RFK Jr. recommends fellow vaccine skeptic, Florida's surgeon general, to Trump for HHS secretary

[DaisyDay]

On May 18, 2021, I said this.

I said this on June 1, 2021:

And now here we are. Trust in all vaccinations has taken a damaging hit because of COVID vaccine zealotry.

Perhaps so but trust in vaccinations took a damaging hit back with Wakefield and his bogus study and has continued to be damaged by putting anti-vaccination zealots like RFK JR in charge of public health.

 

[probinson]

Perhaps so but trust in vaccinations took a damaging hit back with Wakefield and his bogus study

You're talking about a study from 27 years ago.

The irony its that the Wakefield study demonstrates what happens to public trust when shoddy science is conducted, and yet shoddy science was the name of the game all throughout COVID.

and has continued to be damaged by putting anti-vaccination zealots like RFK JR in charge of public health.

On the contrary, I believe that the only reason RFK Jr is being considered is a result of COVID vaccine zealotry and other COVID-era nonsense. If public health and the regulatory agencies hadn't been a spectacular failure all throughout the pandemic, we probably wouldn't even be considering RFK Jr.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Perhaps so but trust in vaccinations took a damaging hit back with Wakefield and his bogus study and has continued to be damaged by putting anti-vaccination zealots like RFK JR in charge of public health.

But I think great strides were made in changing course after Wakefield's research was thoroughly debunked (an entire country dedicated a multi-year study to debunking it, tracking 500,000 over a period of 2 decades, the Danish Study for those unfamiliar)

We didn't see the anti-MMR sentiments back on the rise again until the covid vaccine backlash occurred.



That was the problem with the gaslighting and lying that took place during covid and the vaccine rollout.
(for the record, I think the covid vaccines were overwhelmingly "net good")

"It's one of the safest most tested most effective vaccines" (that's an assertion they definitely made prematurely)
"Anyone reporting side effects is engaging in misinformation so take down their Facebook posts" (that didn't win anyone over)
"By the way, you need 3 of them... now 4... oh, and even if you get one, we decided you have to go back to doing the same things that you were trying to escape from by getting the vaccine in the first place" (that's going to create skeptics)


The implied social contract (and sometimes it was more than implied, you had a president and governors outright saying it) "If you get the vaccine, things will go back to normal, and we'll go back to leaving you the heck alone". Well, a bunch of people got it for that reason, and then they said "well, nah, turns out it's spreading again, so back to the masks and remote learning again, you can come back to college again after you get a booster"

 

[Say it aint so]

That study examined no such thing. The second sentence states:

Wearing a face mask can reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2), and many colleges and universities mandate mask use in public locations and outdoors when within six feet of others.​

​

First, the citation for (2) referenced here claiming that masks reduce transmission is a dead link, so I have no idea what they're basing this assertion upon. Second, if you've paid any attention to the news, the six feet rule was complete nonsense that, according to Fauci, "sort of just appeared" and "an empiric decision that wasn't based on data".

So already, just two sentences into this "study",the authors tout the six foot rule, which just appeared out of thin air and wasn't based on any data, yet they begin with the assumption that masking and six feet of distance reduces SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Not a great start.

So if they're not studying mask efficacy, what are they studying? As CDC is wont to do with these "studies", there is an infographic, and that infographic gives us insight into what they were observing.

View attachment 359870

The takeaway here isn't that masks reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In this study, they pretend that's just a given. No, what they were studying was what percentage of people were wearing masks, and what percentage of people were wearing them correctly. There wasn't even an endpoint where they looked at number of infections. This was literally just watching people walk by to see if they wore their mask correctly over their mouth and nose.

When you posted an MMWR article, I thought surely you'd fall back on one of the more infamous ones. Perhaps the hairdresser "study", or the phone survey where the CDC laughably concluded that mask use could reduce the risk of a positive COVID test by up to a whopping 83%! Heck, even if you just made a mask out of your olds Guns 'N Roses T-shirt, they said you could reduce your risk by 56%. This is prima facie nonsense.

View attachment 359871

Here, just look at the scientific rigor that was undertaken to arrive at this conclusion.

