I told you a few weeks ago that science and medicine is overrun by shills and phoneys. They are always there, in the wings, waiting to do the bidding of their wicked masters.
Like the creep who went onto TV saying Ivermectin was just a “horse worming pill”. He knowingly lied, by omitting the fact that Ivermectin is formulated for human use and appears in the US pharmacopeia (USP). It’s one of the most valuable meds developed in the last 50 years, w-a-a-y-y BEYOND ANY GARBAGE MANUFACTURED AND MARKETED BY BIG PHARMA.
It really is a miracle drug; FDA approved for use in humans to treat a variety of parasitic infections including parasitic worms, hookworm and whipworm and may also be used as an effective treatment for a wide range of other conditions such as onchocerciasis, intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis or river blindness.
The antiviral activity of Ivermectin has been shown against a wide range of RNA and DNA viruses, for example, dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and others.1
But of course NOT SARS-Cov-2, an RNA virus like any other, Oh dear me, no! (I’m being ironic!)
Anyway, today I want to call to your attention a wicked shilled “rewriting of science”. In Jan 2023 a comprehensive review of articles published in the Cochrane database, looking at whether mask wearing was effective for preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, most notably of course the SRS-Cov-2 virus.
The result was very clear; there was NO CLEAR evidence that mask wearing prevented transmission. Put another way, the study showed that mask wearing was ineffective and therefore a waste of time.
Well, of course that doesn’t suit the people who are trying to enslave the human race. They want us all masked up, as a mark of our obedience to the New World Order.
WE ARE NOT DONE WITH MASKING. They want to bring it back… and they will!
It’s just that this study makes it obvious that it is merely a control mechanism and not protective and not science at all! But that’s no problem to the evil controllers. They just want this inconvenient study out of the way, quashed, discredited.
So right on schedule, a couple months later, out come the shills! This data has been widely “misinterpreted” we are told.
Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, has responded with a “statement” on behalf of Cochrane: “Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation (she says).
“It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.2
Well, that’s just HER interpretation, of course. This is normal on the B*S* trail: “My opinion is fact, backed by science; but your contrary view is just an opinion.” It’s sickening but common.
Anyhow, guess which one wins? You can believe what you like, the results are unmistakable, in the sense that there is NO EVIDENCE that mask wearing does any good. Opinion doesn’t enter into it. But now the word “misinterpretation” has magically appeared, the powers that be and the fake doctors can ignore it.
“But this comprehensive study shows that it’s a waste of time,” you say.
“That’s a common misinterpretation, actually mask wearing is proven to prevent the spread of dangerous viruses,” they say! That takes away discussion of this Cochrane review and turns the conversation around, to the welter of fake facts and pro-mask disinformation along side it.
Details About This Review
The researchers included 11 new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. In total 610,872 participants were included. That’s a very BIG study.
Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. Researchers identified four ongoing studies, of which one was completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many of the studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighborhood in a high-income country.
It’s the best study to date and very comprehensive.
The review also included 12 trials comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). THEIR CONCLUSION: Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness compared to not wearing masks.
The researchers also looked at N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks and the results were “inconclusive” (low certainty of evidence).
One previously reported ongoing RCT was finally published and observed that “Medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators (read: just as good) in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.
How is any of this open to misinterpretation Ms. Soares-Weiser? Do you sleep well, shooting down the work of honest, careful researchers?
Author’s Last Words
“There is uncertainty about the effects of facemasks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. (my emphasis)
Moreover: “There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.”3
The Shill’s Words
She says, “The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: ‘The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.’
“The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that ‘We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.’
“This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.”
You know my position: might as well put up barbed wire to keep out mosquitos.
But will Ms. Soares-Weiser bully the authors to “admit” that their study failed to prove that masking is a waste of time? I hope not. I’m tired of the whole “beaky” thing!
Yours in aggravation!
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor
SOURCE:
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Tom JeffersonLiz DooleyEliana FerroniLubna A Al-AnsaryMieke L van DrielGhada A BawazeerMark A JonesTammy C HoffmannJustin ClarkElaine M BellerPaul P GlasziouJohn M Conly. Version published: 30 January 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6
References:
- https://www.drugs.com/ivermectin.html#
- https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review
- https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
