Cochrane masking review reveals how academics are absolute hypocrites
A tale of two failed therapies and thousands of people without principles
The reception to the Cochrane update on masks and other physical interventions to prevent the spread of sars-cov-2 has been disappointing.
First of all, there is no question that randomized trials better estimate treatment effect than observational research. This is especially true when masks take on a religious quality that segregates with wealth and sociopolitical beliefs. Pima and Maricopa county are not comparable. The have different levels of precaution, vaccination and voting. An anecdote of a hairdresser in Marin county is not evidence. It wasn’t long ago that we all knew that. Except the CDC.
Second, and I cannot stress this enough, if you want to excuse negative results by citing non-compliance, you have it backwards. Compliance is part of your intervention. A diet that advises people to just eat nothing till they are skinny will fail. You cannot then blame it on non-compliance. You need to offer a diet that is sustainable.
Third, ‘the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. This excuse was trotted out to say that the Cochrane review did not conclusively prove masks don’t work. Largely those who offered this claim pointed to the broad 95% confidence interval for masks on the endpoint of flu or COVID. It includes some values compatible with benefit.
On my substack, I argued this argument was insincere, and drew a parallel to a discredited practice’s confidence interval. But here, I can do you one better. Which one of these confidence intervals is masking for COVID, and which is ivermectin for COVID?
That’s right. Ivermectin for COVID19, a failed therapy. (PS: it is a failed therapy). And listen to how people talk about it. As if only the worst type of person would continue to advocate for it. Further testing is pointless. And to be honest, I AGREE WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS. So here is the answer:
That’s right. In order to be consistent you have to treat masking and ivermectin the same. Neither has any credible data it works. Every excuse you make about masking, an Ivermectin zealot can make
It was bioplausible | It was bioplausible
People were non-compliant | They didn’t give the right dose
They didn’t mask at home | They didn’t start it early enough
The confidence interval did not exclude meaningful benefit | The confidence interval did not exclude meaningful benefit
We need more trials | We need more trials
Nearly no one is consistent here.
Both masking and ivermectin failed to show how they might help people in a timely fashion. Both are failed interventions. One is a the panacea of right wing zealots and the other of left wing zealots.
In biomedicine and public health, in times of crisis, you get some period of time to show how an intervention might work, and if it doesn’t: pack your bags. Stop talking. Move on.
Community masking failed. The only people who saw it coming were people who read all the pre-pandemic randomized evidence, who read all the RCTs during COVID, and people who didn’t lose their marbles in times of crisis.
October 2021, just as dropped my 11 yo daughter off at dance, she mentioned she wasn’t feeling well, but convinced me it was just because she was tired.
When I picked her up 4 hours later, she had a moderate fever, headache, and pain in her eyes.
A rapid test confirmed she had Covid, and out of caution, we alerted the dance studio.
My daughter danced in 4 different classes, with roughly 20 other dancers per class, in a confined small studio with poor circulation. None of the students had been masking since 2020.
Not one of the roughly 70 people present at the studio caught Covid from my daughter.
I propose that the black leotards protected everyone as it’s mechanistically plausible that the black fabric obtained an electrostatic charge that pulled the Covid virions to the leotard.
Can the CDC publish my MMWR?
"One [Ivermectin] is a the panacea of right wing zealots and the other [masks] of left wing zealots.”
…
Dr. Pierre Kory is among the so-called “right wing zealots” who champion Ivermectin. However, just like Vinay Prasad, he is actually a Democrat. I wish Prasad wouldn't throw out ad hominum attacks upon those whom he disagrees:
From Pierre Kory's 5/20/22 opinion piece: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/doctor-democrat-covid-censorship-pierre-kory
“I’m a lifelong Democrat. I voted for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. I used to have an inherent aversion to Republicans … . But as the pandemic unfolded ... I met many new conservative colleagues and friends who put politics aside to focus on doing our best at the bedside. It made me more tolerant and understanding of their worldviews.
I used to view Democrats … as the champions of free speech … But now, ... medical boards are adopting policies that censor opinions ... Medical professionals who refuse to toe the party line risk censorship, cancellation, and even the loss of license … The trend is forcing doctors who exhibit critical thinking to face an existential choice: join the mob and support what many of us believe are dangerous policies without a sound scientific basis, or stand up and risk losing your livelihood.
Tribalism and polarization have made our political and medical discourse nasty and divisive. Doctors must be kept above the partisan fray, not forced to take sides and pick a jersey. ... we need to be apolitical to maintain credibility with everyone who comes to us seeking treatment. Progress and innovative medical breakthroughs in the future depend on freedom and medical choice now.”