The video above from Dr. Andrew Kaufman is hot off the press. It is eighteen minutes, and you can be sure I downloaded it. Kaufman discusses a study that was finally published in the Annals of Internal Medicine after being rejected by JAMA, Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (most likely political decisions from those quarters – I learned during my study of Climate Change that the prestigious journals are all on some level … bought).
The important conclusions, as noted by Dr. K, were that all analyses of results, statistically speaking, “crossed zero.” Imagine that you are studying the effects of using squirt guns to chase squirrels off bird feeders*. You have two feeders and so, when two squirrels are present, you can use one as a control group while hitting the others with the water. In the end, you find that squirrels left alone were 95% likely to return to the feeder, while squirrels squirted were 105% likely to return. The variance in the numbers, some less, some more, but crossing 100%, means that squirt guns are not an effective control for squirrels. That is my interpretation of the meaning of “crossing zero” – -2% to +5% with zero in between.
A real example from the study follows beneath the fold.
Here is that part of the study discussing results:
Three post hoc (not preplanned) analyses were done. In the first, which included only participants reporting wearing face masks “exactly as instructed,” infection (the primary outcome) occurred in 22 participants (2.0%) in the face mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.2 percentage point [CI, −1.3 to 0.9 percentage point]; P = 0.82) (OR, 0.93 [CI, 0.56 to 1.54]; P = 0.78). The second post hoc analysis excluded participants who did not provide antibody test results at baseline; infection occurred in 33 participants (1.7%) in the face mask group and 44 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.4 to 0.4 percentage point]; P = 0.33) (OR, 0.80 [CI, 0.51 to 1.27]; P = 0.35). In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face masks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance (data not shown).
I did the bold and underline. You can see from this that when a confidence interval ranges, as above, from -1.3 to 0.9, that one of the possibilities within that narrow range is zero. “Crossing zero” can be taken, then, to mean that there is essentially no difference between the face mask group and the control group. That is the essential finding of this study.
Give Dr. Kaufman a view, and if you are so inclined, read the paper. My only problem with it were some spooky numbers, hopefully just coincidental: 3030 participants, 42 recommended masks, 53 control participants – can all be viewed as spooky. I sincerely hope not.
*I routinely chase squirrels off our feeders with a squirt gun. I do this because it annoys them but does no harm. Once, a few years back we had a daytime bear on the back deck (they usually come around at night) that was in the process of destroying a metal feeder. I stood behind our slightly open back screen door as the bear, fifteen feet away, was doing his business. First I slammed to door to scare him, and it did startle him, but he kept on. I didn’t want to harm him, so did not want to use a cast iron pan or anything heavy like that, and so threw our broom at him. No effect. So, and this is not made up, I took the squirt gun I used on squirrels, and shot the bear in the face, hitting him square with water. The bear was looking at me the entire time I was dousing him, his look was kind of like … WTF? Finally, I took a second broom, shorter, maybe three feet long, and threw that at him. He looked at me and backed down. I had annoyed him enough. I was able to retrieve the feeder. We had to give up bird feeding that year, but it was summer anyway, and food was abundant.
12 thoughts on “Mask or no mask … makes no difference according to Danish Study”
I love your bear story!! I pictured the whole thing as I read it and cracked up! Thanks for the giggle, a welcome boost.
Apropos of this Danish study, I give you a court decision in Lisbon, in Portuguese:
If your browser offers it, you can hit the browser button to translate or use this:
I trust anyone on this thread to skim that appeals court decision* for themselves. Also, there are now several sites, some off the blogroll to the right, offering explication of this decision. Here’s OffGuardian:
OK, how do they relate? They show a way forward for building a case to crack the imperial monolith of propaganda and disinformation in German, French, English & Spanish. Perhaps not at the official institutional level here in the US, one of the strongholds of the empire, but a court decision like this might possibly be helpful at the interpersonal level, creating potential human allies. My hypothesis is this: Only from the periphery of the Western Empire and from among its lesser vassal states are we going to find Reality brought forward to invalidate The Psyop at The Governmental Level, where truth might actually undergird policy. Portugal, Denmark, Tanzania, Sweden and wherever else have made their own, contrarian decisions (to some degree, only variably so) and are walking their talk. Thus, viewed globally, they represent pockets of resistance. I wonder what gems of reality, what factual observations, court cases, policy papers, studies and arguments upon which secondary nations rest their decisions lay hidden in their languages.
Where’s the utility? Well, what I first want to do with my brainwashed friends is get their programming to glitch, to start to see unexplained variation, to wonder what’s going on — without attacking the person in front of me.
[For those in whom I have zero investment, I’m not averse to backing them into a position where their programing makes them shout: “Everyone in Sweden is a stupid, suicidal troglodyte Trumper!” And then simply stand in the thundering silence they just created, staring at my shoes, letting its echo work like a universal solvent upon their peeling credibility and flaking dignity.]
Arguing against Roman policy while living in Rome, speaking Latin, spouting stats and talking points from polarizing news organs owned by Caesar, with which he maintains control, almost always descends into an interpersonal cage match. Divide and Conquer in a can. There’s got to be a way to avoid that ugliness without sequestering oneself in an echo-chamber. In our favor, it’s axiomatic that the numbers only go in one direction, from Deceived to Liberated. No one goes ever back to truly believing Lee Harvey Oswald actually did it, all alone.
Putting just one person on the path matters, I think.
Just a thought.
