Loading ...Dadoc ..you are busted
Lady Caroline a very sharp research associate pointed this out ..Thanks Caroline !
……………………
I know you posted the article from lancet in good faith so I am kidding BUT
Lancet is Busted and the Bullshit is so thick you can cut it with a knife
Luckily they didn’t even think to hide this…I guess they figured no one reads their shit anyhow
PEOPLE SHOULD JUST TAKE THE HEADLINE AT FACE VALUE
here is the cut and paste of the Synopsis you posted ..BUT you left out a critical part
Look at the Bottom Line ( emphasis by bold type added by me)
Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more
and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks,
respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual
factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic
appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.
Funding World Health Organization.
Copyright © 2020 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article published
under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO
endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice
should be preserved along with the article’s original URL.
One take away from this piece is great !
This shows us that even though the WHO sponsored this “study”
and presumably used Gates money.
The researchers could not find ONE study in all the world’s langauges that is a RCT study showing masks are effective.
Not one.
None exists
And yet the “mandate” masks in the face of many studies RCT studies that show they do not work
Of course these studies were not commissioned by the you know WHO
WHO’s on first ?
No. Who struck out. WTF is on first.
🙂 Indeed
I do not think that it is fair to assume that just because the WHO sponsored it that it is incorrect.
My impression is that there is sometimes in some fields a remarkable correlation between sponsorship and conclusions. Moreover, it can be the case that the gist of the study is hidden in the results contradicting the conclusions.
There can be an immense amount of pressure and dirty stuff. But not always. Sometimes results go against the interests of sponsors. It is improperly cynical to assume it is always present or even — as a joke — to have the “Dadoc — you are busted” title.
….
None of the topic is my field of expertise — other than that I know that there is a lot of …. throughout science and medicine, which can be far more politicized than commonly believed.
….
I would like to make some comments people here might find useful about metanalysis. I am not an expert about the topic — its proper practice requires great care and expertise — but I have been aware of so much controversy over the years that I can help people assess the matter, including allowing for sophisticated skepticism.
What they are doing is in effect (by my understanding) taking a bunch of other studies and pooling the data. Often by pooling the data they can get the big picture that otherwise is not evident — forest not just small stands of trees — much better statistical power.
A problem is however that each study that they are using will have been different. They are necessarily pooling apples, oranges, pears, and watermelons, and will tell you as much upfront. Some studies will be larger than others; some prospective; others retrospective. Some will measure this, others that. I could list all the potential differences, but you get the picture. So they may discard some studies or weight studies differently.
People will have spend their careers studying the correct methodology of performing metanalyses — and will argue about it. It is trying to get clean results out of a somewhat dirty mess. At least that is my outsider spectator’s opinion.
Therefore — provided there is funding (a big if!!!!!) — others may do their own metanalyses of the same thing again. They may exclude or include different studies. They may weight studies differently deciding that this or that study was better or worse than the authors of the 1st metanalysis decided.
Therefore do not be astonished to find a 2nd analysis finding the opposite conclusion. Then a 3d one agreeing with the 1st. And so on.
Cynically, I have sometimes wondered whether authors of metanalyses have had the conclusion the funders have wanted and then done the weightings and inclusions and exclusions, but that is the sort of cynical thinking that I am trying to tell you not to do. The fact is if you want you can go back to the underlying papers and do your own metanalysis, and probably that’s what other people are going to do, and get their own results. So you may see 1 or more metanalyses contradicting this one. This is not necessarily the last one. That’s how the metanalysis game seems to be played, and necessarily so because the data are so messy.
Summary: larger numbers, better statistics with a metanalysis — but probably a large role for subjectivity that the authors may deny. We may see more metanalyses with different or similar results.
Eventually however, or so one hopes, the results of multiple metanalyses converge. So hold judgment, be both skeptical and open-minded for the time being.
Karl – responding to your first line “I do not think that it is fair to assume that just because the WHO sponsored it that it is incorrect.”
