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

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
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
google censorship of great barrington declaration: update.

this morning, there was no link to it in a direct google search.

now, there is.

could this be because certain internet felines noticed this and @chiproytx and @tedcruz helped call them out on this?

we may never know.


but i'd like to think so.

the google page is still a mess. it's still mostly fringe publication hit pieces and conspiracy theories.

when "mother jones" is your top media result for a science search, well, that says it all, doesn't it?

yikes.

i mean, why would we trust THESE people instead of a reporter at one of the most partisan rags on earth? oh, wait..

they are not being censored for being wrong. they're being censored for being right and being credible

they're censored because the other side cannot rebut them


and that is simply not a thing we can or should tolerate, especially not in a search engine.

so remember this. look for it in the future. demand primary sources.

use other search engines.

bing seems to be seeking to inform, not to inflame and mislead.


if you missed it, the original thread was here:

(and yes, lots of people duplicated my finding this morning)

i'd be curious to see what they are all seeing

More from Society

Like most movements, I have learned that the definition of feminism has expanded to include simply treating women like human beings.

(A thread for whoever feels like reading)


I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.

To me, very easy things to get behind.

And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.

Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.

Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta

All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.

To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:

Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like

#ஆதித்தியஹ்ருதயம் ஸ்தோத்திரம்
இது சூரிய குலத்தில் உதித்த இராமபிரானுக்கு தமிழ் முனிவர் அகத்தியர் உபதேசித்ததாக வால்மீகி இராமாயணத்தில் வருகிறது. ஆதித்ய ஹ்ருதயத்தைத் தினமும் ஓதினால் பெரும் பயன் பெறலாம் என மகான்களும் ஞானிகளும் காலம் காலமாகக் கூறி வருகின்றனர். ராம-ராவண யுத்தத்தை


தேவர்களுடன் சேர்ந்து பார்க்க வந்திருந்த அகத்தியர், அப்போது போரினால் களைத்து, கவலையுடன் காணப்பட்ட ராமபிரானை அணுகி, மனிதர்களிலேயே சிறந்தவனான ராமா போரில் எந்த மந்திரத்தைப் பாராயணம் செய்தால் எல்லா பகைவர்களையும் வெல்ல முடியுமோ அந்த ரகசிய மந்திரத்தை, வேதத்தில் சொல்லப்பட்டுள்ளதை உனக்கு

நான் உபதேசிக்கிறேன், கேள் என்று கூறி உபதேசித்தார். முதல் இரு சுலோகங்கள் சூழ்நிலையை விவரிக்கின்றன. மூன்றாவது சுலோகம் அகத்தியர் இராமபிரானை விளித்துக் கூறுவதாக அமைந்திருக்கிறது. நான்காவது சுலோகம் முதல் முப்பதாம் சுலோகம் வரை ஆதித்ய ஹ்ருதயம் என்னும் நூல். முப்பத்தி ஒன்றாம் சுலோகம்

இந்தத் துதியால் மகிழ்ந்த சூரியன் இராமனை வாழ்த்துவதைக் கூறுவதாக அமைந்திருக்கிறது.
ஐந்தாவது ஸ்லோகம்:
ஸர்வ மங்கள் மாங்கல்யம் ஸர்வ பாப ப்ரநாசனம்
சிந்தா சோக ப்ரசமனம் ஆயுர் வர்த்தனம் உத்தமம்
பொருள்: இந்த அதித்ய ஹ்ருதயம் என்ற துதி மங்களங்களில் சிறந்தது, பாவங்களையும் கவலைகளையும்


குழப்பங்களையும் நீக்குவது, வாழ்நாளை நீட்டிப்பது, மிகவும் சிறந்தது. இதயத்தில் வசிக்கும் பகவானுடைய அனுக்ரகத்தை அளிப்பதாகும்.
முழு ஸ்லோக லிங்க் பொருளுடன் இங்கே உள்ளது
https://t.co/Q3qm1TfPmk
சூரியன் உலக இயக்கத்திற்கு மிக முக்கியமானவர். சூரிய சக்தியால்தான் ஜீவராசிகள், பயிர்கள்