Yep, reading that yellow highlighted montage there got my blood boiling.
I can just imagine what it's like to talk to these people. Notice how many of those are basically positive or negative appeals to authority and NOTHING else? "You're not a doctor / Let the doctors decide this."
These are the people who would gladly abrogate moral responsibility for murdering me if someone was willing to sign the waiver for them.
Exactly. And they would feel perfectly fine doing so. Psychiatrists in post-Nazi Germany never saw an influx of former soldiers feeling deep regret over their actions, perhaps the most horrifying thing I read in Nikolaus Wachsmann's gruesomely detailed book, "KL: A History of Nazi Concentration Camps." If I recall correctly, in the 70s, a German sociologist or psychiatrist (can't remember) sent out hundreds of questionnaires to mental health professionals to see how many veterans felt guilt over their actions. Only one psychiatrist replied that he had such a patient.
This preprint meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating an important topic (the efficacy of mask wearing in preventing sars-cov-2 infection), unfortunately the methodological deficiencies and deviations from accepted minimum standards of reporting and conduct render it valueless in addressing the topic.
Firstly the manuscript does not give a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the text and PRISMA flowchart directly contradict. The authors exclude almost all of the 61 papers they state "meet entry[sic] criteria" based on some criterion that is not specified. The authors claim to have limited the search to studies published on or before July 2020 (for unclear reasons) however have included some publications after this date. The studies included are of such low qualities and unhelpful designs as to be non-contributory.
Despite the claimed triple extraction of data, the putatively extracted data is not robust. e.g. Caruhel et al at reference 22 is claimed to report a case series of "11 people on a charter flight" but is reported as 0 infections from 20 participants, so I looked up the paper. Examining the paper it is actually a letter describing a tracheostomy technique while in military gas masks. While it includes interesting photos, it doesn't actually report any data that could possibly be included in a quantitative synthesis.
The statistical values given are largely non-sensical. p values are given for individual proportions rather than for comparisons of proportions. e.g. the headline result is that 8% of those in masks were infected vs 49% not in masks. Curiously SEPARATE p values are given 2*10^-3 for the former and 0.94 for the latter. Obviously there is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of NHST from the authors here but as the test used is not specified anywhere in the paper it's a bit difficult to unpick exactly what that misunderstanding is. I did look in the method and that was not helpful, the authors do claim to have used "t tests" (not further specified) in one part but as the paper collects only binary outcomes that frankly raises more questions than it answers.
The paper does not actually describe any accepted meta-analysis technique, it is not even clear whether a fixed or random effects model was used, there are no forest plots, and data is not presented in any acceptable form.
In short this attempted meta-analysis excludes almost every major study on the topic it is studying, includes a bizarre selection of papers sometimes without any possible data to extract, makes non-sensical statistical claims (p values for proportion in a single group, t-tests despite only binary outcomes etc), mainly from unspecified statistical tests, and fails to meet minimum standards for analysis or reporting.
This preprint does not contribute to answering the question it attempts to examine.
That bit about equal in worth and dignity has never made much sense, but it's nice to see people making an effort in proving how simply wrong the notion is.
Or as I like to put it: the key word in the phrase "of average intelligence" is "average", not "intelligence".
I'm sorry, it's just reading stuff like the quoted posts brings out my inner arrogance to the point of "put them up against a wall and shoot'em"-levels.
Sometimes it is very easy to understand why the Schwabs and Gates' and similar think and speak the way they do about us, calling us deplorable and unwashed and useless eaters.
I have actually received one of that type of reply from someone I know, about masking. He said, and I won't bother to quote, "there are lots of studies on both sides of the masking debate." Rather than tell him off or berate him, I responded with some variant of, "I have no idea what type of study you need to see." Maybe I should have been more stern with him, but that cadre of responses indicates that many people--many of them of good faith and sincerity--believe the masking bullshit. The mind reels...
