Dr. Dan Wilson, Covid-19 Mask Science |490|

#81
Your "list of studies" states plainly and openly (emphasis mine),...
Because there aren't any RCTs which directly test "real world" effectiveness of community masking for COVID.

and Rancourt deliberately concentrated on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), rightfully holding them to be methodologically superior, and thus more reliable, than observational and epidemological studies. He correctly stated that, if virtually all RCTs clearly shows absence of effect, the effect is actually not there.
Again, why are you trusting him on that? In one of the references provided by Rancourt, Jefferson says "It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2". But now we're supposed to believe they're the last word because of a physicist's say so? Why does Jefferson give a list of nine ongoing RCTs to answer the question with respect to COVID-19 and community masking, if "Rancourt's RCTs" have supposedly already answered the question?
 
Last edited:
#82
On masks specifically, no (as far as I know). The question here is EllisR's clear intent to preemptively dismiss every criticism of the institutional position.
Really? Surely there's something to be found in between "blind belief in authority" and "blind belief in any crackpot with an internet connection".
 
#85
I think about half an hour to 45 mins is the maximum time anyone should have a mask on though. Also important to have brushed teeth or used mouthwash prior and try as much as possible not to breath through mouth. When a bad smell gets into the mask from outside environment you want to air it out from the sides, preferably away from people, and not let in linger in the mask.
 
#86
Dr Hope-Sympson did a set of studies in which he tried to transmit Spanish flu from patients to healthy volunteers. He tried successively more severe techniques, endin up with experiments that transfered snot and mucus to the mouths of the volunteers! He did not succeed in transmitting the virus, and speculated that for someone to fall ill from the disease something else had to be wrong
You seem like a relatively smart guy David. We all make mistakes but this really is a woppa. Am going to copy and paste my reply to when you last brought this 'theory' :) up in the Cowan forum:

Feb 7th 2021 #480
I was going to quote something Cowan said in an interview he did on Valuetainment but it has been done for me as noted above. Unless the Spanish flu was not anything like the flu bugs we know today, the only possibility as far as i can see that people wouldn't contract the flu when breathing and rubbing bogeys on each other would be if the doctors doing the experiment back in 1917, didn't have a way of testing to see if the participants had antibodies or t-cell reactions from before. I'm not a doctor but i know that on numerous occassions i have caught flu and cold bugs off people when they get too close. Is very obvious. The same applies for covid. This is mumbo jumbo science though i would agree with what Cowan says about having a natural and high fat diet. Apart from other benefits, for most people, fats and oils are very good for the heart (inc butter, eggs, fresh cream, meat fats etc)
 
#87
I didn't say anything about a global conspiracy or DNA chips. That is a straw man logical fallacy.
I was being flip throwing those out.... poking fun at the conspiracy mindset

If I can psyche myself up enough for it, I'll sort through those new links of yours.

What I'd like to see. A bunch of the most respected self styled investigative internet 'journalists', form some kinda coalition.
Leave out the totally far right/left whackjobs.... keep to the center/center left/right. They can all come up with whatever initial evidence they can gather, from the participants various political viewpoints, on whatever issues they choose to pursue, regardless of target. The group could vett such evidence as to whether or not it's a valid pursuit or just loony tunes.

I'm sure there are lots of professional journalists outside large corporate media entities, regardless of political bent, that would be glad to blow the lid on any subject, as long as there is proper verifiable undeniable evidence.

Aside from that.... and I'm not canadian..... but you talk about how the 'mainstream media' hides things, yet the links you posted look like they're all from mainstream media outlets.... well, except the last one that has a specific mission statement. Again, not canadian so not absolutely certain
 
Last edited:
#88
you talk about how the 'mainstream media' hides things, yet the links you posted look like they're all from mainstream media outlets.... well, except the last one that has a specific mission statement. Again, not canadian so not absolutely certain
They do what they have to to make Trudeau look good, but when stories get picked up in other countries - like when an American magazine broke the first pictures of the Prime Minister in Black face - they begrudgingly cover the story and do their best to downplay it's signifgance.
 
#89
What I'd like to see. A bunch of the most respected self styled investigative internet 'journalists', form some kinda coalition.
Leave out the totally far right/left whackjobs.... keep to the center/center left/right. They can all come up with whatever initial evidence they can gather, from the participants various political viewpoints, on whatever issues they choose to pursue, regardless of target. The group could vett such evidence as to whether or not it's a valid pursuit or just loony tunes.
There is centrist reporting out there on these issues. You obviously don't see it because you are already predisposed to not even look at the material.

