Gato 🐱 I know you are not a doctor, but somehow you know your stuff well about what is important in a RTC. Everything you say is true; it is a crap study. But I will add one more strike. Even IF they had done a decent study, the differences they found are so minuscule and unimportant... It is a classic example of findings that reach statistical significance (p<0.05) due to a very large sample size. But if the numbers were true, they effect would be so small that it would certainly not justify requiring everyone in the population to wear a frigging mask. (How many strikes did they get? I thought three strikes and you are out).
Well … another data point in the soon to be written barn burner titled, “The End of Enlightenment: Our New Dark Age.”
1. Pick a side on a contested issue.
2. Fund a crap study that will hopefully provide numbers that support your side on the policy issue.
3. Publish the crap study in a journal of a field that gave us the last global financial crisis (aka a hack field).
4. Authors of crap study go on twitter and declare that the science is settled.
5. Journos, who now can only stay focused long enough to read a tweet, write a story that the “science is settled.” and link to said author tweet as proof.
6. The “wires” spread journos' “report” hither and yon.
7. TV “experts” read the report from the wires and then go on TeeVee to tell viewers that “the science is settled.”
8. Policy makers and politicians watch the TV experts pronouncement, and proceed to enact said policy because … “the science is settled.”
9. The lights start going out in cities across the land.
The only other thing I would add to your points above is that you are far too kind in #5. The majority of mainstream media journalists have been completely exposed as being advocates, not journalists. Science that fits their preferences are blown far out of proportion, while they actively suppress the stories that don't.
OTOH, going forward, whenever I have someone that I *thought* had a clue cite this study, I can use it as a sorting hat to put them in the "dumb as a box of rocks" camp. That is, unless they belong in the, "paid to be an asshole" camp, which still has lots of good seats left.
Basically "The Science" at this point be like: soiejrk$$blkrei&)b;oieoiruoiesur. And that proves masks work. Nobel prize, please. And yes, I'm available for Rachel Maddow.
Can you use capital letters please? I want to take this seriously and show the woke crowd in the U.K. that masks don’t work, but I am being laughed at as your report is in lower-case.
I would suggest that you suggest to the woke crowd to simply picture in their own minds the capital letters where they deem appropriate and to stop using lame excuses to belittle grammatical structure that is otherwise sound and on point.
Thanks for the excellent and detailed review. I didn't have the patience to wade through it- when I scanned the study design and conclusions (which "prove masks work!") I was like, NFW this isn't a massive stinking confounder casserole. Next.
I am also just going to call bullshit on the claims they did observations on hundreds of thousands of people. I can pretty much guarantee those numbers are completely fabricated.
Yes, they need to define explicitly what they mean by "observations" -- when?, for how long?, how many times?, where?, consistently?, ... did they observe how people handled the masks?, stored the masks?, cleaned the masks? ... In other words, did they assess proper use of masks? -- if not, then what they might have been "observing" was merely a superficial appearance that, in and of itself, had no causative effect.
Bad Cat, I love your analysis on all things COVID. It strikes me as very intelligent and thought through. My only complaint is that I would love to use your articles as references when interacting with folks who could benefit from quality data that goes against their thinking. I don't really feel like I can, though, because your unconventional disregard for capital letters gives your otherwise excellent writing an automatic lack of credibility in the eyes of the uninitiated. I personally find it annoying, but have grown accustomed and don't notice it because it is so good otherwise.
Your writing is good enough to go mainstream and the general public would benefit from it, so please consider using the shift key so we can spread your work far and wide as it deserves.
Ultimately I do not think that anyone wishing to find a reason to dismiss bad cats is going to be stopped by a sudden use of proper sentence capitalization. That's only the first layer of excuses in the onion that is COVID myopia.
If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt (though Wesley's point above is going to be correct for many) you could reply to such a concern with something like, "They probably write that way out of preference / enjoyment, I'm more focused on the information provided, which I think you'll find interesting."
Don't tell them the cat does it to have a laugh while watching the dum-dum bug zapper claim victims (see Peter's comment)
OMG, Thank you for this thrashing. There's only a few colleagues I trust enough IRL to have any meaningful discussions re: all things COVID, and even with them I have to be a little bit careful. My poor family has long since tired of me railing into the wind about the poor state of affairs. This article reminds me of the days when we could have a good, hard, scourging of research and subsequent honest debate as to methodology and results. Despite that this dismal study will ultimately be applied to inappropriately, I feel momentarily quite happy having read your efforts here, gato.
You will find the SHIFT key on your keyboard in two places. How can a person effectively appeal to established convention and best practices in staking their position fail to begin their sentences properly?
I totally agree. Such inexcusable sloppiness is incomprehensible in an article attempting to discredit a sloppy epidemiological study - it immediately creates credibility concerns about the writer.
If all you can see is the first letter of a sentence that is otherwise correct, within a paragraph that is otherwise correct, and if you allow this to blind you to the clear line of thought and precise discussion of details, then you might not understand effective composition as well as you think you do. ... I would prefer the capitals, but I'm not blinded by their absence. ... Look more deeply than that.