“…that purported appeals court decision….” I do not discount the notion that the transnational intel departments/agencies tasked with salting Anglosphere Alt-Media with disinfo would gin up a fake appeals court website in another language, author a phony judge’s decision, then promulgate it to the blogroll at right. I mean, they have an infinite budget, right? Show of hands, How many of us number ourselves among the Lusophone? Me, neither. So sure, I’ll go first: Laundering disinfo through languages I don’t speak, in which I cannot check sources, people, agencies — that would work against me 100% of the time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Paso for bringing all of this forward. The Portuguese appeals court case is long and tedious, but contains critical information … foremost something I had completely forgotten about … habeas corpus. Any citizen in the US (or anywhere with a legal system, I assume), can petition a court to order that anyone held in detention without due process have his case reviewed by that court. Habeas corpus = “produce a body.”
In this case, the court cited scientific data that RT-PCR at
7025 amplifications acts with 70% reliability, at 30 amps, 20%, and at 35 amps, only 3%. I don’t know the amps in use for testing right now, but do know that the people behind this hoax, given these numbers, have the power to reduce or increase positive test results by simply increasing the number of amplifications. 70% “reliability” is itself basis for reasonable doubt. Add to that another factor, brought out in other places, and in the decision, is need for a “gold standard,” that is, proof of a virus, which we all know does not exist.
In other words, the scientific basis for this pandemic is complete bullshit.
This is useful, to say the least, and thank you!
You think the judge and court itself could be phony? I would think Off-Guardian etc would at least be able to verify that, or lose credibility with their readers in future… But yes, maybe contrived somehow. Four anonymous German tourists, ruling on 11/11… Could be a setup. But the conclusion they reach about faulty PCR tests and cycles, seems consistent with critics elsewhere. So the essential info seems solid enough. Not sure how they would pull the rug out from under that later.
Totally missed 11/11! When I am buried, TimR, you get to pile on the last shovel full, saying “He was smart all right, but not smart enough.”
The judge and court? Sure, there are certainly several, historical high-profile cases here in the US that others have deconstructed to the point where I’m persuaded the entire thing, from crime to investigation to adjudication was a psy-op, the last of those being OJ. (That legal cases ensuing from “spectacles” (WTD) like that would be quickly blown in our age is part of the reason so many “big events” since 9-11 climax with the auto-killing suspect plot-point. After all, Judy Clarke cannot represent everybody!)
But, no, I was specifically reminding myself that I cannot be assiduously skeptical of all English-language media but utterly credulous of foreign entities, press organs and websites. As for the court itself, why not? Portugal was a founding member of NATO, after being duplicitously neutral in the Second World War, so it could prosper. It became an intelligence community communications portal for both sides, if I recall correctly. (Corrections welcome.)
I concur with your surmises, but I’m glad we both considered the possibility of disinfo and took a moment to calculate the probabilities.
Though I don’t want to end up like Gene Hackman at the end of The Conversation, I honestly don’t take any fact set onboard, anymore. Reality has become provisional, unless I was there.
I think we agree, I interpreted your original comment to mean fake to the point of having no actuality whatsoever, even theatrical… A story that would crumble entirely if “truthers” tried to use it as ammo.
After reading BarbM’s comment in the other thread, I lean towards something like her view— this court case is probably part of “controlling the dialectic” and managing both sides of the narrative. And maybe— if it were spread widely and taken onboard by any large number of “normies”— maybe it would effect the timeline. Supposing that these scripts are dynamic, and depend on feedback and public reaction, and adjust as they go.
Or maybe they would try to maintain some original timeline, by slowing the release of similar “ammo,” or otherwise putting crimps in the “anti” side.
Minnesota ramps up enforcement threats: “People who intentionally violate Walz’s order are guilty of a misdemeanor and face a maximum fine of $1,000 or 90 days in prison. A business owner, manager or similar authority figure who makes an employee break the rules or encourages them to do so would face gross misdemeanor charges that carry a maximum penalty of $3,000 or a year in prison. The Minnesota Attorney General, as well as city and county attorneys, can seek civil penalties up to $25,000 for each violation of the rule.” https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2020/11/what-to-know-about-minnesotas-new-restrictions-on-bars-and-restaurants-gyms-sports-and-social-gatherings/
All absurdly illegal. Where are the lawsuits? The dissenters?
Standing back a step or two, I have the impression that for physicians and lawyers a state license to practice is the control mechanism (the Golden Handcuffs) that causes each group to sit on their hands right now. It’s not lost on the foot soldiers of either profession that one’s license renewal will not be smooth and automatic once you stand up in a test case. Pediatricians seeking to slow or tailor a child’s vax schedule quickly figured that out.
It’s a pity, too, because an efficacious alliance of lawyers and doctors would pretty much make the current immiseration of the West go away, overnight. Golly, it makes one wonder whether the Malpractice Wars between them (about 1970 to 2000) was engineered as a prophylactic measure to divide and conquer those professions in anticipation of the current steamrolling of the Western society upon medical pretexts.
But that’s crazy talk. /s
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good observation. These people (legal, medical) are hamstrung, for sure. Under lock and key.
Like Doc Cowan, who because of having unfettered conversation re possible alternative treatments for cancer, and perhaps recommendations to this woman who was seeking to avoid the death-kiss of standard cancer treatment, nearly lost his license to practice.
This plan is not spur of the moment, so divide and conquer “in anticipation of the current steamrolling of the Western society upon medical pretexts” sounds exactly right.
Each state has its own statutes re: executive emergency authority. Interesting: https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/legislative-oversight-of-executive-orders.aspx