UK column is reasonable

 
#90
No troll. Just fed up with all this stuff that took off since broadband became available to all. Reality is on life support and the greatest threat to democracy and freedoms afaic. I should ignore conspiracy threads admittedly, heh. I wish Alex would stick with neutral topics which everyone can engage in a gregarious manner rather than this divisive, and dare I say, predominant group-think here. :)

Go into any forum. You are going to have group think of some kind because generally that's human nature when people interact. It's not as big a deal as you are making out. It's only because you don't like the conclusions that many people on this site have came to. If you had a forum, and you came to an opposite conclusion, and I came in saying group think etc, then you'd be dismissive too.

Plus some people like Alex's sometimes fighty nature, which I can relate to. So what man. I get tired of nicey nice interaction when people pussy foot around issues. There's plenty of other Podcasters out there who do that. You can be a bit boisterous and argue your point in a reasonable, rational and decent manner too.

And Democracy has already been on life support for decades man. Where have you been! :)

So crappy argument ;)
 
#91
Are you serious? Ioannidis is well-known and respected among scientists because he's a heretic. Nobel prizes are given for heresy. There's a lot to gain by being the first to overturn an established idea.



Do you hear what you are saying? How could that possibly be a reasonable way to find a good source of information? "Here's a bunch of people who aren't taken seriously by their colleagues. But hey, because you don't know any better, go ahead and trust what they have to say unconditionally."
Your understanding of how an actual real-world science (not idealised philosophical abstaction of "the Science") works is ridiculously and miserably inadeqate.

Mainstream science had given up genuine innovation and progress decades ago, turning into an ersatz-religion, a kind of a secular clergy; the White Coat Priesthood, as a superb anarchist thinker Keith Preston has cynically - but rightfully - named (and nailed) it. It has near-completely lost all its once-praised objectivity, and subsequently all its reliability and trustworthiness, becoming a mere tool of (and for) power - cultural, political, economic, whatever.

My old pen-friend Henry Bauer explained it in detail:

https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com...ading-popular-myth-of-science-exceptionalism/

As for heresy, it does not mean any criticism of the scientific clergy and canon: before the Era of Covid-1984, mainstream science did allow some moderate level of deviance and defiance from within - as long as they do not cross the red line of apostasy (much like the Roman Catholic Church did in the old times of its dominance). Ioannidis is exactly such respectable, mainsteam-accepted - in fact, mainstream-praised and even mainstream-encouraged - moderate critic who has never dared to cross the forbidden threshold where the real heresy begins... until now. Yet now, he tastes what it's like to be treated like a real apostate, not a moderately critical insider approved by the establishment.

What is especially disturbing, even outright threatening, in our whole current situation is exactly the quick shrinking, up to the point of near-disapperance, of the area of the Acceptable Deviance and Permissible Definace: for example, once upon a time a mainstream researcher or clinician was allowed to express some not-too-far-reaching doubt and disdain about, say, bird flu or swine flu, in the mainstream sources, without being censored, vilified and persecuted. Now, nearly every step aside from the Covid-1984 orthodoxy is effectively forbidden and punishable. And this scares me for real.

Because there aren't any RCTs which directly test "real world" effectiveness of community masking for COVID.



Again, why are you trusting him on that? In one of the references provided by Rancourt, Jefferson says "It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2". But now we're supposed to believe they're the last word because of a physicist's say so? Why does Jefferson give a list of nine ongoing RCTs to answer the question with respect to COVID-19 and community masking, if "Rancourt's RCTs" have supposedly already answered the question?
The hard fact that yet-existent RCTs show that masks don't work, doesn't mean that further RCTs can't show something different, Maybe it will be proven, one coming day, that masks do work after all, and nearly all previous research suffered from some kind of yet-unidentified mistakes. Maybe.

But right here and right now, the best available evidence explicitly and unequivocally points toward total ineffectiveness of mask-wearing as a measure against the spread of viral respiratory infections. And therefore, there is no scientific basis to enforce them, violently, on the unwilling individuals (and population as a whole).

Because there aren't any RCTs which directly test "real world" effectiveness of community masking for COVID.



Again, why are you trusting him on that? In one of the references provided by Rancourt, Jefferson says "It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2". But now we're supposed to believe they're the last word because of a physicist's say so? Why does Jefferson give a list of nine ongoing RCTs to answer the question with respect to COVID-19 and community masking, if "Rancourt's RCTs" have supposedly already answered the question?
The reasons I trust him are the sound empirical evidence and valid rational argumentation he presents - as well as a laughable inability of his opponents - including you - to present anything like sound counterevidence and valid counterargumentation, which leads them - and you - to the irrational and unempirical personal attacks against him, and other heretics and apostates exposing the rot and corruption of the Global Scientific Church.