After obtaining informed consent from participants, interviewers administered a telephone questionnaire in English or Spanish. All participants were asked to indicate whether they had been in indoor public settings (e.g., retail stores, restaurants or bars, recreational facilities, public transit, salons, movie theaters, worship services, schools, or museums) in the 14 days preceding testing and whether they wore a face mask or respirator all, most, some, or none of the time in those settings. Interviewers recorded participants’ responses regarding COVID-19 vaccination status, sociodemographic characteristics, and history of exposure to anyone known or suspected to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the 14 days before participants were tested. Participants enrolled during September 9–December 1, 2021, (534) were also asked to indicate the type of face covering typically worn (N95/KN95 respirator, surgical mask, or cloth mask) in indoor public settings.​

​

Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor ...

This report describes face mask or respirator effectiveness in helping protect against COVID-19 infection.

www.cdc.gov

​

​

So the CDC called 534 people up who had self-reported testing positive for COVID and asked them if they'd been in public and if they'd worn a mask. And from this rock solid selection of participants, they arrived at this conclusion. All this study really confirmed is that people who were true believers in masks were more likely to report that their mask was beneficial. And the CDC has to know that. Do you see the fine print on that infographic? The part that says "Not statistically significant"? What are we doing here? This isn't science. This is pure propaganda. Starting with a desired conclusion and then cherry-picking data to support your predetermined conclusion.

But you know how I really know that mask guidance was truly nonsense? Just a week before Christmas, I had to take my daughter to the ER. This was at the height of respiratory illness season. In fact, I'd just read an article that said cases were up, up, UP! Yet when we got to that ER that had well over a hundred sick kids, not one receptionist, resident, nurse or, doctor was wearing a mask. Not one. I saw exactly one family in the waiting room that was masked. Think about how remarkable that is. This was a very large hospital. And yet NOT ONE of the medical professionals that were caring for these kids had a mask on AT THE HEIGHT OF FLU SEASON.

It was well-known and accepted before COVID that mask use did not reduce the risk of respiratory disease transmission. That's still true. Maska are little more than "comfort blankets" that do little to reduce the spread of respiratory illness.

'We are entrenching bad behaviour'​

However, other studies have cast doubt on their effectiveness. A subsequent Danish study involving 6,000 people concluded that there was no statistical difference in infection spread in non-wearers, while data on US states with non-mandated usage failed to show a correlated uptick in cases.​

​

"The public were demanding something must be done, they got masks, it is just a comfort blanket," Dr Axon noted. "But now it is entrenched, and we are entrenching bad behaviour.​

​

"All around the world you can look at mask mandates and superimpose on infection rates, you cannot see that mask mandates made any effect whatsoever.​

​

"The best thing you can say about any mask is that any positive effect they do have is too small to be measured."​

​

Cloth face masks are 'comfort blankets' that do little to curb Covid spread, Scientist warns

Dr Colin Axon warned some cloth masks have gaps that are invisible to the naked eye, but are 5000 times the size of viral Covid particles

www.telegraph.co.uk

​

My point was this study, like the study you said was a "CDC mask study" are not studies by the CDC. They are studies submitted. Any author can submit to the CDC. If you want to understand what the CDC thinks of mask wearing and social distancing during pandemics, they let it be known at their site.

 

[Frank Robert]

Keep in mind Trump wants to pull Federal funding from states where mandatory vaccinations for maladies that were eradicated; are enforced.
Never mind the vast majority of Federal funding for schools consist of grants for low income schools, child nutrition, and to ensure children with disabilities have access to education. Nothing worse than conspiracy theorists setting policy that is aimed to make the least of us, even more least of us.

Welcome to the new dark age.

 

[probinson]

My point was this study, like the study you said was a "CDC mask study" are not studies by the CDC. They are studies submitted. Any author can submit to the CDC. If you want to understand what the CDC thinks of mask wearing and social distancing during pandemics, they let it be known at their site.

This is a distinction without a difference. The CDC is not going to publish studies on its website or create infographics bearing its logo where it disagrees with the study's conclusion.

I know exactly what the CDC thinks about masking ad social distancing. They fully embraced all the pseudoscience surrounding masking and social distancing.

 

[rambot]

What on earth are you talking about? Do you not see the precipitous increase in infections?

Yes I did. Did you see how the mask mandate infection rate was lower?
What explains that difference?

I know early on people liked to pretend like every time cases decreased it was because of complying with health authorities and every time they increased it was because they stopped listening. Here's a rather humorous, and not entirely inaccurate, chart that demonstrates that phenomenon.

So you're just going to ignore the lower infection rate given in your chart as if that is meaningless twaddle I guess.

Here's a better picture of the CDC mask study.

View attachment 359861

"The study"? CDC only has the one study to draw conclusions from? How does any of that match with previous graph? How do I know what study this is even referring to?

