President Musk will not be pleased . . .

Thanks Blob.

Okay Anger find the post where I said this study made any assertion about population protection under a broad mask regime. I read the Chat disclaimers which contained that exact point. What it does say is those poor high risk individuals who are exhorted to wear masks for protection are being misled.

I strongly believe the population level protection is also dubious as suggested in the Spanish study, but not conclusively proven.

None of your  responses are substantive, not once have you found anything which changes the hypothesis that not one study conclusively proves masks are effective, Which I know is true, because if there were such a study it would be a major part of the narrative. Every study has been contested.

Admit it, you never took one undergraduate level statistics course…let alone anything serious.

I strongly believe the population level protection is also dubious as suggested in the Spanish study, but not conclusively proven.

LOL now he's happy to use a study that didn't make use of RCT to try to back up his position.

None of your  responses are substantive, not once have you found anything which changes the hypothesis that not one study conclusively proves masks are effective, Which I know is true, because if there were such a study it would be a major part of the narrative. Every study has been contested.

Nothing Substantive, I've posted information or linked to about about 17 studies conducted by  experts in the field of medicine (of which you are not) that support the position that face masks are affective tool in combating the spread of Covid 19. Taken together it builds a strong if not overwhelming case for the usefulness of masks.

You know precisely the square root of jack sh*t. Narrative, there is no narrative other than face masks are effective in combating Covid 19, because that's what the experts say on the matter. Do you think the entire worlds health body just rang each other up on Skype and one of them said "face mask work against Covid, heads", "face masks don't work against Covid tails", then flicked a coin and heads won?. No what they do is the look at the totality of all the studies and research on the topic (while factoring into account the limitations of the studies) and then issue their advice/guidance. And no don't bother trying to imply some bullshit unprovable conspiracy that there position was due to pressure from governments or "the left".

Admit it, you never took one undergraduate level statistics course…let alone anything serious.

Just admit it, your ideology and ego have you trapped.

Once again I have the tedious task of explaining the study to you:

Study Design and Population:

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based study involving 599,314 children aged 3 to 11 years attending preschool (ages 3–5) and primary education (ages 6–11) in Catalonia. Notably, during the study period from September 13 to December 22, 2021, mask mandates were implemented for children aged 6 and above, while children aged 5 and below were not required to wear masks. 

Key Findings:

• Incidence Rates: The study found that SARS-CoV-2 incidence was significantly lower in preschool children (ages 3–5) compared to primary education students (ages 6–11). Specifically, 6-year-old children, who were subject to mask mandates, exhibited a higher incidence rate (3.54%) than 5-year-olds (3.1%), who were not required to wear masks. 

  BMJ Advances in Clinical Decision Making

• Transmission Metrics: Secondary attack rates (SARs) and the effective reproductive number (R*) were slightly lower in 6-year-olds compared to 5-year-olds, but these differences were not statistically significant. 

  BMJ Advances in Clinical Decision Making

Conclusion:

The study concluded that there were no significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 transmission attributable to mask mandates in Catalonian schools. Instead, age appeared to be the most significant factor influencing transmission risk among school-attending children. 

These findings suggest that while mask mandates were implemented for children aged 6 and above, the absence of such mandates for younger children did not result in higher transmission rates among the younger cohort.

….. 

So….the groups were totally determined by age, which was clearly the basis of selection. Very logical because the study was trying to assess the need for mask use by very young children.

There is no bias. There are no pro or anti mask biases from sampling hidden in the data, because they never sampled….within that region they simply split the kids by age. That’s not sampling, two populations were tested against each other. Or perhaps you could explain what random samples would make this particular test more valid.

And the results are very clear, the younger children without masks got less COVID than the older children with masks. And they are close enough to make sense.  Making very young children wear masks is one of the many travesties of the COVID protocol tyranny.

Read my comment again….I’m saying there was no sampling bias. Obviously it’s a strange study using such young children. But given the large size of each group one would have expected some sort of benefit for the masked kids.

Another hissy fit about the use of ‘protocol tyranny’  when there is substantial discussion of the very subject. Right in this experiment forcing 6 year old kids to wear masks is protocol tyranny demonstrated by the study itself.

We  don't know what effect pro mask biases in studies have….hence my agnostic position. Backed up by the fact that the studies Chat identifies as the best pro mask studies all have flaws….the CDC studies not being properly randomized, the Bangladesh study having community pressure and self reporting flaws.