Were I to trust anyone heretical simply on the virtue of being heretical, I would have already started seeking for the secret cabals of the bloody-rites-performing, demon-worshipping, sexual-taboo-violating Satanists (as quite a few people in the heretical circles in general, and here on Skeptiko specifically, are sadly doing already). I don't and won't. I only trust the apostates whom I found at least partially trustworthy, and only in the areas, and to the extent, their perceived trustwothiness goes. All epistemic decisions I make are ultimately mine.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#92
and Rancourt deliberately concentrated on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), rightfully holding them to be methodologically superior, and thus more reliable, than observational and epidemological studies. He correctly stated that, if virtually all RCTs clearly shows absence of effect, the effect is actually not there.
great point. I love the part in Rancount video where he breaks this down add a high school science level... IE "there's a lot of s*** that seems to work when you're tested in the lab that doesn't work in the real world"

again, what really amazed me is that dr dan, who is a freshly-minted phD in biology from carnegie mellon, has not had this drilled into him... or maybe it would be more accurate to say he's had it drilled out of him

double great point re "absence of affect"... and again, I was stunned that dr dan really didn't seem to understand this... unless he's some kind of next level actor... I mean, he really didn't seem to understand you can't combine a bunch of null result studies into something they are not
 

Alex

Administrator
#93
Alex, it would be a great idea to have Denis Rancourt as a show guest. Since he answered your inquiries, there is a chance he will agree to be interviewed as well.
asked. he sent me stuff but declined. I definitely got the impression that he's done with this foolishness... which is understandable. the funny thing about the mask science... and I didn't realize it until I got all the way through... but it really goes right to the belly of the beast.

I mean, it's such an absurd hijacking of science... such an in-your-face "science by edict," shut up and do what we say kind of thing.

so for folks who are not willing to explore the parapolitical/ conspiratorial nature of this shit it quickly becomes too much to deal with.
 

Alex

Administrator
#94
Era of Covid-1984, mainstream science did allow some moderate level of deviance and defiance from within - as long as they do not cross the red line of apostasy (much like the Roman Catholic Church did in the old times of its dominance). Ioannidis is exactly such respectable, mainsteam-accepted - in fact, mainstream-praised and even mainstream-encouraged - moderate critic who has never dared to cross the forbidden threshold where the real heresy begins... until now.
great point... I totally agree. I just did an interview with chris knowles ( it will be out in a couple weeks) we talked a lot about this.

I've seen exactly what you're saying during the period that I've done skeptiko. it really is a recent thing.

I think it's also interesting to look at their successes and failures regarding control of science and the science media. for example I think global warming was a fail... and I think they learned a lot from it. like, don't try and control the data/the narrative when you can't control the outcome/result. over time people have woken up to the fact that it hasn't gotten warmer because they live it and experience it every day :)

conversely, the plandemic it's been a huge success for them, probably much bigger than they could have imagined because the fear of getting sick never goes away.
 
#95
Personal anecdote:
I'm pretty sure I picked up COVID while standing in line (while wearing a mask) at the only open grocery store in downtown Austin during the first day of the polar vortex snowpocalypse (storm Uri). I didn't get tested because I didn't want the hassle. Also didn't want another positive result to justify more lockdowns. It was a typical cold ...slight fever and cough for a couple of days with achy sensitive skin. I was almost over it but then had a stressful weekend without much sleep and it came back and slammed me on my back for a few more days of fever and exhaustion all while I was trying to move apartments. Fortunately I got somewhat better the morning the movers showed up and am now mostly back to feeling normal. My wife and 18 month old never got it despite the fact that I was coughing all over the place for two weeks.
Or they got it and were assymptomatic. Assuming that you even had covid in the first place
 
#96
great point... I totally agree. I just did an interview with chris knowles ( it will be out in a couple weeks) we talked a lot about this.

I've seen exactly what you're saying during the period that I've done skeptiko. it really is a recent thing.

I think it's also interesting to look at their successes and failures regarding control of science and the science media. for example I think global warming was a fail... and I think they learned a lot from it. like, don't try and control the data/the narrative when you can't control the outcome/result. over time people have woken up to the fact that it hasn't gotten warmer because they live it and experience it every day :)

conversely, the plandemic it's been a huge success for them, probably much bigger than they could have imagined because the fear of getting sick never goes away.
The global warming (now "climate change" ) and covid thing are indeed conspiracies. As you know, I am anti-conspiracy theory as the term is commonly used; e.g. 9-11 "trutherism", Kennedy assassination, etc.

