https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/cdc-repeatedly-misrepresents-mask-research-mask-mandates-worsen
The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is widely
cited but not externally peer-reviewed, serially exaggerated the
evidence for mask-wearing among 77 such outside studies it published, according to an independent review by epidemiologists at the
University of California San Francisco, the system's health sciences
campus.
Just 14% of MMWR studies reached statistical significance and 30%
actually studied mask effectiveness. Yet three-quarters concluded
that masks were effective, authors Tracy Beth Hoeg, Alyson Haslam and
Vinay Prasad wrote in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Medicine,
the official journal of a consortium of five associations in academic internal medicine.
None of the 77 was randomized, the strongest form of evidence, and
just one study each "used causal language appropriately" ("particle filtration on mannequins") or "cited conflicting evidence" (mostly
about influenza), they wrote. "The level of evidence generated was
low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data."
Without naming her, the authors scolded former Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky for citing a
low-response phone survey with non-significant results as evidence
that masks reduce infection by "more than 80%."
Hoeg marveled on X, formerly Twitter, that the "5% of studies that
reported higher cases rates in the masked group than the comparator
group all concluded masks were effective!"
Now that's Stephenesque conclusive.
On 10/8/23 12:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/cdc-repeatedly-misrepresents-mask-research-mask-mandates-worsen
The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is widely
cited but not externally peer-reviewed, serially exaggerated the
evidence for mask-wearing among 77 such outside studies it published, according to an independent review by epidemiologists at the
University of California San Francisco, the system's health sciences campus.
Just 14% of MMWR studies reached statistical significance and 30%
actually studied mask effectiveness. Yet three-quarters concluded
that masks were effective, authors Tracy Beth Hoeg, Alyson Haslam and Vinay Prasad wrote in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Medicine,
the official journal of a consortium of five associations in academic internal medicine.
None of the 77 was randomized, the strongest form of evidence, and
just one study each "used causal language appropriately" ("particle filtration on mannequins") or "cited conflicting evidence" (mostly
about influenza), they wrote. "The level of evidence generated was
low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data."
Without naming her, the authors scolded former Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky for citing a low-response phone survey with non-significant results as evidence
that masks reduce infection by "more than 80%."
Hoeg marveled on X, formerly Twitter, that the "5% of studies that reported higher cases rates in the masked group than the comparator
group all concluded masks were effective!"
Now that's Stephenesque conclusive.Random trials for PPE are unethical.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/
5. Conclusion
Most of the studies included in this rapid systematic review were observational rather than experimental. Study designs commonly suffered
from a critical ROB. The effects measured in each study were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision. Nevertheless, taking together
the evidence from all studies, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced
the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:56:18 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/
5. Conclusion
Most of the studies included in this rapid systematic review were
observational rather than experimental. Study designs commonly suffered
from a critical ROB. The effects measured in each study were variable in
magnitude and generally of low precision. Nevertheless, taking together
the evidence from all studies, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing
higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced
the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The science of wishful thinking.
Of course, your politicized bias against masks goes against common sense
to begin with. If infection is affected by viral load (and it is), why wouldn't a physical barrier that reduces viral load have an effect?
Why are infection rates jumping in hospitals that eliminate masking?
mINE109 wrote:
Wait a second... You're demarcating a logical two-step for Witless to follow, but you've neither offered a carrot nor waved a stick. How about suggesting that for contemplating your lemma, you'll pay the bill for their next belly rub at
Of course, your politicized bias against masks goes against common sense
to begin with. If infection is affected by viral load (and it is), why
wouldn't a physical barrier that reduces viral load have an effect?
their local Nazi Comfort Centre. And if instead, the mutt reacts with their customary
spate of savage yapping, you'll arrange to have a Pride parade tramp right by their house.
Why are infection rates jumping in hospitals that eliminate masking?Well, duh. That's "god" helping to thin the herd. It's mysterious, so it must be "god".
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:56:18 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 10/8/23 12:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/cdc-repeatedly-misrepresents-mask-research-mask-mandates-worsen
The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is widely
cited but not externally peer-reviewed, serially exaggerated the evidence for mask-wearing among 77 such outside studies it published, according to an independent review by epidemiologists at the
University of California San Francisco, the system's health sciences campus.
Just 14% of MMWR studies reached statistical significance and 30% actually studied mask effectiveness. Yet three-quarters concluded
that masks were effective, authors Tracy Beth Hoeg, Alyson Haslam and Vinay Prasad wrote in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Medicine, the official journal of a consortium of five associations in academic internal medicine.
None of the 77 was randomized, the strongest form of evidence, and
just one study each "used causal language appropriately" ("particle filtration on mannequins") or "cited conflicting evidence" (mostly
about influenza), they wrote. "The level of evidence generated was
low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data."
Without naming her, the authors scolded former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky for citing a low-response phone survey with non-significant results as evidence
that masks reduce infection by "more than 80%."
Hoeg marveled on X, formerly Twitter, that the "5% of studies that reported higher cases rates in the masked group than the comparator group all concluded masks were effective!"
Now that's Stephenesque conclusive.Random trials for PPE are unethical.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/
5. ConclusionThe science of wishful thinking.
Most of the studies included in this rapid systematic review were observational rather than experimental. Study designs commonly suffered from a critical ROB. The effects measured in each study were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision. Nevertheless, taking together the evidence from all studies, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
ScottW
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:32:43 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,351,619 |