It’s become common to hear intellectually lazy dunces who are trying to sound scientifically literate conflate “preprint” with “misinformation” and peer review with “Bible truth.” Can’t convince them that other people possess the ability to read and reason when they do not.
The best way to inoculate yourself against the sort of imbecilic outrage is to keep a 2500-year-old apophthegm at the very front if your mind:
ΟΙ ΠΛΕΙΣΤΟΙ ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΟΙ ΚΑΚΟΙ - Bias of Priene, ca. 500BCE.
Translated trollingly: MOST PEOPLE ARE SHIT.
Most people were bewildered by Grade 9 maths. Most people can't extract meaning from a piece of text of any complexity (PIAAC studies bear this out). Most people (~95%) are woefully shit-awful at shape-rotation. 99% don't understand why "Switch" is the dominant strategy in the Monty Hall game.
And they've all been conditioned to get a pat on the head when they signal agreement with the political class. They're dumber than dogs, and I would VASTLY prefer that America's Mengele - PuppyKiller Fauci - experiments on them rather than a fresh batch of innocent beagles.
Let them all die; there is no point wasting effort and energy on people who are too stupid to merit saving. Humanity would be better of with a 95% reduction in imbeciles.
Yep, reading that yellow highlighted montage there got my blood boiling.
I can just imagine what it's like to talk to these people. Notice how many of those are basically positive or negative appeals to authority and NOTHING else? "You're not a doctor / Let the doctors decide this."
These are the people who would gladly abrogate moral responsibility for murdering me if someone was willing to sign the waiver for them.
Exactly. And they would feel perfectly fine doing so. Psychiatrists in post-Nazi Germany never saw an influx of former soldiers feeling deep regret over their actions, perhaps the most horrifying thing I read in Nikolaus Wachsmann's gruesomely detailed book, "KL: A History of Nazi Concentration Camps." If I recall correctly, in the 70s, a German sociologist or psychiatrist (can't remember) sent out hundreds of questionnaires to mental health professionals to see how many veterans felt guilt over their actions. Only one psychiatrist replied that he had such a patient.
"Othering" is very effective in dehumanizing subsets of the population. The demonization of the unvaccinated was horrifying to behold. And I don't think they're through with it:https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/fiction-disguised-as-science-to-promote?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F60901543-dr-byram-w-bridle&utm_medium=reader2
**If you buy the book, the tidbit about the lack of remorse was in the footnotes, iirc.
A guy on youtube I listen to, had a quick video the other day about people shaming other people.
The title was "YOU SHOULD ALWAYS LET THE🧟ZOMBIES🧟EAT THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE FIRST(!)THEY'RE TRULY NOT WORTH SAVING!"
I don't care what happens to any of them anymore.
And I counted only one rainbow and three Ukrainian flags. What a shame.
It is depressing that even this basic understanding- masks don't work - isn't ubiquitous. They won't stop trying to confuse those easily confused.
Talking about scientific studies and their publishing this site is my favourite for scientific research papers:
https://improbable.com/ig/winners/
Some brilliant research carried out over the years when you root through them such as:
the internal pressure of penguins
how much effort needed to drag a sheep up a slope
exponential decay of beer froth
a politican’s obesity as an indicator of political corruption
And lots more over the years.
Went there, and on display was the 2009 winner: a brassiere that can quickly convert into a pair of protective face masks.
Some things you can't make up...
Some brilliant scientific research isn't there? And they get paid for this? I need a career change.
A review of the "paper" you may enjoy:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/BF3C584896308E94C007109E793460?utm_source=Chrome&utm_medium=BrowserExtension&utm_campaign=Chrome
A commentator rips the paper to shreds:
This preprint meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating an important topic (the efficacy of mask wearing in preventing sars-cov-2 infection), unfortunately the methodological deficiencies and deviations from accepted minimum standards of reporting and conduct render it valueless in addressing the topic.