El Gato - really pleased to see you've been quoted in today's update from the UK's Daily Sceptic publication. This website is run in the UK by the Chairman of the Free Speech Union and journalist Toby Young and an excellent team of journalists and subject matter experts. They have been doing an amazing job ever since this horror show started in March 2020, working overnight every day to get the bulletin out. It is a fabulous repository for anyone interested in the truth.
I've been emailing them links to your articles, really glad they're obviously reading them.
"“This is one of the worst studies I’ve ever seen in any field,” says El Gato Malo on Substack. “It proves nothing apart from the credulity of many mask advocates.”
Gato, please consider adding a note at the top of this post explaining why you are qualified to criticize the study. I think most people here would like to share it far and wide, and that sort of thing goes a long way toward building credibility with people who don't already follow your writing.
The line of thought, clarity of detail, and flow of reasoning certainly seem to stand apart from any statement of qualifications. Would "PhD" enable you to accept this analysis? And does a lack of "PhD" make you disqualify it? Again, look at the line of reasoning, the focus on details, the flow of the presentation.
I have zero problem accepting it. Other people who are "in the middle" and going along with the narrative often have hangups about that kind of thing -- not even "alphabet credentials," just "hey, this is my background" sort of thing.
Has anyone cross-checked the findings of the over-60 demographic infection rate with county data here in U.S.? Masked counties vs unmasked and see if that signal shows up? If it doesn't, which I'm betting is the case, then that just adds to the problematic nature of this study and would be good to put out there.
I only mean to say that if that's the only age group they found a significant association between masks and infections, and real world data doesn't support it, it makes it that much harder to take its findings seriously.
The fact that masks supposedly only worked for people over 60 is just so absurd on it's face though...what possible mechanism could there be for this to be the case???
Gato 🐱 I know you are not a doctor, but somehow you know your stuff well about what is important in a RTC. Everything you say is true; it is a crap study. But I will add one more strike. Even IF they had done a decent study, the differences they found are so minuscule and unimportant... It is a classic example of findings that reach statistical significance (p<0.05) due to a very large sample size. But if the numbers were true, they effect would be so small that it would certainly not justify requiring everyone in the population to wear a frigging mask. (How many strikes did they get? I thought three strikes and you are out).
if you were still out after 2 strikes, we'd have been done with these health agencies ages ago.
arguing with this people is like having a food fight with chef boyaredee.
he's just ALWAYS got more spaghetti to throw.
sigh.
Just to clarify your first sentence, doctors are not scientists.
Well … another data point in the soon to be written barn burner titled, “The End of Enlightenment: Our New Dark Age.”
1. Pick a side on a contested issue.
2. Fund a crap study that will hopefully provide numbers that support your side on the policy issue.
3. Publish the crap study in a journal of a field that gave us the last global financial crisis (aka a hack field).
4. Authors of crap study go on twitter and declare that the science is settled.
5. Journos, who now can only stay focused long enough to read a tweet, write a story that the “science is settled.” and link to said author tweet as proof.
6. The “wires” spread journos' “report” hither and yon.
7. TV “experts” read the report from the wires and then go on TeeVee to tell viewers that “the science is settled.”
8. Policy makers and politicians watch the TV experts pronouncement, and proceed to enact said policy because … “the science is settled.”
9. The lights start going out in cities across the land.
The only other thing I would add to your points above is that you are far too kind in #5. The majority of mainstream media journalists have been completely exposed as being advocates, not journalists. Science that fits their preferences are blown far out of proportion, while they actively suppress the stories that don't.
OTOH, going forward, whenever I have someone that I *thought* had a clue cite this study, I can use it as a sorting hat to put them in the "dumb as a box of rocks" camp. That is, unless they belong in the, "paid to be an asshole" camp, which still has lots of good seats left.
Basically "The Science" at this point be like: soiejrk$$blkrei&)b;oieoiruoiesur. And that proves masks work. Nobel prize, please. And yes, I'm available for Rachel Maddow.
Can you use capital letters please? I want to take this seriously and show the woke crowd in the U.K. that masks don’t work, but I am being laughed at as your report is in lower-case.
Cats don't have pinkies dude. Don't be so ableist.
Bwahahahahahaha
How infantile and rude.
Have you been chewing a wasp Natasha? Or do you always look this way?
Oh, that is my RBF, thanks for asking mystery admirer. Toodle pip!
Sorry, all I heard was barking.
That explains a great deal.
There are other critiques of this "study".
https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=106&name=2021_09_20_do_face_masks_reduce_covid_19_spread_in_bangladesh_are_the_abaluck_et_al_results_reliable
http://www.argmin.net/2021/11/23/mask-rct-revisited/
I would suggest that you suggest to the woke crowd to simply picture in their own minds the capital letters where they deem appropriate and to stop using lame excuses to belittle grammatical structure that is otherwise sound and on point.
Thanks for the excellent and detailed review. I didn't have the patience to wade through it- when I scanned the study design and conclusions (which "prove masks work!") I was like, NFW this isn't a massive stinking confounder casserole. Next.