Even if you don’t think the WHO is spreading incorrect information, consider that they are intentionally telling only part of the story. This can merely be considered ‘bias’ if you think they are honorable but it can also arguably be considered a LIE to the degree the points of omission are materially relevant.
It all boils down to ‘do you trust them’ to which you seem undecided at this point?
Half truths told by a party with intent to deceive can be the most effective kind of lie because they allow for plausible deniability. The get-out-of-jail card usually played as last resort if/when the objective falls apart.
More often than not, when called out on it (omission of materially important details), the first reaction is to ignore those challenges, if those details/unanswered questions pick up interest then deny and if that doesn’t work and public interest continues to grow smear the character of the person or group trying to expose the other half (case in point – response to Dr’s on the SCOTUS steps – accusation of ‘conspiracy theory’ or ‘racist’ also works well), if those don’t work arrange for a false flag ‘event’ to change the news trend or otherwise drive the agenda forward.
Karl it must be so tiring being you
sigh
I am so glad after seeing many of your comments that I rely primarily on my Bullshit detector to come to a conclusion.
if it smells like bullshit…it’ bullshit
My bullshit detector is ringing off the wall with this stuff .
But I do appreciate your trying to look at both sides …even when to me there is no contest.
Different strokes
🙂
Karl, a similar observation here. I do believe you ought to start going with your gut (whether covid crisis RESPONSE is correct/justified or not) – if you determine the response is justified, call it (I don’t need to hear you argue it here. everyone makes up their own mind). Everyone wants to and should try to be objective, admirably however with as much evidence presented at some point a decision must be made. I do enjoy your posts but at some point a note of conviction would be welcome. Indecision is why I can’t take listening to Guy Adami (recent post) for any extended period – he’s always looking at both sides but when he does express an opinion – he always hedges it – he may have personal conviction but I want to see him argue it esp. being in the public spotlight as it were. It’s almost as if he’s afraid to defend any conclusions he has drawn on evidence. Of course we don’t like dogma but when the evidence speaks…..
Haha! Nice, who is Caroline, I love this gal! 🙂
She is a Goldtent reader and sharp eyed researcher .
We are fortunate to have a research army who help behind the scenes
I think we’re getting close to bullying people here. I don’t like the way this is going.
Some of the commentary is remarkably ignorant, stupid, and ugly in its thoughtlessness.
It is not as though there is true anonymity on the internet.
I may get so to speak black helicopters hovering above, but I am retired so less vulnerable than some.
You who make a great show of being in favor of alternative points of view note how people presenting alternative points of view have been vilified and harassed. One reportedly just lost her job in CA.
You should at least begin to be minimally thoughtful. Someone like dadoc has to exercise extreme caution. Teasing or him is like picking on someone with one — or both — hands tied behind his back.
Pretty disgusting, in my opinion, or at best thoughtless. That is one side I will take.
Thank you for the advice to take sides, but I try to avoid ideology but instead go with the facts, the availability and presentation of which evolves. I take the sides as they come, and prepare.
As a matter of fact, back in January I was stocking up with TP, looking around for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, seeing where I could put all the extra hand sanitizer disinfectant, getting goggles and extra goggles, NP95s and more. I had a fair amount of stuff since I had been somewhat aware of discussions of spreads of nasty viruses, as well as other precautionary reasons (or paranoia). However much as I do not go around wiping myself with toilet paper 24 hours a day when I do not need it, I do not necessarily use all the material all the time, but instead react to evolving situation. I continue to read. Writing helps focus my mind. At the moment I am strongly disinclined to accept even the influenza vaccine, which I had encouraged other people to use for years. I was a pro-vaccine nut. I hate microsoft malware and hate the effects on my computers, so I am leery of vaccines now that I know of Gates’s influence on new vaccines. Those are my current opinions. I do change opinions as evidence changes. Sometimes I change 180 degrees.
For example, a year ago I thought gaps in charts were meaningless. Now I think they are useful. I try to abjure dogma, ideology, fixed opinions. Evidence, evolving evidence for me.