Andy Paquette, Mask Science, Big Lie? |523|

A word on relative vs absolute risk.

Let’s say I can perform cataract surgery one of two ways.

Method 1 has a serious complication rate of 1 in 1000 but method 2 is $300 cheaper but has a serious complication of 2 in 1000.

Should I not tell my patient that method 2 is 2x the risk, even if the absolute risk is still very small?

I find this an odd thing to get hung up on, notwithstanding other potential issues with the mask study.
 
Last edited:
Silence said:
I wonder how things are outside of my community in the Midwest.

I haven't worn a mask in months other than when I've gone to a doctor's appointment. Same goes for my wife and kids. I've even made the "mistake" of going into a place of business with mask requirements without one (not because I was purposefully being "non-compliant" but rather because I didn't think to bring one). Nothing happened, no one said anything. Notably, this is a very rare situation as most places of commerce, etc do not require masks where I live.

Further, I've not heard anything from anyone in my social circle regarding masks in months. This includes folks who are (and have been) very ANTI mask.

Is this different for folks in other parts of the U.S.?

Maybe more to the point, can anyone postulate how they see this problem of coerced compliance manifesting into something more sinister? I mean with some actual detail, re: what's next, what's the endgame, etc?
Click to expand...
Here in England (I am not sure about other parts of the UK) we were freed up in July so that masks are optional just about everywhere except in medical settings. The result is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of people still use masks (and the hand sterilising liquids), the rest of us don't.

The masks were introduced last year in July, and I think their real purpose was to try to persuade everyone that they were still in a 'pandemic'. The problem with masks is that not only are they ineffective, but they rapidly get wet, and people touch them all the time. This means that COVID viruses can be transferred to the hands, and then on to stair rails etc.

Our previous health secretary seemed to relish the lockdowns, masks etc. He was ousted after he was photographed kissing his mistress while both were at work and social distancing was supposed to be in force! The new health secretary, Sajid Javid is clearly resisting further lockdowns and he also removed the mask mandates as described.

I have given up on the BBC - I don't use it, and don't pay for their license.

Some newspapers explore the situation to some degree (e.g. The Daily Telegraph), but even they seem to be under some constraints. However independent information is still available:

https://thelightpaper.co.uk/

We both decided not to get vaccinated, and we have not been pressurised to change our minds (except gently by my family!).

David
 
Alex said:
interesting. I just completed an interview with:

PAMELA A.POPPER, President Wellness Forum Health

any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Pam is great, I have donated to her legal efforts. (I prefer the 'pro se' methods. How can we trust lawyers?)

I think her primary strategy is 2 fold. Build local community, and strong arm any politician possible. BUT that means she still has some faith in politicians. I don't. They are too easy to blackmail and too hard to hang. The methods I mentioned rely on the judiciary (which will be the last institution to go completely apeshit) and doesn't rely on lawyers with questionable allegiances.

And besides, the death instinct wild fire (abortion, climate change hysteria, plummeting birth rates, line-up-4-the-jab, materialism, communitarianism etc) is already raging. Those left standing will rebuilt, just like we always have. Don't forget the spiritual component to all this. Fear is the mind killer. We are being sorted.

I look forward to your interview with Pam.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Paquette said:
They're calling it a "relative reduction". The word "relative" is the problem. For instance, if you have 100 blue balls and 100 red balls, but lose 2 blue balls and 3 red balls, what do you have? You've lost 2% of the blue balls and 3% of the red balls. The difference between the two loss rates is one ball, or 1%. However, if you look at the "relative" difference, you don't pay attention to the original ball population. Instead, you only look at the lost balls. Looked at that way, the red balls lost 50% more than the blue balls, for a 50% increase in their loss rate. However, that is a dishonest way to look at these numbers if you then apply the relative value of a 50% increase in loss rate to the general population of red balls, because that would create the false expectation of losing 50 balls, not 3. That is what the authors of the mask study did by talking about a "relative" improvement. It effectively exaggerated the negligible actual value to something that looked significant.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong Andy but they did the same thing with the initial covid vax safety studies in 2020. It was all about the relative reduction. Its almost like science[ism] is wrong... about almost everything.
 
Eric Newhill said:
Liars. ... Are they really vaxxed? Who the hell knows? I'm guessing some are and most are not.
Click to expand...

When this is all over, if you want to be a high-level politician we get your blood sample, and 90-100% of your future earnings. How else do we keep them honest besides standby gallows? (Maybe lifetime body-cams? A sickening thought...)
 
Andrew Paquette said:
My guess is that the real danger is coming from the vaccines and that the vaccines are more harmful than preliminary research indicates. ... 3) the number of VAERS reports is a tiny fraction of the real number (estimated to be only 1% by some doctors), ... What happens when you inject hundreds of millions of people with a dangerous compound? Wait and see.
Click to expand...

