| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Great Cultural Revolution |
| NIH-funded research collaborative redacts emails on why it disavowed 'gold standard' mask study |
| 2023-09-07 |
| [JustTheNews] As public and private institutions resume or consider mask mandates in the wake of a small uptick in COVID-19 hospitalizations and new viral variants, an international research collaborative funded by the National Institutes of Health is facing new scrutiny for how it came to publicly downplay its 17 years of research finding that masks make "little to no difference." U.K-based nonprofit Cochrane, often described as the "gold standard" of evidence-based medicine, heavily redacted its internal discussions on how to respond to questions about alleged conflicts of interest that may have shaped its March statement deeming the systematic review's results "inconclusive" without changing its content. It turned over largely unreadable documents to former Senate Finance Committee investigator Paul Thacker, now an independent journalist, in response to his request for the "personal data" Cochrane holds on Thacker under Article 15 of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation. The State Department did roughly the same in a Freedom of Information Act production in August, prompted by litigation. It heavily redacted discussions of how to respond to reporters asking about its funding of a group that tries to starve conservative publishers of ad revenue. "They have no justification" for the redactions, Thacker told Just the News, asking rhetorically why Congress wasn't scrutinizing a taxpayer-funded organization whose mask research — or perception thereof — has played a pivotal role in U.S. policy. Cochrane says it has received £500K to 1 million from NIH. Cochrane spokesperson Harry Dayantis said it was "usually illegal" to disclose information "about individuals other than the requester" under this "very specific and limited type of request," pointing Just the News to the U.K. Information Commissioner's office. The Cochrane systematic review, which has evaluated masking first against influenza and then COVID since 2006, posed a problem for the federal government’s ongoing pro-mask guidance, but so does an increasing body of research that questions whether sustained mask use is benign. Then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told Congress the Cochrane study was suspect because it relied on randomized controlled trials rather than the observational evidence the CDC favors, but she also inaccurately claimed Cochrane had "retracted" it. The House Appropriations Committee later fixed the hearing record at the authors' request. |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #8 There are too many corrupt yahoos to put them all in jail. Maybe we can dump them in a swath of Alaska and just jail the ones that make it through winter. Someone can round them up in the spring after the bears wake up and snack. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2023-09-07 20:30 |
| #7 We've been assured that the only source of truth is a double blind, placebo controlled study. Never mind that medicine has made great progress in the past without these. The net effect is that only governments and huge corporations can proclaim what is true, because only they can fund these studies. |
| Posted by: Angstrom 2023-09-07 10:56 |
| #6 I expect some big leftist political donors have not yet recouped their investments in personal protection gear and pharma stocks. So, there will be efforts to renew "mandates" for masks and vaccines. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2023-09-07 10:43 |
| #5 And if that's not wobbly enough for you, consider the limitations of the study: Few randomized trials, studies had methodological limitations and some imprecision, suboptimal adherence and pragmatic aspects of randomized trials potentially attenuated benefits, very limited evidence on harms, uncertain applicability to Omicron variant predominant era, meta-analysis not done due to heterogeneity, unable to formally assess for publication bias, and restricted to English-language articles. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2023-09-07 10:15 |
| #4 The June, 2023 NIH update on masks: Conclusion:Updated evidence suggests that masks may be associated with a small reduction in risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in community settings. Surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar infection risk in routine patient care settings, but a beneficial effect of N95 respirators cannot be ruled out. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2023-09-07 10:13 |
| #3 Visual of particle sizes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) 0.1-0.5μm A sneeze pushes particles thru typical public used paper masks at about 1.5m per 0.4 sec. and can float depending on the disburst environment as long at 10 to 45+/- sec. ref: a handful of Laser / infrared based R&D studies like "RCAM", "Researchgate" and others |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2023-09-07 06:29 |
| #2 The diameter of the virus has been found to range between 50 nanometers to 140 nanometers. Typical Paper and cotton masks filter at 300 to 600nm. Viruses don't travel as naked individuals but in drops of water. |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2023-09-07 05:19 |
| #1 Early on the simple facts quickly & flatly disproved the ability of the masks sold to the general public be effective. Simply using the CDC and other COVID-19 Information sites we learned the Virus was much smaller than those masks were design to filter at. Depending who is providing data. The diameter of the virus has been found to range between 50 nanometers to 140 nanometers. Typical Paper and cotton masks filter at 300 to 600nm. At best the masks reduce the droplet travel distance by infected persons to 12ft +, or 2x for the designated social distancing. |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2023-09-07 05:17 |