Feb 7, 2023·edited Feb 7, 2023Liked by Paul D. Thacker
"Vaccines only target a specific disease. Why not study to see how much distance we need between people to slow down a virus spread? Why not study if altering air flow into classrooms, or making sure that fresh air is brought into buildings can slow infection rates?"
Why not study and recommend lifestyles that improve a population's overall metabolic and immune health? That would at least reduce the number of people vulnerable to the next pandemic. One would think that should be a major goal of public health.
Please don't mention the Dietary Guidelines, which are almost 180° wrong due to decades of regulatory capture and commercial influence.
In his previous interview with Maryanne Demasi this week, Dr. Jefferson referenced this article "The sins of expertness and a proposal for redemption" from David Sackett which is a fantastic read. Anyone who missed this should check it out.
No one I know comprehends the difference between an actual experimental RCT v. observational “studies”. Ergo, they can’t comprehend HOW they’ve been mislead, despite the enormous and flagrant misrepresentations of evidence.
Jefferson doesn't mention, at least in this edited transcript, how the review was delayed for months, until it was more or less moot.
"Lead author of the Cochrane mask review on the total absence of evidence for the efficacy of masking, and Cochrane's early and apparently deliberate interference in the publication of these results" https://www.eugyppius.com/p/lead-author-of-the-cochrane-mask
Suggestion for a study I would love for Dr. Jefferson or anyone qualified to undertake:
Plot all of the mask studies where the X axis is study quality, ranging from opinion pieces, to surveys, to observational, longitudinal, RCT, etc. For example the CDC's "Two Hairstylists in a Missouri Salon" might be x = 0, Epi Ellie's "Boston School Mask" observational study x = 1, Jason Abaluck's Bangladesh RCT might be a X = 7.
On the Y axis the efficacy/impact of the Mask (using the 3 above, you would see 100%, 29%, and 1%, respectively).
We would see the clear bias, as there would be a strong inverse correlation to quality of study and effect. The weaker the evidence, the stronger the effect, which you wouldn't see in disinterested science.
Here's my list of all mask studies (I also included the occasional essay, news article, YouTube video) if anyone wants to get started:
Fantastic article. One small thing I noticed; in the Feb. 5, 2020 e-mail Fauci said “money is best spent on medical countermeasures like diagnostics and vaccines.” Where’s any mention of treatments?* He knew it would take a months to develop and test a vaccine. It appears that he had no inclination to try and treat the disease at all. That’s depraved.
* One can argue argue that it was a short note and not a statement of policy. But since the government did not follow up on treatments (except for novel expensive pharmaceuticals) it demonstrates that they were laser focused from the beginning. That’s gross incompetence, institutional capture, or financial conflicts of interest. Probably all three.
"Vaccines only target a specific disease. Why not study to see how much distance we need between people to slow down a virus spread? Why not study if altering air flow into classrooms, or making sure that fresh air is brought into buildings can slow infection rates?"
Why not study and recommend lifestyles that improve a population's overall metabolic and immune health? That would at least reduce the number of people vulnerable to the next pandemic. One would think that should be a major goal of public health.
Please don't mention the Dietary Guidelines, which are almost 180° wrong due to decades of regulatory capture and commercial influence.
Comment 1:
In his previous interview with Maryanne Demasi this week, Dr. Jefferson referenced this article "The sins of expertness and a proposal for redemption" from David Sackett which is a fantastic read. Anyone who missed this should check it out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118019/
Also want to highlight another excellent (and timely) piece from Sackett: "The Arrogance of Preventative Medicine"
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/167/4/363.full.pdf
Even RCTs can be manipulated to achieve the desired result. That's why it's important to look at the study design and the raw data.
This is all so sad.
No one I know comprehends the difference between an actual experimental RCT v. observational “studies”. Ergo, they can’t comprehend HOW they’ve been mislead, despite the enormous and flagrant misrepresentations of evidence.
I don’t see how this ends either.
Jefferson doesn't mention, at least in this edited transcript, how the review was delayed for months, until it was more or less moot.
"Lead author of the Cochrane mask review on the total absence of evidence for the efficacy of masking, and Cochrane's early and apparently deliberate interference in the publication of these results" https://www.eugyppius.com/p/lead-author-of-the-cochrane-mask
Comment 2:
Suggestion for a study I would love for Dr. Jefferson or anyone qualified to undertake:
Plot all of the mask studies where the X axis is study quality, ranging from opinion pieces, to surveys, to observational, longitudinal, RCT, etc. For example the CDC's "Two Hairstylists in a Missouri Salon" might be x = 0, Epi Ellie's "Boston School Mask" observational study x = 1, Jason Abaluck's Bangladesh RCT might be a X = 7.
On the Y axis the efficacy/impact of the Mask (using the 3 above, you would see 100%, 29%, and 1%, respectively).
We would see the clear bias, as there would be a strong inverse correlation to quality of study and effect. The weaker the evidence, the stronger the effect, which you wouldn't see in disinterested science.
Here's my list of all mask studies (I also included the occasional essay, news article, YouTube video) if anyone wants to get started:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ahaJui6Af0kGYMwHgAtnKCE6-bHbCLxnrQxuMC0kygA/edit?usp=sharing
It seems impossible to love your work more til you publish a new piece.. total fab interview! <3
Fantastic article. One small thing I noticed; in the Feb. 5, 2020 e-mail Fauci said “money is best spent on medical countermeasures like diagnostics and vaccines.” Where’s any mention of treatments?* He knew it would take a months to develop and test a vaccine. It appears that he had no inclination to try and treat the disease at all. That’s depraved.
* One can argue argue that it was a short note and not a statement of policy. But since the government did not follow up on treatments (except for novel expensive pharmaceuticals) it demonstrates that they were laser focused from the beginning. That’s gross incompetence, institutional capture, or financial conflicts of interest. Probably all three.