Interestingly, the CDC chose only to include data up to mid-October 2020. They excluded the data after that which completely undermined their conclusions. It's quite appalling the shoddy work that the CDC did.

Did they? How so? I don't see it in the evidence you presented in this thread. I also don't see how your second graph contradicts anything given it's talking about. The graph clearly shows a difference in transmission rates between mask and no mask mandate the the bowl of spaghetti graph you posted above does not address mask/no mask mandate effectiveness at all.

Observational data (when not cherry-picked) consistently shows no benefit to masking.

Well except for that graph you included first clearly shows the effect of a mask mandate's effectiveness at lowering transmission rates) to support your argument.

A meta-analysis done by Cochrane conducted the last 16 years shows no benefit to masking. A CDC meta-analysis on masking showed no benefit to masking. But if you really want to believe and keep on masking, that's certainly your prerogative.

When I get COVID or my family gets sick, we'll still put on a mask. Plenty of Asian countries have been doing it for decades. Every public health website will have a list of several studies that support mask wearing in will indicate it is sufficiently effective to be recommended or mandated (likely also because it has essentially 0 negative impact on anyone or anything at all). You are welcome to ignore the copious amounts of data that indicate as such but they certainly exist and it was on that information that public health officials made their decisions.

Calling it a "lie" just because you disagree with the outcome is not fair. Scientists are aware that there is often contradictory information to support one hypothesis over another. IT doesn't mean one camp is "lying", it means they are putting more weight on different research.

Yep. And ALL of them erred on the side of making things worse than they actually were.

Pretty sure if I made 25 egregious errors in 3 years on my job, I'd get fired. I'd probably get fired for a lot fewer errors than that. I'm kind of surprised you think it's OK for the CDC to make multiple documented errors each year, particularly on things they were mandating.

"Egregious" is your own personal characterization of the errors. Given you don't know the nature of the errors, you are welcome to go live in hypothetical land.

 

[rambot]

And now here we are. Trust in all vaccinations has taken a damaging hit because of COVID vaccine zealotry.

People stopped taking vaccines because people said "Take the COVID vaccine" and it was mandated?

OR

People stopped taking vaccines because people said "Don't Trust the COVID vaccine. And sometimes these other one's are problems too"?


I would argue people taking the second position likely did more to undermine trust in vaccines than those in the first group.

 

[probinson]

Yes I did. Did you see how the mask mandate infection rate was lower?
What explains that difference?

Any number of unknown confounders.

So you're just going to ignore the lower infection rate given in your chart as if that is meaningless twaddle I guess.

What lower infection rate are you referring to?

Here's yet another study. This one is from Kansas. Take look at the differences.

This is interesting, because you could argue (and the CDC did) that when the mask mandate was instituted, the number of cases increased in the no masks group. But one would be dishonest to omit the fact that the no masks group fared BETTER than the mask group at EVERY point throughout the study.

Here is the study in question: Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With ...

Here is the infographic the CDC put alongside this study.

This is an incredibly misleading graphic. It makes it appear as if the mask group is better protected. But in reality, the mask group fared WORSE than the no mask group. You wouldn't know that from the graphic though.

Then the study says this at the end:

First, the ecologic design of this study and limited information on community mask-wearing behaviors and county implementation and enforcement provisions of mask mandates limit the ability to determine the extent to which the countywide mask mandates accounted for the observed declines in COVID-19 incidence in mandated counties. ​

This is a long-winded way of saying there are countless confounders that are not accounted for, and we have no idea how much masking actually mattered.

And lastly, let's take a look at Kansas mask counties AFTER the CDC's preferred cherry-picked timeframe.

If masks "work", why did they stop working? And why did CDC only study the time-period between the orange lines on that chart? Once again, the empirical data undermines their conclusions.

"The study"? CDC only has the one study to draw conclusions from? How does any of that match with previous graph? How do I know what study this is even referring to?

Obviously you've not followed this nearly as closely as I have, so I apologize for assuming you're informed about what I'm speaking about. This is the study the graph is referring to.

Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates ...

This report describes a decline in weekly COVID-19–associated ...

www.cdc.gov

Did they? How so?

Yes. The chart clearly demonstrates that they studied a time period when cases were low and ended the study right before cases skyrocketed.

I don't see it in the evidence you presented in this thread.

Really? You don't see this massive increase in cases after the study period was over?

You can't have it both ways. Either the mitigation measures work or they don't. This is what the CDC said.