There is no study that is definitive supporting masks. The Danish study does appear to disprove the masks as protection for the wearer claim. But as Chat points out doesn’t opine on masks as a community protection. The Catalonian study does not find any community protection from masks, but given the focus on children needs replication, even though it was a population level study with many participants.

That’s all we know.

Anger I came across this book in WSJ today, describing some shocking medical research. I thought you might want to put it on your Kindle:

Doctored by Charles Piller

Nearly seven million Americans live with Alzheimer’s disease, a tragedy that is already projected to grow into a $1 trillion crisis by 2050. While families suffer and promises of pharmaceutical breakthroughs keep coming up short, investigative journalist Charles Piller’s Doctored shows that we’ve quite likely been walking the wrong path to finding a cure all along—led astray by a cabal of self-interested researchers, government accomplices, and corporate greed.

Piller begins with a whistleblower—Vanderbilt professor Matthew Schrag—whose work exposed a massive scandal. Schrag found that a University of Minnesota lab led by a precocious young scientist and a Nobel Prize–rumored director delivered apparently falsified data at the heart of the leading hypothesis about the disease. Piller’s revelations of Schrag’s findings stunned the field and the public.

From there, based on years of investigative reporting, Doctored exposes a vast network of deceit and its players, all the way up to the FDA. Piller uncovers evidence that hundreds of important Alzheimer’s research papers are based on false data. In the process, he reveals how even against a flood of money and influence, a determined cadre of scientific renegades have fought back to challenge the field’s institutional powers in service to science and the tens of thousands of patients who have been drawn into trials to test dubious drugs. It is a shocking tale with huge ramifications not only for Alzheimer’s disease, but for scientific research, funding, and oversight at large.

…………………

‘The underlying message, when self interest is involved, medical research  is not immune to dishonesty

‘The underlying message, when self interest is involved, medical research  is not immune to dishonesty

I find this line of thinking baffling. You can find fraud and dishonesty in every field or profession, so if you want you can literally call into question every conceivable position regardless of supporting evidence.

You appear to have no skepticism towards Covid vaccines, I mean are you not concerned about their efficacy and safety, after all medical research is not immune to dishonesty.

The Danish and Spanish facemask studies, well are you sure they are trustworthy, as after all medical research is not immune to dishonesty. 

Perplexity AI opines:

Answer

N95 respirator masks are highly effective in preventing the transmission of Covid-19. These masks have been shown to block 98% of COVID-19 particles in the breath of infected people from escaping into the air1. N95 masks are 48% more effective than surgical or cloth masks, reducing the odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 by 83%2.

The effectiveness of N95 masks is attributed to several factors:

1. Multiple layers of synthetic fiber (polypropylene) that block both large and small particles2.

2. Tight seal around the face, minimizing facial seal leakage5.

3. Ability to filter out smaller airborne particles3.

A comprehensive review of over 400 studies confirmed that masks, especially respirators like N95s, are effective in reducing the transmission of respiratory infections like COVID-193. The review found a clear dose-response effect, indicating that more consistent and correct mask-wearing leads to better protection3.

For healthcare workers and those at higher risk of severe COVID-19, N95 respirators offer superior protection compared to surgical masks, particularly in high-risk situations47. However, it's important to note that proper fit and consistent use are crucial for maximizing the protective benefits of N95 mask

-----------

Of course, masks work....
Why would surgeons wear masks, why would people wear masks within industrial areas? Why does an e-95 mask exist? They are not 100%, but it is obvious they help. 
Surfboard shapers, glasses and sanders often wear masks, as it helps prevent them inhaling the manufacturing material. 

Surgeons primarily wear masks to protect against droplets, not air particles like fine aerosols. Here’s why:

1. Protecting the Patient:
   Surgical masks prevent the surgeon’s respiratory droplets—produced by talking, breathing, sneezing, or coughing—from contaminating the sterile field or entering the patient’s open surgical site. This is critical in reducing the risk of infections.

2. Protecting the Surgeon:
   While surgical masks offer some protection for the wearer, their primary role isn’t to filter out tiny airborne particles but to block larger droplets and bodily fluids, such as blood or saliva splashes, from reaching the surgeon's nose or mouth.

3. Airborne Protection (Limited):
   Surgical masks provide limited protection against airborne particles (like those responsible for airborne diseases such as tuberculosis). For that, respirators like N95s are needed, as they seal tightly around the face and filter smaller particles.

