The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.
Considering sending spam? Read this first.
Oops.... the Danish Study was published.
This is the best sort of science -- a random controlled trial. It is trumped only by a meta-analysis of multiple random controlled trials.
Dr. Fauci repeatedly stated that he would not fund or allow random controlled trials for masks because that would be "unethical." This is exactly the sort of bull**** he ran during the original AIDS years in the 1980s and early 1990s when he actively worked to deny Bactrim to AIDS patients who had a high risk of PCP, which routinely killed said patients. We knew Bactrim worked to stop PCP in immune-compromised people because we had been using it for more than five years at that point in Leukemia patients, and in fact it is one of the major factors that caused leukemia to become a much more-survivable disease.
Over 30,000 Americans were shoved in the hole as a result of that denial -- until it was eventually reversed when Fauci's "recommendation" was overridden and ultimately dropped. At the same time AZT, which was a failed cancer drug that failed safety trials -- that is, Phase 1 -- was pushed hard by the same Dr. Fauci. AZT was later shown to be a direct DNA poison. In the meantime, however, it was tremendously profitable since it was an on-patent drug while Bactrim was off-patent and thus cheap.
Well, now we have the same thing here. Annals published the study despite other journals refusing to do so. It is not hard to see why the others refused; the confidence interval shows that there is a very real possibility that masks might increase infection rates by as much as 23%.
Post-hoc computation (which attempts to draw inferences and conclusions by sub-segregating the control and trial groups) was even worse:
In the first, which included only participants reporting wearing face masks “exactly as instructed,” infection (the primary outcome) occurred in 22 participants (2.0%) in the face mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.2 percentage point [CI, −1.3 to 0.9 percentage point]; P = 0.82) (OR, 0.93 [CI, 0.56 to 1.54]; P = 0.78).
If you don't know how to read that I'll do it for you -- there was no statistical improvement whatsoever between those who reported wearing face masks exactly as instructed and the control group. The confidence interval was extraordinarily wide and statistically centered on 1.0, or no effect, with a possible range of from ~44% improvement to a 54% increase in risk.
This was worse than the trial group overall, which strongly implies that the group which was most-compliant with the conditions had the worst results. That is, while everyone in the trial group was told to wear masks and supplied them, among those who reported they did exactly as instructed had the worst results out of all.
On the face of the scientific evidence masks are not only worthless the post-hoc analysis implies (but does not prove) they do harm.
Not that we needed this study to know. Masks failed in 1918, a fact that the Washington Post mentioned in April from the historical record and in fact there is 40 years of hard science that says they do not work, as I've noted, even in operating rooms where everyone is presumed to follow protocol as they are all trained medical professionals and the surrounding area is sterile, eliminating confounding factors.
But the reason this study was blackballed by a number of journals is actually in the data itself; it is a plaintiff's bar wet dream. Having the confidence interval cross 1.0 simply proves statistical worthlessness. Having it do so to such a large degree means employers who have mandated masks are suddenly open to massive lawsuits from employees who got Covid while under an employer mandate and there is a decent chance the employers will lose.
In addition the study authors in this case prevented the potential pollution of the results by false PCR tests, defining the endpoint as detection of Sars-CoV2 antibodies where they were previously absent. This was one of my concerns and remains so given the hard evidence over the last couple of months that false positive results have made computing suppression prevalence in the various states worthless; PCR testing has become nothing more than a tool of fear and panic porn over the last six months as CT40 (or higher) tests return many positives that have no culturable virus found, as has been disclosed by other studies. If you have no culturable (live) virus then you either had the bug some time in the past and what is being picked up are viral debris, not actual virus or you were immune, inoculated, and your body fought it off successfully without becoming infected. Indeed someone who ultimately is vaccinated will likely be able to test positive on a PCR test if challenged yet they do not become infected either. In any such case you can neither transmit the virus to others nor will you become ill. The added filter of testing for the absence of antibodies when the study began and then again to prove actual infection in those in which the challenge failed means that those false positive indications are conclusively excluded.
Bottom line: Mask orders are bull**** and thus must be immediately removed. They do nothing on the strength of the scientific evidence, which we knew for the last 40 years but intentionally ignored and lied to the American people. We must thus conclude that such orders are not actually in furtherance of public health but rather are mechanisms of submission imposed without cause or any scientific justification whatsoever.
The bull**** has been exposed and should be immediately shoved down the throats of those who attempt to maintain same.