This Pro-Mask “Study” Is Why You Should Never “Trust The Science”

The Australian state of Victoria is said to be exploring “permanent” facemask regulations in order to attain “zero-Covid” last week.

We won’t go into the ramifications of such a rule on individual liberties or the seemingly endless body of research showing that masks are ineffective at preventing the spread of respiratory diseases.

They never worked. Their ongoing use is a sign of indoctrination or a side effect of persistent virtue signalling, and their mandate was a political decision made to give the bogus Covid “pandemic” the appearance of reality.

The mask debate, such as it was, is over.

No, the “evidence” offered to support the position is the only component of this development worth discussing, and believe me when I say that the quotes are perfectly justified.

The “study” titled “Consistent mask use and SARSCoV2 epidemiology: a simulation modelling study” was published in the Medical Journal of Australia this week. It makes the case for the advantages of long-term masking.

The word “simulation modelling study” is definitely the most important one there. For the uninitiated, “simulation modelling studies” entail entering data into a computer program and then asking it to draw conclusions.

Obviously, they are only as trustworthy and helpful as the information you use. In fact, by giving them the “right” (wrong) data, you can easily make them create whatever result you desire.

They told the computer at the beginning of this particular modelling exercise that respirators lowered transmission by 80% and cotton masks by 53%:

Odds ratios for the relative risk of infection for people exposed to an infected person (wearing a mask v not wearing a mask) were set at 0.47 for cloth and surgical masks and 0.20 for respirators.

In essence, they informed their computer that sickness is prevented by masks…after which he asked the computer, “Okay, computer, now that you know masks prevent disease, what would happen if everyone wore them constantly?”

The computer then informed them that no one would become ill, obviously.

They did this since it was illogical for it to state anything other.

But there’s more to it than that.

The next layer of interest is where they got their input data from?

After all, several research have been conducted on masks throughout the years, and 98% of them have concluded that they are ineffective.

So, did our people decide on a real-time control trial that was peer-reviewed and was based on data from a double-blind lab test?

Maybe one of the a dozen or so trials like this one that are listed in our 40 facts article?

Did they possibly average the outcomes of several studies?

No, a phone survey was employed.

One phone survey.

This phone survey, published last year and conducted in late 2021.

In this *ahem* “scientific study,” participants were randomly chosen from among individuals who had previously undergone “Covid” testing and asked, “Did you wear a mask?” and then publicized the result — “masks reduce transmission by 53%” — as if it had any significance.

It’s interesting to note that one of the authors is a Pfizer grant recipient if you go down to the “affiliations” section.

More concerning, and for some reason not acknowledged as a conflict of interest, is the fact that the California Board of Public Health produced the entire report.

Before this “study” even began, California has already had a mask requirement for almost a year.

This is not “science”; rather, it is a computer model that was created using the results of a debatable phone survey that was carried out by a government organization with a personal stake in the outcome. It is completely worthless, but despite this, it is published in journals, cited by “experts,” and possibly even the foundation for new regulations.

In this way, “The ScienceTM” operates. And even while Covid may have made a lot of people aware of this problem, it is not just a “Covid” problem. This kind of “research” has been published on a variety of subjects for years, if not decades. It is especially common on subjects with political overtones.

John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor of evidence-based medicine, published a paper titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” in 2005.

This is entirely about the distinction between science and “The Science” and has nothing to do with the “pandemic”. So let’s investigate that difference.

“Science” is a way of looking at things. a methodical approach to information collection, hypothesis testing, and drawing conclusions from the available data.

“The Science” is a self-sustaining industry of academics who need jobs and owe favours.

An ongoing “quid pro quo” arrangement between the researchers, who desire accolades, knighthoods, tenure, book deals, research grants, and the opportunity to engage in popular television commentary elaborating on complex concepts, and the businesses, governments, and “charitable foundations” who already possess all of those things.

This system doesn’t produce research that is meant to be read; instead, it generates tweetable headlines, links, and sources for “journalists” to embed.

An impression of strong support that disintegrates as you read the text, look at the approach, or look at the data.

Self-reporting surveys, falsified information, and “modelling studies” that produce predetermined outcomes. Affiliated authors who have been paid by the government or business interests to offer “evidence” in support of theories that are politically expedient or extremely profitable.

This mask study is a prime illustration of that.

• Layers of nothing interlaced to give the appearance of something.
• They want you to believe it rather than read it because of this.

About Author