So, the main focus is on droplet protection to ensure a sterile surgical environment and to safeguard against fluid splashes.

As for the general population wearing N95 masks to protect for COVID  it’s simply not practical. Here’s Chat again:

It’s generally unrealistic to assume the general population can wear N95 masks on a permanent basis for several reasons:

1. Comfort and Fit:
   N95 masks are tight-fitting and designed for short-term use in specific environments. Prolonged use can cause discomfort, pressure marks, and difficulty breathing for some individuals.

2. Practicality:
   Daily activities like eating, drinking, and social interactions require frequent removal and replacement of the mask, which diminishes its practicality for continuous use.

3. Supply and Cost:
   For permanent use, people would need a steady supply of N95 masks. High demand and cost could make this impractical, especially for lower-income populations.

4. Maintenance:
   N95 masks are designed to be disposable. While some are reusable to an extent with proper cleaning, they have a limited lifespan. This adds to the logistical challenge of maintaining proper hygiene and effectiveness over time.

5. Adherence and Fatigue:
   Mask-wearing fatigue is a documented phenomenon. Many people find it challenging to adhere to long-term mask use, especially when risk levels are perceived to be low.

6. Social and Psychological Effects:
   Permanent mask-wearing could have unintended social and psychological consequences, such as reduced face-to-face communication and emotional connection.

So while you could put everybody in diving suits hitched up to oxygen tanks and eliminate Covid transmission, in the real world masks that people can actually wear and live their lives offer dubious protection….no study has proven they do. The Danish study which was properly randomized show masks offer no protection.

That genocidal maniac Fauci is on video saying N95 masks will not stop a corona virus.

Looking forward to RFK going after all these maniacs and getting them jailed/ hung for mass murder and severe injuries. 

And now you Anger, and skepticism. Why do I trust the vaccine tests more than these poorly conducted mask studies. For one very simple reason, Pfizer is a company with a market cap  of $ 150 billion. Yes they were exempted from some legal action to fast track Covid vaccines, but that market cap would be eviscerated if they knowingly did something wrong.  And the individual directors who are all prominent, successful people would never put their success at risk for a $200,000 a year board fee if they sensed any dishonesty.

So this leaves you in the uncomfortable position of having to make a judgement when you see one of these studies. Your doctor won’t have questioned any of the given wisdom, he’s too busy and there’s legal protection in approved treatments. So  if it’s something that effects your life, at least use Chat a new resource, to ask  a few skeptical questions. 

And when you see a study that improves your chances of not getting a disease by 30%, ask yourself what the odds are of getting the disease in the first place. If it’s 2% you are just taking some medication with nasty side effects to improve your chances of not getting this disease by 0.6%. That’s the first bit of sleight of hand to watch out for in medical studies

And now you Anger, and skepticism. Why do I trust the vaccine tests more than these poorly conducted mask studies. For one very simple reason, Pfizer is a company with a market cap  of $ 150 billion. Yes they were exempted from some legal action to fast track Covid vaccines, but that market cap would be eviscerated if they knowingly did something wrong.  And the individual directors who are all prominent, successful people would never put their success at risk for a $200,000 a year board fee if they sensed any dishonesty.

Yet amazingly you never apply this logic to the climate change skeptics funded by the fossil fuel industry.

All this comes down to, is you're willing to use research and the findings of experts when you think it supports your world view, but cry "well experts have been wrong in the past, therefore we can't rely on them" when the produce findings that contradict it. A guilt by association fallacy.

My position on climate change is 0.6 degrees of the increase since the Industrial Revolution came before CO2 had increased to 10% of what it has today. Hence man made CO2 can’t be culpable for that portion of the increase. And by extension whatever did that probably didn’t stop on a dime in 1945.

So my  point is the effects of man made CO2 are overstated….I need no Climate Change skeptics to make that point. But the amount of funding going to skeptics is a drop in the bucket of what’s being channeled to Climate Change hysterics.

‘And accusing me of using experts to support my positions is a bit rich, given your whole debating technique is citing experts and to my knowledge you have never once cited an expert who disagrees with your views. 

You realize the Climate Change nonsense when you see how they propose to fix it...

If we really believed it was an existential threat we would be building nuclear plants by the dozens. Instead the only serious  talk of nuclear plants started after AI arrived and with it a vast new power need. We can stop people eating steaks, but never get in the way of ‘the science’.