During March 22–October 17, 2020, 10 sites participating in the COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network in states with statewide mask mandates reported a decline in weekly COVID-19–associated hospitalization growth rates by up to 5.6 percentage points for adults aged 18–64 years after mandate implementation, compared with growth rates during the 4 weeks preceding implementation of the mandate.​

​

Why stop the study there? If you're claiming that states that issues statewide mask mandates had a reported weekly decline in hospitalization growth 4 weeks after implementation, what the heck happened in October after the study was complete? These states still had statewide mandates and yet cases and hospitalizations skyrocketed. Why? The study doesn't even pretend to explain it. No follow up was ever done. They just want you to believe that there was a 5.6 percentage point drop in hospitalizations because of these mandates, but then don't even attempt to explain why there was a precipitous increase in cases while those same mandates were still in effect. Perhaps because if you employed the same methodology in the excluded time period, the results would have been completely different.

I also don't see how your second graph contradicts anything given it's talking about. The graph clearly shows a difference in transmission rates between mask and no mask mandate the the bowl of spaghetti graph you posted above does not address mask/no mask mandate effectiveness at all.

Like I said, anyone who wants to truly believe that masks work is free to wear one for the rest of their life, so long as they don't attempt to impose and mandate their pseudoscientific nonsense on others.

Well except for that graph you included first clearly shows the effect of a mask mandate's effectiveness at lowering transmission rates) to support your argument.

It "clearly" shows no such thing.

When I get COVID or my family gets sick, we'll still put on a mask.

Go right ahead. Knock yourselves out.

Plenty of Asian countries have been doing it for decades.

Yes, and plenty of studies have shown that it is ineffective.

This comes straight from the CDC's own meta-analysis on masking.

None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group.​

​

...​

​

There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.​

​

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures

wwwnc.cdc.gov

​

Every public health website will have a list of several studies that support mask wearing in will indicate it is sufficiently effective to be recommended or mandated (likely also because it has essentially 0 negative impact on anyone or anything at all).

You are horribly mistaken that there are no downsides.

Did you know that in the first year alone, 1.6 BILLION disposable masks entered our oceans? 5,550 TONS of plastic pollution that will take 450 YEARS to biodegrade. And that was just the first year. Just imagine how much plastic pollution is in the oceans now solely attributable to masks. Sounds like a pretty significant downside to me. All for something that is almost completely ineffective. Heck, even Fauci had to eventually concede that "... at the population level, masks work at the margins - maybe 10%".

You are welcome to ignore the copious amounts of data that indicate as such but they certainly exist and it was on that information that public health officials made their decisions.

And you are welcome to ignore the copious amounts of data that indicates masks are ineffective.

Calling it a "lie" just because you disagree with the outcome is not fair. Scientists are aware that there is often contradictory information to support one hypothesis over another. IT doesn't mean one camp is "lying", it means they are putting more weight on different research.

If only there were some way to evaluate the quality of scientific evidence...

"Egregious" is your own personal characterization of the errors. Given you don't know the nature of the errors, you are welcome to go live in hypothetical land.

By any reasonable measure, they were egregious. Bordering on incompetence or malfeasance.

 

[probinson]

People stopped taking vaccines because people said "Take the COVID vaccine" and it was mandated?

OR

People stopped taking vaccines because people said "Don't Trust the COVID vaccine. And sometimes these other one's are problems too"?


I would argue people taking the second position likely did more to undermine trust in vaccines than those in the first group.

The ACLU published a pandemic preparedness report in January 2008. In it, they said this.

Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities​

​

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf

​

​

So yes, coercing, forcing and mandating vaccines was ALWAYS going to breed public distrust. As the repot makes clear, these are lessons from history that any public health official should have known.

People who mandated vaccines and/or supported the mandating of these vaccines own the decline in overall vaccination rates. Warnings that mandates would breed distrust were given and ignored.

 

[rambot]

The ACLU published a pandemic preparedness report in January 2008. In it, they said this.

Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities​

​

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf

​

​

So yes, coercing, forcing and mandating vaccines was ALWAYS going to breed public distrust. As the repot makes clear, these are lessons from history that any public health official should have known.

People who mandated vaccines and/or supported the mandating of these vaccines own the decline in overall vaccination rates. Warnings that mandates would breed distrust were given and ignored.

I don't understand the mental gymnastics

Trash vaccine effectiveness: But not responsible for the outcomes in doing so.

