in infections after one-month.

42 individuals got infected in the mask-wearing group and 53 in the control group. Since more happened in the mask group, there was no analytical distinction in infection rate. One intriguing little nugget in the attributes of the groups is that more individuals in the control arm had what might be thought about as higher-risk professions than in the mask-wearing arm. “Yet still no distinction in infection rate”.

The genuine criticism is that it does not fall in line with the orthodoxy on everyone requiring a mask glued to our face 24/7. Self-reported adherence was great, with over 90% of the mask-wearers stating they adhered to the suggestion and practically half stated they constantly did. Getting the 7% who reported bad adherence did not alter the main finding. And really notably, looking just at those individuals who reported constantly adhering to the mask suggestion likewise did not alter the result. It appeared there was a really low at home transmission that triggered the infection in either arm of the research study, so most transmissions were happening in the neighborhood. Another intriguing finding was no distinction in infection with other breathing illnesses.

This was a properly designed research study.

If masks made a distinction or difference in the neighborhood, it would have been seen in this big group. Safeguarding the user against others makes no sense. Consider this, If using a mask does not do a much better job of keeping you from getting contaminated, i.e. keeping the infection away, why would it do a better job of keeping it from spreading? In fact, you may anticipate the opposite, there is less pressure in the inhale than the exhale.

And if the issue is that individuals who are contaminated aren’t using a mask then we should see even greater levels of spread among the non-masked in the population – if masks worked, the masked individuals would be much better secured from infection than the unmasked ones.

Think of it realistically for a minute, if individuals aren’t using masks, and they weren’t at any time in Denmark, according to mask theory, there is a significant threat of direct exposure in public. So, there ought to be an even higher protective impact of a mask safeguarding/protecting the end-user from getting contaminated since there is more chance for direct exposure to the infection.

However, according to this research study, a mask did not do much better of safeguarding the user in this environment than did those not using a mask. If anything, this trial enhances the finding.

So use them if you wish or need to, however, do not for one second think they are providing you or others any substantial degree of security or protection.

This is my issue and point of view about the mask, not only are people being lied to about the science, they are being misinformed into believing they will have a level of defense or protection against the virus, which they will not.

Please follow and like us:

Leave a comment

(*) Required, Your email will not be published