Here is more context on that 1% number with link to original study in article:
https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/...upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/
When Harvard finished the study they were surprised that the CDC would no longer answer their emails or phone calls to implement the system they were paid $1,000,000 to design and test.

The currently active system takes 30 minutes to complete the vaers entry. And if you dilly dally it will reset your form with no option to save. As an IT person, I can tell you this was by design, as it is trivial to implement. Del Bigtree had a recent interview with a former-nurse (vax mandate casualty) Deborah Conrad and she said it was a full time job just to keep a few doctors current with VAERS, and they were provided no training or directive to use it. Interesting times indeed.
 
Last edited:
titania said:
Correct me if I am wrong Andy but they did the same thing with the initial covid vax safety studies in 2020. It was all about the relative reduction. Its almost like science[ism] is wrong... about almost everything.
Click to expand...
If an organisation is running a health service, or is involved in large scale public health decisions, relative risk reduction is singularly critical.
 
Constantine said:
A word on relative vs absolute risk.

Let’s say I can perform cataract surgery one of two ways.

Method 1 has a serious complication rate of 1 in 1000 but method 2 is $300 cheaper but has a serious complication of 2 in 1000.

Should I not tell my patient that method 2 is 2x the risk, even if the absolute risk is still very small?

I find this an odd thing to get hung up on, notwithstanding other potential issues with the mask study.
Click to expand...
NO
The correct way to explain it clearly would be:
Method 1 has a serious complication rate of 1 in 1000
Method 2 has a serious complication rate of 1 in 500, but cost a little less.

Notice it's easier to visualize the difference between 1 in 1000 people, and 1 in 500 people. And you're respecting the ability of the individual to weigh their own odds against their understanding of the benefit/risk analysis.
As soon as you introduce "2x more dangerous" you're doing a sales pitch.
 
Robbedigital said:
NO
The correct way to explain it clearly would be:
Method 1 has a serious complication rate of 1 in 1000
Method 2 has a serious complication rate of 1 in 500, but cost a little less.

Notice it's easier to visualize the difference between 1 in 1000 people, and 1 in 500 people. And you're respecting the ability of the individual to weigh their own odds against their understanding of the benefit/risk analysis.
As soon as you introduce "2x more dangerous" you're doing a sales pitch.
Click to expand...
Huh? You’ve still just described the relative risk between the two procedures.
 
Constantine said:
A word on relative vs absolute risk.

Let’s say I can perform cataract surgery one of two ways.

Method 1 has a serious complication rate of 1 in 1000 but method 2 is $300 cheaper but has a serious complication of 2 in 1000.

Should I not tell my patient that method 2 is 2x the risk, even if the absolute risk is still very small?

I find this an odd thing to get hung up on, notwithstanding other potential issues with the mask study.
Click to expand...
I'd do it both ways - I'd tell them the risk for one is 1 in 1000 for one and double, at 2 in 1000, for the other, just like the study authors did. For some context...the risks in the study were 6.9 in 1000 vs. 7.6 in 1000.
 
Constantine said:
And that probably isn’t an insignificant reduction for a low cost measure available for large populations.
Click to expand...

Constantine it sounds like you didn't listen to Andy's interview. He clearly outlined the possible confounding details that could swamp any marginal gain.
 
Protesters showing their support for a restaurant in BC. One protester stated that they need to stop what the government is doing so their kids can have the same opportunities older Canadians had growing up.

 
K9! said:
Protesters showing their support for a restaurant in BC. One protester stated that they need to stop what the government is doing so their kids can have the same opportunities older Canadians had growing up.

Click to expand...
Can we keep this thread focused on mask science please?
 
Constantine said:
I listened. Hence,
Click to expand...
If they had reported it as, "our study shows that for non-mask wearers, there is an increased risk of .0564%", it would be more accurate. If they had followed that statement with, "this translates to a 9% increase relative to mask wearers", there would be less to complain about. As it is, by only mentioning the relative number, and highlighting it, they disguise the very low difference in risk. From an academic perspective, that is not the right way to report the data. Keep in mind that this paper is intended (supposedly) for inclusion in a peer-reviewed journal. As such, it should adhere to the more rigorous standards of those journals.

A reader should be able to fully understand the discussion from the numbers presented there. This study doesn't allow that to happen because they have chosen to ignore their small observed effect, to then magnify it to make it seem more important than it is, and then to ignore all the rest of the literature, which comes to opposite conclusions. All of that is bad practice when writing this type of article. I would recommend against publication for those reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Andrew Paquette said:
If they had reported it as, "our study shows that for non-mask wearers, there is an increased risk of .0564%", it would be more accurate. If they had followed that statement with, "this translates to a 9% increase relative to mask wearers", there would be less to complain about.
Click to expand...

The first number is meaningless without the context of the second number.

If someone in Florida contracted long covid and wanted to sue DeSantis for not enforcing mask mandates, the 9% protection over no mask would be the pertinent figure, and one the judge and jury could more easily get their head around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top