Mask mandates aren't effective but when data shows it is effective, the government is lying and it is only possible to believe the government is lying.

The problem is NOT people who go around to restaurants and service industry jobs ignoring recommendations to limit exposure or flaunting mask mandates, the problem is the people sitting at home ordering from Amazon. I mean yes hospitality and retail saw the biggest infection and transmission rates, but that doesn't mean it's the Freedom lover's fault. It's the people following the orders given by healthcare professionals that are the problem.

 

[rambot]

Any number of unknown confounders.



What lower infection rate are you referring to?

Here's yet another study. This one is from Kansas. Take look at the differences.

View attachment 359971

This is interesting, because you could argue (and the CDC did) that when the mask mandate was instituted, the number of cases increased in the no masks group. But one would be dishonest to omit the fact that the no masks group fared BETTER than the mask group at EVERY point throughout the study.

Here is the study in question: Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With ...

This data match the data in your first graft.

Here is the infographic the CDC put alongside this study.

View attachment 359972

This is an incredibly misleading graphic. It makes it appear as if the mask group is better protected. But in reality, the mask group fared WORSE than the no mask group. You wouldn't know that from the graphic though.

Not according to your first graph.

Then the study says this at the end:

First, the ecologic design of this study and limited information on community mask-wearing behaviors and county implementation and enforcement provisions of mask mandates limit the ability to determine the extent to which the countywide mask mandates accounted for the observed declines in COVID-19 incidence in mandated counties. ​

This is a long-winded way of saying there are countless confounders that are not accounted for, and we have no idea how much masking actually mattered.

And lastly, let's take a look at Kansas mask counties AFTER the CDC's preferred cherry-picked timeframe.

View attachment 359973

If masks "work", why did they stop working? And why did CDC only study the time-period between the orange lines on that chart? Once again, the empirical data undermines their conclusions.

Obviously you've not followed this nearly as closely as I have, so I apologize for assuming you're informed about what I'm speaking about. This is the study the graph is referring to.

Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates ...

This report describes a decline in weekly COVID-19–associated ...

www.cdc.gov

Yes. The chart clearly demonstrates that they studied a time period when cases were low and ended the study right before cases skyrocketed.



Really? You don't see this massive increase in cases after the study period was over?


View attachment 359974

You can't have it both ways. Either the mitigation measures work or they don't. This is what the CDC said.

During March 22–October 17, 2020, 10 sites participating in the COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network in states with statewide mask mandates reported a decline in weekly COVID-19–associated hospitalization growth rates by up to 5.6 percentage points for adults aged 18–64 years after mandate implementation, compared with growth rates during the 4 weeks preceding implementation of the mandate.​

​

Why stop the study there? If you're claiming that states that issues statewide mask mandates had a reported weekly decline in hospitalization growth 4 weeks after implementation, what the heck happened in October after the study was complete? These states still had statewide mandates and yet cases and hospitalizations skyrocketed. Why? The study doesn't even pretend to explain it. No follow up was ever done. They just want you to believe that there was a 5.6 percentage point drop in hospitalizations because of these mandates, but then don't even attempt to explain why there was a precipitous increase in cases while those same mandates were still in effect. Perhaps because if you employed the same methodology in the excluded time period, the results would have been completely different.



Like I said, anyone who wants to truly believe that masks work is free to wear one for the rest of their life, so long as they don't attempt to impose and mandate their pseudoscientific nonsense on others.

It's not pseudoscientific nonsense. You can argue that science is not as "Strong" but it seems more like you've just invested so much time and energy into your criticism of it, you feel a need to hyperbolize your findings.

It "clearly" shows no such thing.

It shows that mask mandate areas that are more dense have lowered transmission rates. Are you arguing that?

By any reasonable measure, they were egregious. Bordering on incompetence or malfeasance.

You seem very familiar with these errors. The study you quoted (the one with 25 errors over the 3 years) did not go into specifics in the abstract. Have you found these erorrs and become familiar with them? You seem very confident that they are so egregious but I've seen no evidence you even know what those errors are.

 

[Say it aint so]

This is a distinction without a difference. The CDC is not going to publish studies on its website or create infographics bearing its logo where it disagrees with the study's conclusion.

I know exactly what the CDC thinks about masking ad social distancing. They fully embraced all the pseudoscience surrounding masking and social distancing.

Well yes, they do publish studies on how one group may see the benefit of an action, while another may not see any benefit. It's the way science works. Again, rather than trying to pass off a study as a "CDC mask study" when it is actually a study submitted to the CDC. Even YOU can submit a paper to the CDC.