Firstly the manuscript does not give a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the text and PRISMA flowchart directly contradict. The authors exclude almost all of the 61 papers they state "meet entry[sic] criteria" based on some criterion that is not specified. The authors claim to have limited the search to studies published on or before July 2020 (for unclear reasons) however have included some publications after this date. The studies included are of such low qualities and unhelpful designs as to be non-contributory.
Despite the claimed triple extraction of data, the putatively extracted data is not robust. e.g. Caruhel et al at reference 22 is claimed to report a case series of "11 people on a charter flight" but is reported as 0 infections from 20 participants, so I looked up the paper. Examining the paper it is actually a letter describing a tracheostomy technique while in military gas masks. While it includes interesting photos, it doesn't actually report any data that could possibly be included in a quantitative synthesis.
The statistical values given are largely non-sensical. p values are given for individual proportions rather than for comparisons of proportions. e.g. the headline result is that 8% of those in masks were infected vs 49% not in masks. Curiously SEPARATE p values are given 2*10^-3 for the former and 0.94 for the latter. Obviously there is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of NHST from the authors here but as the test used is not specified anywhere in the paper it's a bit difficult to unpick exactly what that misunderstanding is. I did look in the method and that was not helpful, the authors do claim to have used "t tests" (not further specified) in one part but as the paper collects only binary outcomes that frankly raises more questions than it answers.
The paper does not actually describe any accepted meta-analysis technique, it is not even clear whether a fixed or random effects model was used, there are no forest plots, and data is not presented in any acceptable form.
In short this attempted meta-analysis excludes almost every major study on the topic it is studying, includes a bizarre selection of papers sometimes without any possible data to extract, makes non-sensical statistical claims (p values for proportion in a single group, t-tests despite only binary outcomes etc), mainly from unspecified statistical tests, and fails to meet minimum standards for analysis or reporting.
This preprint does not contribute to answering the question it attempts to examine.
That bit about equal in worth and dignity has never made much sense, but it's nice to see people making an effort in proving how simply wrong the notion is.
Or as I like to put it: the key word in the phrase "of average intelligence" is "average", not "intelligence".
I'm sorry, it's just reading stuff like the quoted posts brings out my inner arrogance to the point of "put them up against a wall and shoot'em"-levels.
Sometimes it is very easy to understand why the Schwabs and Gates' and similar think and speak the way they do about us, calling us deplorable and unwashed and useless eaters.
I have actually received one of that type of reply from someone I know, about masking. He said, and I won't bother to quote, "there are lots of studies on both sides of the masking debate." Rather than tell him off or berate him, I responded with some variant of, "I have no idea what type of study you need to see." Maybe I should have been more stern with him, but that cadre of responses indicates that many people--many of them of good faith and sincerity--believe the masking bullshit. The mind reels...
It’s become common to hear intellectually lazy dunces who are trying to sound scientifically literate conflate “preprint” with “misinformation” and peer review with “Bible truth.” Can’t convince them that other people possess the ability to read and reason when they do not.
The best way to inoculate yourself against the sort of imbecilic outrage is to keep a 2500-year-old apophthegm at the very front if your mind:
ΟΙ ΠΛΕΙΣΤΟΙ ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΟΙ ΚΑΚΟΙ - Bias of Priene, ca. 500BCE.
Translated trollingly: MOST PEOPLE ARE SHIT.
Most people were bewildered by Grade 9 maths. Most people can't extract meaning from a piece of text of any complexity (PIAAC studies bear this out). Most people (~95%) are woefully shit-awful at shape-rotation. 99% don't understand why "Switch" is the dominant strategy in the Monty Hall game.
And they've all been conditioned to get a pat on the head when they signal agreement with the political class. They're dumber than dogs, and I would VASTLY prefer that America's Mengele - PuppyKiller Fauci - experiments on them rather than a fresh batch of innocent beagles.
Let them all die; there is no point wasting effort and energy on people who are too stupid to merit saving. Humanity would be better of with a 95% reduction in imbeciles.
Eugyppius is a brute, a fake, and a shill:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/on-eugippius
On simple letter change....perfection!!