99.9987% of Under-20s Survive Covid, Study Finds – And 97.1% of the Elderly Do As Well 22:03 Jan 18 0 commentsmore >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Open letter to Amnesty International Secretary General Callamard Mon Aug 08, 2022 20:02 | The Saker
Chinese History of Science and technology: The rediscovery of the Chinese history of science Mon Aug 08, 2022 19:45 | The Saker
Austrian Barbarians Go Home! Mon Aug 08, 2022 18:34 | The Saker
We all *must* speak up in defense of Graham Phillips! Mon Aug 08, 2022 17:55 | The Saker
Full transcript of the interview of Michael Hudson by the Saker Mon Aug 08, 2022 17:35 | The Saker
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTE bias complaint Anthony
Irish Examiner and fake news Anthony
A Blog About Human Rights
UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights
5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights
Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights
Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights
Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights
And Finally? Mon Aug 08, 2022 21:50 | Toby Young
There is No Food Crisis ? If Only We Stopped Burning it as ?Green? Biofuel Mon Aug 08, 2022 19:20 | David Craig
?Frankie Boyle is Too Woke to Cancel?: The Weekly Sceptic Interviews Comedian Leo Kearse Mon Aug 08, 2022 13:40 | Will Jones
?If We Get Covid, So Be It?: Cries of Hypocrisy as Australia Allows Covid-Positive Cricketer to Play... Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:19 | Will Jones
The Lessons of New Zealand?s Failed Zero Covid Strategy Must Be Learned Mon Aug 08, 2022 07:00 | Will Jones
Danish Study Finally Published: Face Masks Provide No Statistically Significant Benefit Against COVID-19
Most Western elites are telegraphing the message that we will be forced to cover our humanity with cheap face masks indefinitely. They are mandating that even two-year-olds must wear masks. The long-term effects on the lungs, emotional and behavioral problems, and development of infants and toddlers is enormous. For such an unconstitutional invasion of personal liberty, they are responsible to show us some amazing degree of effectiveness of this cultish ritual. In fact, the data show the opposite.
The much-vaunted Danish mask study was finally published today in the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine. Now we know why three medical journals were so averse to publishing its findings. The study completely obliterates the cultish devotion to masks. The results of this massive real-life controlled experiment show that the group that wore surgical masks in April experienced a 0.38% lower infection rate than the control group that did not wear masks. That is about one-third of one percent, which is so low that it could just be statistically random variances that demonstrate no definitive efficacy even to that infinitesimal level.
There was a total of roughly 3,000 people in each group of the study, which would make this the largest study ever conducted on the efficacy of mask-wearing. In October, Berlingske, Denmark’s oldest operating daily newspaper, reported that three major journals – JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet – refused to publish the study.
It appears that the study’s authors had to twist their tongues in order to get this study published by noting that “the estimates were imprecise and statistically compatible with an effect ranging from a 46% decrease to a 23% increase in infection.” They of course had to concede that their study doesn’t definitely rule out the idea that masks could be effective!
So, we’ve gone from masks being more effective than a vaccine to no incontrovertible evidence that they will ever work in some way.
It’s important to note that several studies have theorized that the virus might have gotten more contagious in recent months than it was in the Spring. Assuming there is validity to that theory, this Danish study, which was conducted in April and May, would demonstrate that masks are ineffective even against the less contagious version of the virus.
Then again, there is nothing new about mask-wearing to anyone paying attention. It has long been the policy of OSHA that respirators, such as an N-95s, are the minimum standard for personal protective equipment. We have always known that surgical masks, which have pores about 30 times larger than virus particles and are not form-fitted around the edges, cannot protect against airborne viruses such as the flu. Plus, most people, especially those who are indoors for a long period of time, such as in school and business settings, will tend to wear more comfortable cloth masks, which are even less effective and risk spreading the virus even more.
Which is why nobody should pay attention to the disclaimer in the study, which the authors clearly had to write in order to get the study accepted:
This is a fair point – that at the time, most other people outside of the study group in Denmark were not wearing masks. The problem is we’ve seen the virus spread to everyone in the ensuing months, including in places with 100% mask compliance. In a recent CDC study, 85% of those convalescent COVID patients surveyed reported that they wore masks always or most of the time during the lead-up to their infection period. Thus, the Danish study results clearly corroborate what we see with our own eyes in all environments.
We have seen this result from over six months of real-life experience in the world and even in the military with 100% compliance. Mask-wearing is the only edict that can result in zero efficacy and then use that lack of efficacy against the virus, as witnessed by the massive spread, as further pretext … to double down on mask-wearing! My son was yelled at for slipping his mask down in a dentist’s office for a few seconds when the doctor and hygienist would literally be in his mouth for a much longer period of time. Have we ever experienced something this destructive and illogical in our lifetimes?