 

[RileyG]

As a moderate, emphasis on moderate, Republican I can never understand why people are skeptical about vaccines. Trust the science.

SMH

 

[probinson]

I don't understand the mental gymnastics

Trash vaccine effectiveness: But not responsible for the outcomes in doing so.

On the contrary, the government overpromised on the efficacy of the vaccines that THEY MANDATED on people. They told people they wouldn't get sick. They told people they were long lasting and durable. They told people that breakthrough infections were "rare". They downplayed myocarditis and other adverse events in young men. They pushed vaccines on people who didn't need them. They told people that natural immunity wasn't sufficient. They just kept saying whatever they needed to say to drive vaccine uptake, until it was no longer possible to deny that nearly everything they said about the vaccines was false. That's why with each dose, the uptake has decreased.

It's hard to believe that you can't understand that those actions taken by the government and public health authorities is responsible for the incredible distrust that was bred, as the ACLU's pandemic preparedness plan warned over 17 years ago.

Mask mandates aren't effective but when data shows it is effective,

Except data doesn't show that. It's impossible to look at the whole of the data on masking and conclude that it makes one whit of difference on respiratory viral transmission. You will ignore the Cochrane Review and the CDCs own meta-analysis that shows no benefit in favor of a low-quality, confounded observational study because it aligns with your preferred conclusion.

The problem is NOT people who go around to restaurants and service industry jobs ignoring recommendations to limit exposure or flaunting mask mandates, the problem is the people sitting at home ordering from Amazon. I mean yes hospitality and retail saw the biggest infection and transmission rates, but that doesn't mean it's the Freedom lover's fault. It's the people following the orders given by healthcare professionals that are the problem.

Yes, it was so noble of those people to sit at home and make the hospitality and retail industry workers bear the brunt of the pandemic while they cowered at home. Such nobility.

 

[probinson]

It''s not pseudoscientific nonsense.

It absolutely is.

You can argue that science is not as "Strong" but it seems more like you've just invested so much time and energy into your criticism of it, you feel a need to hyperbolize your findings.

No, I'm simply responding in the same manner to the level of sheer incompetence that was foisted upon us as THE SCIENCE™! all throughout the pandemic. As I said, you're free to convince yourself of whatever you like and quite frankly, I don't care. But when these things were MANDATED on people, that's when they went too far. If you want to use a "comfort blanket" forever, I won't try to stop you.

It shows that mask mandate areas that are more dense have lowered transmission rates. Are you arguing that?

Yes.

Accurate scientific conclusions are repeatable. That's why meta-analyses consistently show no benefit to masking. Only high-quality studies are included in such analyses and they consistently find no benefit. I hate to repeat myself, but here's Cochrane again. And to reiterate, these findings have remained unchanged since its original publication in October 2006.

Medical or surgical masks​

​

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.​

​

N95/P2 respirators​

​

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well-reported; discomfort was mentioned.​

​

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?

www.cochrane.org

​

​

Are you suggesting that this 19-year old Cochrane Review is wrong?

You seem very familiar with these errors. The study you quoted (the one with 25 errors over the 3 years) did not go into specifics in the abstract.

Maybe try reading past the abstract. There is a table at the end of the study that documents the 25 errors they identified. They also go into their methodology for how they determined if something was "demonstrably false".

Have you found these erorrs and become familiar with them? You seem very confident that they are so egregious but I've seen no evidence you even know what those errors are.

I can't even take this criticism seriously. It's obvious you've not read the study, because you don't have to "find" these errors. They are nicely summarized in the table in the study I posted. The whole study is only 17 pages long. If you really want to know what the errors were, you can read it for yourself.

 

[probinson]

Well yes, they do publish studies on how one group may see the benefit of an action, while another may not see any benefit. It's the way science works. Again, rather than trying to pass off a study as a "CDC mask study" when it is actually a study submitted to the CDC. Even YOU can submit a paper to the CDC.

Pretty sure if you or I submitted a paper to the CDC, they would not make an infographic summarizing it and plaster it all over social media.

 

[probinson]

Trust the science.

That catchphrase has done more damage to science than anything else since 2020.

 

[RileyG]

That catchphrase has done more damage to science than anything else since 2020.

Ok…?

 

[Say it aint so]

Pretty sure if you or I submitted a paper to the CDC, they would not make an infographic summarizing it and plaster it all over social media.

LOL. Have a nice day.