I put a link to your mask report and to your book on my website. Now along comes a 1 September study "disproving" what you wrote about masks, the Bangladesh Study. The links fill pages of google searches. At last a "GOLD" standard study! The conclusion: An increase of 29% of surgical mask use correlates with a 11% drop in COVID-19 cases. For those over 60, a 35% reduction! If that is a valid study I will remove those links. I don't want to misinform people. However, I would like to know what kind of selection bias occurred in those in the experimental villages who opted to use the masks. Were they also more health conscious? Did they have better diets? Did they take Ivermectin. What about the older people who knew they were a higher risk? Did they do anything different besides the mask compared to those in villages that weren't given masks? Did the public education facilitate awareness and change other behaviors in the experimental villages? What other confounding variables were not acknowledged? Could the greater physical distancing in the experimental villages have been a factor? Given your research this study seems to be a major outlier. One more rhetorical question. Why don't the studies you cite have three pages of google links? Why don't we see such a response to the CDC study showing masks made no difference? Doesn't fit the Zeitgeist? Help me. I am on the fence and want to get off.
Excellent questions. Prior to March 2020, there was no study published in peer-reviewed journals showing that masks worked to contain or restrict transmission of viral infections. After March 2020, some extraordinary excesses were taken in research. The Bangladesh study, nowhere near gold standard criteria, showed that cloth masks make no difference, and that there was a modest difference in surgical mask use for people over 50. However, even those tepid results were tainted by financial incentives and authority presence, both carrot and stick. I don't know if you subscribe to el gato malo on Substack. I think he did an excellent analysis of the Bangladesh study problems. I'll look for that link now...
When you say the studies I cite don't show 3 pages of google links, do you mean they haven't been viewed or searched much?
Thanks for the response and the link. Yes, don't know if it is google's search algos or google simply reflecting search activity. In either event, I don't think many want to hear that masks are ineffective and potentially harmful.
Thanks so much for vote of confidence. I will likely not be spending time with Bangladesh study soon, due to other urgent matters. El Gato malo is certainly idiosyncratic, eccentric even, but I've found his analyses to be spot on. He nails several problems in Bangladesh study, worth re-reading.
The experimental design of the Bangladesh study is hot garbage. I would almost accuse it of having been a deliberately biased "experiment" from the get-go to generate mask propaganda (especially as I see it being used in American MSM).
I'll take another look, but he and Guttermouth (below) don't help themselves with their rhetoric ("hot garbage?"). I won't take down your links unless I find the study to be credible. But I will include the study on my website. Cherrypicking, regardless of whose side you are on does not inspire confidence. I don't know, but who is to say you didn't cherrypick the 40 studies in your paper? I have relatives who tell me I only look at data favorable to the positions I have been taking.
I asserted that no study prior to March 2020 found masks to be effective against viral transmission, and that fact was widely accepted. Since then, some rather - how can I say this tactfully - questionable "studies" with chaotic, uncontrolled variables have alleged effectiveness of masks. Are there any that meet widely accepted research standards?
I put a link to your mask report and to your book on my website. Now along comes a 1 September study "disproving" what you wrote about masks, the Bangladesh Study. The links fill pages of google searches. At last a "GOLD" standard study! The conclusion: An increase of 29% of surgical mask use correlates with a 11% drop in COVID-19 cases. For those over 60, a 35% reduction! If that is a valid study I will remove those links. I don't want to misinform people. However, I would like to know what kind of selection bias occurred in those in the experimental villages who opted to use the masks. Were they also more health conscious? Did they have better diets? Did they take Ivermectin. What about the older people who knew they were a higher risk? Did they do anything different besides the mask compared to those in villages that weren't given masks? Did the public education facilitate awareness and change other behaviors in the experimental villages? What other confounding variables were not acknowledged? Could the greater physical distancing in the experimental villages have been a factor? Given your research this study seems to be a major outlier. One more rhetorical question. Why don't the studies you cite have three pages of google links? Why don't we see such a response to the CDC study showing masks made no difference? Doesn't fit the Zeitgeist? Help me. I am on the fence and want to get off.
Excellent questions. Prior to March 2020, there was no study published in peer-reviewed journals showing that masks worked to contain or restrict transmission of viral infections. After March 2020, some extraordinary excesses were taken in research. The Bangladesh study, nowhere near gold standard criteria, showed that cloth masks make no difference, and that there was a modest difference in surgical mask use for people over 50. However, even those tepid results were tainted by financial incentives and authority presence, both carrot and stick. I don't know if you subscribe to el gato malo on Substack. I think he did an excellent analysis of the Bangladesh study problems. I'll look for that link now...
When you say the studies I cite don't show 3 pages of google links, do you mean they haven't been viewed or searched much?
Thanks for the response and the link. Yes, don't know if it is google's search algos or google simply reflecting search activity. In either event, I don't think many want to hear that masks are ineffective and potentially harmful.
I would prefer reading a more scholarly review by you. His is too personal, too idiosyncratic for me. I prefer writers who stick to the science only.
Thanks so much for vote of confidence. I will likely not be spending time with Bangladesh study soon, due to other urgent matters. El Gato malo is certainly idiosyncratic, eccentric even, but I've found his analyses to be spot on. He nails several problems in Bangladesh study, worth re-reading.
The experimental design of the Bangladesh study is hot garbage. I would almost accuse it of having been a deliberately biased "experiment" from the get-go to generate mask propaganda (especially as I see it being used in American MSM).
See above.
I'll take another look, but he and Guttermouth (below) don't help themselves with their rhetoric ("hot garbage?"). I won't take down your links unless I find the study to be credible. But I will include the study on my website. Cherrypicking, regardless of whose side you are on does not inspire confidence. I don't know, but who is to say you didn't cherrypick the 40 studies in your paper? I have relatives who tell me I only look at data favorable to the positions I have been taking.
I asserted that no study prior to March 2020 found masks to be effective against viral transmission, and that fact was widely accepted. Since then, some rather - how can I say this tactfully - questionable "studies" with chaotic, uncontrolled variables have alleged effectiveness of masks. Are there any that meet widely accepted research standards?
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/more-on-the-bangladesh-mask-study
Have you received a response from ASU?
No response yet, but new AZ law gives them a 9/29 deadline to stop mandating masks.