Read on Twitter
the real world, randomized controlled DANMASK study is out.
it shows no meaningful efficacy in masks and a p value of 0.38 which is means it's really just noise.
it's pretty much a nothingburger.
but there is one thing that interests me:
what they left out
it shows no meaningful efficacy in masks and a p value of 0.38 which is means it's really just noise.
it's pretty much a nothingburger.
but there is one thing that interests me:
what they left out
it looks to me like they nerfed this study.
the protocol had a significant number of measures for adverse events:
bacteria, psychological, full healthcare, sick leave, infection in the household, other hospital diagnostics, etc.
NONE are included in the study.
the protocol had a significant number of measures for adverse events:
bacteria, psychological, full healthcare, sick leave, infection in the household, other hospital diagnostics, etc.
NONE are included in the study.
on its own, that's a comment-worthy matter, but in the current climate of suppression and propaganda, it becomes far more suspicious especially in light of comments from the folks who ran the study.
"as soon as there is a journal brave enough?"
this report is bland pablum.
"as soon as there is a journal brave enough?"
this report is bland pablum.
why would an author make such a statement about such non-controversial results? this looks like every other flu mask study. no real signal, p value approaching coin toss randomness, etc.
nothing incendiary here.
so why all the drama?
(unless the drama is what they took out)
nothing incendiary here.
so why all the drama?
(unless the drama is what they took out)
it's just an intuition, but i have a real nagging sense that there is more to this story.
i think they did a deal to get it published: we take out the scary part and make it plain-oatmeal bland and you publish it and we protect our careers and grant $.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
i think they did a deal to get it published: we take out the scary part and make it plain-oatmeal bland and you publish it and we protect our careers and grant $.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
do not underestimate how severely researchers must kowtow to political doctrine in their results because of how dependent they are on government money for their future projects.
pay the piper, call the tune. ever has it been, ever shall it be.
but this gato smells a rat here.
pay the piper, call the tune. ever has it been, ever shall it be.
but this gato smells a rat here.
look, it's possible i'm wrong. something else might have happened. they might have botched the trial.
but i read a lot of medical studies and trials. i help design them.
to leave out essentially ALL your measured secondary outcomes is just plain weird.
you don't see that.
but i read a lot of medical studies and trials. i help design them.
to leave out essentially ALL your measured secondary outcomes is just plain weird.
you don't see that.
i doubt that it's a mistake or a casual omission
that would seem to require some extraordinary screw ups on 12 different axes
this would be a great topic for an enterprising fellow like @AlexBerenson to dig into
i really suspect we have not heard the interesting part yet.
that would seem to require some extraordinary screw ups on 12 different axes
this would be a great topic for an enterprising fellow like @AlexBerenson to dig into
i really suspect we have not heard the interesting part yet.
you can read the filed study design here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337541
