The German Health Minister has long demonstrated a fundamental inability to understand simple studies and evaluate scientific, but this error is on a totally new level.
When I worked as a graduate student our research director had one student who was consistently wrong. I mean EVERY time. It wasn't random either. He claimed to reason it out, but he always came to the wrong conclusion. One day in total frustration I heard our boss tell him "Ron, if you flipped a coin at least you will be right 50% of the time." So profound, but one of the most devastating insults to someone in a Ph.d program ever. Let's give Karl a coin.
Confirmation bias masquerading as science. Yet again. Does anyone understand what science is anymore?
I truly think we'd be better off disbanding and abolishing all health ministries.
A great analogy - "When pants and underwear stop us from smelling farts, I will believe masks stop Covid particles." - No further study required.
Yep. I posted an article on this yesterday. It is a bizarre study and the Minister should resign for tweeting it. I do wonder if the professor that is listed as the last author on the paper knew his name would be on it. If so, he should probably resign in disgrace as well
So, I have mentioned this about a hundred times, but it is pertinent, so here goes. Back in October of 2020, when I was *still* somewhat unsure of the banality of masking and therefore mask mandates, I visited the CDC website. My goal was to complete what I was calling my Masking Nomological Network of Cumulative Evidence, mask-nom-net, for short. Basically, all the evidence I could find, pro or con on masking, from all sources I could find. Upon that visit to the CDC cite, I downloaded EVERY link to the studies they cited, and started reading. They had 19 studies cited at that time. The first 9 did not mention masking. They were not even about masking. (No, I am not kidding.) The rest of them were dicey or sucky, or both. So then, to hear this dude cite a study that IS about masking, but is crap, is actually an improvement in approach for these people. They will not give up on masks. At this point, and people like Jerome Adams' on Twitter is another example, they will keep gaslighting in favor of masks. Why? Unclear. The die is cast, though.
Bet he has a picture of Fauci on his wall that he uses to pleasure himself.
"written in crayon"--priceless wit
this is going to be used to mask the college students again this fall in the US. that's probably the only reason for its existence - and they were paid to produce garbage that looks legit enough to mask all the kids.
I have friends-ostensibly well educated-who keep the wretched things in coat pockets or bags and then proceed to gag themselves when they feel the need for some 'extra protection'.
One pal keeps hers on a coat hook in her hall and then puts it round her neck; this provides for rapid -protection -from -lethal -life -forms, whenever a potentially sneaky threat is encountered.
This behaviour leaves me speechless, so I observe radio silence.
Suppose we make a graph of all mask studies, with the Y axis representing "Efficacy / Impact" found in the study, and the X axis represents the "Quality" of the study - using the EBM pyramid for reference, where as you move along the X axis you go from models, to case reports, to cohort studies, eventually to RCT, then to systemic reviews of RCTs, etc.
You would plot, for example, the Georgia Salon maybe at coordinates (X = 1, Y = 10), as it has low quality of evidence but claims high impact. The Bangladesh Mask study might be plotted at (X = 10, Y = 1), as it is a more rigorous level of evidence, but found weaker impact than Georgia Salon predicted.
Here is what is interesting about this thought experiment -
If you restrict this to only studies prior to 2020, plot the studies, and run a trendline, it's mostly a straight line. The impact (Y) doesn't have much variation as you move left to right on the evidence standards.
This is because the scientific community was dispassionate about community masking - there was no political allegiance to the masks, no need for them to work. You weren't guaranteed to be published by the CDC, Nature, Science, or other "prestigious" journals merely for writing about the value of masks.
Repeat the process for the post 2020 mask studies, and suddenly the trendline has a sharp negative slope as you move from weak evidence to the stronger evidence - a clear sign that bias and intent has corrupted the hypothesis. All the strongest "evidence" is found in the lowest tier of science which is the easiest data to spin and corrupt to meet your claims (see, Wakefield). The Kansas Mask, Salon, the various models - all of which failed real world replication ("If 80% wore a mask the virus would be extinguished" - lol) are suddenly high on the efficacy Y axis.
It's crazy that these morons can't easily see this.
Every person I know that wore a mask religiously over the last two plus years got covid (of course they were vaxxed too) and every person that didn't didn't! In fact, some of them got it twice!
Face diaper stupitity study again lol. The best mask I've seen to data is of a Mexican laborer getting off work, jumping into his beatup pickup truck, wearing his Huggies babywipe softpack cover homemade mask, turning on the radio, opening the dispenser flip top on his mask, and taking a big long swig of his ice cold Corona bottled beer. Hilarious. The best ever ha, ha, ha. PS I think the clip was on TikTok last summer.
i wish there was a way to do a double-blind study of one group wearing surgical masks and the second group in bullet proof vests & compare results
This goes really well together with your earlier point about how to lie without telling lies: the study lies in its intent, but not in its words, so neither does Lauterbach.
We've seen it before, haven't we? "90% of climate scientists agree..."
Now, if we could only find a way to inoculate people against believing stuff like this before having checked it out...
What can I say..? My neck is tired from shaking my head in disbelief....