Covid and climate change highlight the problems with real conspiracies. One such problem is that the planners are not the masterminds the "conspiracy theorists" and their theories necessitate them to be. In fact, with real conspiracies, the tactics, strategies, planners and effects are all rather mundane, mediocre, obvious, revealed and moderately successful at best - often it all backfires. As you say, we can go outside and notice that it's not warmer. Moreover, competing interests in the power centers cause dissention and a breakdown of the conspiracy. For example, Florida and now Texas bucking the trend on covid restrictions and revealing the restrictions still in place in other states to be needless and destructive. Humans are not wired to maintain secret conspiracies. Humans, especially of the power seeking type, are more wired to use each other temporarily and to compete/fight.

IMO, Covid and climate change have only enjoyed a moderate amount of success for the architects because of the large number of people that live in big urban centers. Such people are divorced from nature (e.g. live in climate controlled environments 24/7, never even see the stars and are utterly dependent on government services and government regulated services). They are increasingly connected through tech (more artificial existence) and when interacting with real people, tend do so in a large cooperative herds. The are psychologically predisposed to hive mindedness and total dependency. Thus these are people that are easy to control via propaganda and other mind control techniques.

People living in "fly over country" are not so easy to control. They can see the stars, feel the seasons. They tend to live with some "elbow room" and that's the way they like it. They tend to need to figure things out for themselves more often. The more the globalists push to destroy America/freedom with nonsense like climate change and pandemic panic the more the "deplorables" resist. A successful deplorable has deployed a true scientific method more often in his day to day life then a million NYC dwellers do in a hundred years. The deplorable may not recognize himself as a "scientist", but he uses the method nonetheless - he has to if he is to successfully farm, ranch, repair machines, build, etc. All the best propaganda pushed by the globalists isn't going to fool a deplorable for long; not even "science" based propaganda.
 
#98
maybe... but I think thinking of gloria steinem :)
Infiltrate and guide development of an organically growing counter culture movement; not create from scratch.

It's when they try to create from scratch that the conspiracy fails and is revealed. Every time. Think nation building where they hate us - and then learn to hate us even more.
 
How about looking at what an NHS doctor thinks about COVID, lockdowns, masks etc:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/03/06/believing-in-impossible-things-and-covid19/

David
The global warming (now "climate change" ) and covid thing are indeed conspiracies. As you know, I am anti-conspiracy theory as the term is commonly used; e.g. 9-11 "trutherism", Kennedy assassination, etc.

Covid and climate change highlight the problems with real conspiracies. One such problem is that the planners are not the masterminds the "conspiracy theorists" and their theories necessitate them to be. In fact, with real conspiracies, the tactics, strategies, planners and effects are all rather mundane, mediocre, obvious, revealed and moderately successful at best - often it all backfires. As you say, we can go outside and notice that it's not warmer. Moreover, competing interests in the power centers cause dissention and a breakdown of the conspiracy. For example, Florida and now Texas bucking the trend on covid restrictions and revealing the restrictions still in place in other states to be needless and destructive. Humans are not wired to maintain secret conspiracies. Humans, especially of the power seeking type, are more wired to use each other temporarily and to compete/fight.

IMO, Covid and climate change have only enjoyed a moderate amount of success for the architects because of the large number of people that live in big urban centers. Such people are divorced from nature (e.g. live in climate controlled environments 24/7, never even see the stars and are utterly dependent on government services and government regulated services). They are increasingly connected through tech (more artificial existence) and when interacting with real people, tend do so in a large cooperative herds. The are psychologically predisposed to hive mindedness and total dependency. Thus these are people that are easy to control via propaganda and other mind control techniques.

People living in "fly over country" are not so easy to control. They can see the stars, feel the seasons. They tend to live with some "elbow room" and that's the way they like it. They tend to need to figure things out for themselves more often. The more the globalists push to destroy America/freedom with nonsense like climate change and pandemic panic the more the "deplorables" resist. A successful deplorable has deployed a true scientific method more often in his day to day life then a million NYC dwellers do in a hundred years. The deplorable may not recognize himself as a "scientist", but he uses the method nonetheless - he has to if he is to successfully farm, ranch, repair machines, build, etc. All the best propaganda pushed by the globalists isn't going to fool a deplorable for long; not even "science" based propaganda.
There is indeed, an uncanny resemblance between those two subjects.

The effort to send out the message that the only 'moral' response is to engage in impossibly expensive measures - disregarding that it will be the poor that may most as a result.

The complete refusal to admit that there are two sides to the picture - do you destroy tens of thousands of businesses (which costs lives), or conceivably risk a few more deaths in other ways.

A complete disregard for the most interesting questions - after CO2 levels rose from about 250 ppm to 400 ppm, how come the 'damage' is so very slight (e.g. 1 C temperature rise in 140 years) - why exactly is it that most people aren't touched by the pandemic except by the measures used to attack it?

Why is it necessary to use censorship, of all things, to try to get the message across?

David
 
Top