Whoa! The phrase, "massive stinking confounder casserole" seems like a scientific description I will be using very soon, without attribution.
A "massive stinking confounder casserole" it is. ... made with lots of Swiss cheese (full of holes, ya know).
They PAID certain treatment groups?
BAHAHAHA.
Not even wrong.
I am also just going to call bullshit on the claims they did observations on hundreds of thousands of people. I can pretty much guarantee those numbers are completely fabricated.
Yes, they need to define explicitly what they mean by "observations" -- when?, for how long?, how many times?, where?, consistently?, ... did they observe how people handled the masks?, stored the masks?, cleaned the masks? ... In other words, did they assess proper use of masks? -- if not, then what they might have been "observing" was merely a superficial appearance that, in and of itself, had no causative effect.
Bad Cat, I love your analysis on all things COVID. It strikes me as very intelligent and thought through. My only complaint is that I would love to use your articles as references when interacting with folks who could benefit from quality data that goes against their thinking. I don't really feel like I can, though, because your unconventional disregard for capital letters gives your otherwise excellent writing an automatic lack of credibility in the eyes of the uninitiated. I personally find it annoying, but have grown accustomed and don't notice it because it is so good otherwise.
Your writing is good enough to go mainstream and the general public would benefit from it, so please consider using the shift key so we can spread your work far and wide as it deserves.
Ultimately I do not think that anyone wishing to find a reason to dismiss bad cats is going to be stopped by a sudden use of proper sentence capitalization. That's only the first layer of excuses in the onion that is COVID myopia.
If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt (though Wesley's point above is going to be correct for many) you could reply to such a concern with something like, "They probably write that way out of preference / enjoyment, I'm more focused on the information provided, which I think you'll find interesting."
Don't tell them the cat does it to have a laugh while watching the dum-dum bug zapper claim victims (see Peter's comment)
i used to write like that all of the time... and a friend, boss, co-founder asked me to please stop. so I did.
i think this is how ee cummings wrote?
OMG, Thank you for this thrashing. There's only a few colleagues I trust enough IRL to have any meaningful discussions re: all things COVID, and even with them I have to be a little bit careful. My poor family has long since tired of me railing into the wind about the poor state of affairs. This article reminds me of the days when we could have a good, hard, scourging of research and subsequent honest debate as to methodology and results. Despite that this dismal study will ultimately be applied to inappropriately, I feel momentarily quite happy having read your efforts here, gato.
I was waiting for the bad cat's obliteration of this study. You did not disappoint.
"i have no idea how NBER fell for it."
The NBER doesn't vet working papers. Members are free to post whatever they wrote. No matter the quality
You will find the SHIFT key on your keyboard in two places. How can a person effectively appeal to established convention and best practices in staking their position fail to begin their sentences properly?
I totally agree. Such inexcusable sloppiness is incomprehensible in an article attempting to discredit a sloppy epidemiological study - it immediately creates credibility concerns about the writer.
If all you can see is the first letter of a sentence that is otherwise correct, within a paragraph that is otherwise correct, and if you allow this to blind you to the clear line of thought and precise discussion of details, then you might not understand effective composition as well as you think you do. ... I would prefer the capitals, but I'm not blinded by their absence. ... Look more deeply than that.
El Gato - really pleased to see you've been quoted in today's update from the UK's Daily Sceptic publication. This website is run in the UK by the Chairman of the Free Speech Union and journalist Toby Young and an excellent team of journalists and subject matter experts. They have been doing an amazing job ever since this horror show started in March 2020, working overnight every day to get the bulletin out. It is a fabulous repository for anyone interested in the truth.
I've been emailing them links to your articles, really glad they're obviously reading them.
https://dailysceptic.org/todays-update/
(Sun 5th Sept)
Scroll down to News Round-Up:
"“This is one of the worst studies I’ve ever seen in any field,” says El Gato Malo on Substack. “It proves nothing apart from the credulity of many mask advocates.”
Gato, please consider adding a note at the top of this post explaining why you are qualified to criticize the study. I think most people here would like to share it far and wide, and that sort of thing goes a long way toward building credibility with people who don't already follow your writing.
The line of thought, clarity of detail, and flow of reasoning certainly seem to stand apart from any statement of qualifications. Would "PhD" enable you to accept this analysis? And does a lack of "PhD" make you disqualify it? Again, look at the line of reasoning, the focus on details, the flow of the presentation.
I have zero problem accepting it. Other people who are "in the middle" and going along with the narrative often have hangups about that kind of thing -- not even "alphabet credentials," just "hey, this is my background" sort of thing.
Has anyone cross-checked the findings of the over-60 demographic infection rate with county data here in U.S.? Masked counties vs unmasked and see if that signal shows up? If it doesn't, which I'm betting is the case, then that just adds to the problematic nature of this study and would be good to put out there.
How does it add to the problematic nature of this study?
I only mean to say that if that's the only age group they found a significant association between masks and infections, and real world data doesn't support it, it makes it that much harder to take its findings seriously.
The fact that masks supposedly only worked for people over 60 is just so absurd on it's face though...what possible mechanism could there be for this to be the case???