One more time: Masks don’t work
Cochrane meta-analysis: Masks are likely useless against respiratory viruses
One of the great Alinsky-like tactics that the left uses routinely is to redefine things that don’t fit their narrative. If you say the sky is blue, the left will tell you that blue really means red. Or, if you say it’s red, progressives will tell you red means blue.
Or, let’s say—hypothetically speaking, of course—you’re just a humble bureaucrat working in the federal government who wants to control as much land and water in the United States as you possibly can. Reasonable, right? You know, for the collective good of the nation. But the problem is, the federal government only has jurisdiction over navigable waters, which was defined as water bodies that were navigable in fact, “meaning that they are capable of being used by vessels in interstate commerce.” That’s pretty limiting, so what’s a humble bureaucrat to do? Well, of course, you redefine ‘navigable.’ Over time the federal government took that traditional definition and redefined it to include tributaries of navigable-in-fact waters, as well as adjacent waters. And what was considered adjacent? Well, over time that came to include “wetlands, mudflats, swamps, marshes, and shallows,” and, well, over time that was expanded, too, because it just didn’t satisfy the needs of the humble bureaucrats, so finally guidance came to assert that the definition of navigable may require, according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers press release, “the rancher who wants to enlarge his stock pond, or the farmer who wants to deepen an irrigation ditch or plow a field, or the mountaineer who wants to protect his land against stream erosion, to obtain federal permits.” And that just might include your driveway if it has a puddle after a heavy rain.
OK then, just redefine things, and, voila, you have Instant Power.
As it turns out, during the Covid-19 pandemic there were two key changes in definitions that changed the trajectory of the pandemic from that of a relatively straightforward public health event requiring massive clean-up on Aisle Wuhan after Fauci & Friends concocted a more dangerous and transmissible virus and, oops, let it leak out into the world to a political opportunity to lock down and oppress said world. The first redefinition was that of ‘vaccine.’ Specifically, the CDC changed the definition of ‘vaccination’ from “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease” to “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection to a specific disease.” Hmmm. And vaccine was changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” So the CDC doesn’t even pretend anymore that these drugs actually produce immunity, only stimulation. It’s a little kinky if you think about it.
The second redefinition was that of the word ‘science.’ That went from being “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained” to a much shorter definition. Science is now defined as “Dr. Anthony Fauci,” as redefined by Fauci himself. Unfortunately for everybody except Fauci & Friends, that redefinition led to lockdowns and school and business closures to mandates for those newly defined vaccines, not to mention masks.
Ah yes, masks. Before the term was redefined, pre-pandemic science—the kind that actually engaged in the now discredited study and observation and testing of theories—consistently showed that masks didn’t work, or at least that there was never any evidence that they did work, certainly nothing to justify mandates for wearing them. Under the new science, the left has and continues to insist that they do work, without a shred of evidence, but who needs that if the new science means you can infringe upon the rights of the population and especially of children, whom the left quite frankly has abused.
Anyway, all that pre-pandemic science established a strong consensus. For decades prior to the pandemic, that consensus was that face masks didn’t do much, if any, good, and themselves posed serious downsides, a false sense of security chief among them. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended against the widespread use of masks right up until and into the pandemic, in fact as late as March 30, 2020. The scientific reality was buttressed by a major policy review published by the CDC in May 2020, a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of influenza, conducted between 1946 and 2018—they were not effective, the analysis found. Influenza viruses spread primarily by the inhalation of small aerosols that the masks could not block—and it’s the same with the coronavirus and other respiratory viruses.
Of course, the pandemic came along and suddenly masks began to magically work, according to public health establishment propagandists, Democrats, teachers unions, progressives of every stripe, and, of course, Fauci. New studies emerged bolstering them. And the message was pretty much this: If you don’t wear a mask, you are a murderer.
Now a newly published review—this time by traditional scientists and not partisan ideologues—has once again found that the use of face masks likely provides no effective protection against the spread of respiratory viruses, such as the coronavirus. This time, too, the meta-analysis includes studies carried out during the pandemic. The analysis was performed by researchers for Cochrane, which The New York Times acknowledges “is widely considered the gold standard for its reviews of health care data.” Cochrane is a worldwide nonprofit organization that undertakes systematic reviews of health care interventions, and, interestingly, it is funded by health agencies around the globe, including the National Institutes of Health.
So let’s take a look at what this meta-analysis actually says, what its critics say (and why they are full of baloney), and then look at comments the review’s lead author recently made condemning what he says were efforts to censor his work.
So what would Jefferson do …