The scientific case against face masks

 This winter season, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Atlantic, among other outlets, have all published articles on the same theme. According to their advice, we should re-don masks to prevent seasonal spread of influenza, RSV, Covid-19 and run-of-the-mill colds. This seems poised to become a yearly occurrence, as with the accompanying post-holiday mandates in some schools, colleges, and elsewhere that these articles actively encourage.   

However, while these articles are full of quotations from health officials and disease experts, glaringly absent is high-quality data to support claims that masking reduces spread of circulating seasonal viruses. 

The reason for this omission may be that, three years into the pandemic, there are no rigorous studies showing masks to be an effective method of viral infection control. In fact the highest-quality scientific studies, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), show the opposite: that masks make little to no difference in controlling spread of influenza, SARS-CoV-2, or RSV. 

In May 2020, the CDC summarised data from 14 RCTs as failing to show a significant benefit of masks in reducing transmission of influenza. An analysis of nine trials conducted by Cochrane, an organisation that conducts large reviews of health-care interventions, reached similar conclusions in November 2020. Studies of masking to prevent common colds and RSV also had negative results. 

For Covid-19, there are two RCTs evaluating masks’ ability to cut viral spread. One, conducted in Denmark in the spring of 2020, found no statistically significant difference in infection rates between masked and unmasked groups. Another, bigger, RCT — conducted in Bangladesh from late 2020 until the following spring — showed a small but statistically significant reduction of symptomatic Covid-19 cases in villages using surgical masks. Yet even this small benefit was lost upon reanalysis using different statistical parameters. An additional finding that mask colour made a difference in effectiveness further suggests that this positive data were skewed in some way. 

Another rigorous study, though not an RCT, was conducted in schools in Catalonia, Spain. This showed that unmasked five-year-olds had similar Covid-19 case rates to masked six-year-olds, the age at which masking was mandated. 

These high-quality studies are noticeably not linked in any “mask up” articles. Instead, links (if any are provided) reference low-quality observational studies such as a CDC analysis from 2021 that found higher paediatric Covid-19 rates in unmasked schools compared to masked ones. This study was subsequently debunked upon reanalysis using more districts and a longer time period. 

A recent analysis conducted in Massachusetts schools, reporting that masks reduced Covid-19 case rates, is another popular source used to support media exhortations to mask up. However, this study was also riddled with issues, such as changes in testing practices after masking was dropped (impacting Covid-19 detection) and differences in levels of natural immunity between masked and unmasked schools before and during the study period. In addition, many of the schools cited as requiring masks during the study period had already dropped their mandate. 

Many media outlets have also repeated that “high-quality masks” are the solution to viral spread. But, again, we lack randomised data providing evidence that these masks do a significantly better job than other types. While fitted N95s can be effective at protecting against bacterial and droplet transmission, several RCTs have found them not to be significantly better than surgical masks at protecting against influenza or SARS-CoV-2 infection.  

We all want masks to work, but thus far high-quality data indicates that they don’t, at least not on a measurable population level. The same is true of rapid testing. Considering the limited accuracy of a single asymptomatic swab at detecting SARS-CoV-2, the advice to “test before seeing Grandma” is not supported by evidence that this would provide meaningful protection. In fact, a few studies have shown that large asymptomatic Covid-19 testing programs have had limited utility in reducing transmission. 

Insisting upon mask effectiveness or the reliability of antigen testing may actually be emboldening vulnerable people, or those who interact closely with vulnerable people, to take risks by eliciting a false sense of security. This phenomenon, known as the Peltzman effect, where people act more carelessly when they perceive risk is lower due to the presence of a guardrail, has been shown to influence a range of behaviours including driving, drug use and sexual activity. 

In the case of the coronavirus, this might involve forgoing other precautions that would actually protect themselves and others, such as getting vaccinated, avoiding crowds, making sure rooms are ventilated well, and staying home when sick. Even the White House Covid-19 response coordinator, Ashish Jha, recently appeared to lament that an overreliance on masking has replaced necessary investments in improving indoor air quality.

The fact that many news outlets continue to promote narratives that are not supported by high-quality scientific evidence may be contributing to historically low levels of trust in the media. Hyping unproven mitigation measures was, and continues to be, a serious mistake.

 

Dr Leslie Bienen works in health care policy. 
Dr Jeanne Noble is an emergency physician and director of Covid Response at the UCSF Parnassus Emergency Department. 
Dr Margery Smelkinson is an infectious-disease scientist whose research has focused on influenza and SARS-CoV-2.

https://unherd.com/thepost/the-scientific-case-against-facemasks/

Ukrainian Refugees In Britain Go Home For Medical Treatment Rather Than Endure NHS Wait-Times

 by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Ukrainian refugees in Britain are making return trips to their homeland to receive medical treatment instead of waiting to access the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) after a spate of strikes brought the public healthcare system to its knees.

A report by British news outlet inews cited a number of instances in which those who had fled the conflict in Ukraine simply gave up on long wait times to access medical care in Britain, opting instead for the perilous 24-hour journey to the war-torn country to be seen by a medical professional almost immediately.

The left-wing news outlet used the reports to criticize Britain’s governing Conservative party, which has been locked in fierce, long-running negotiations with unions of NHS workers demanding pay rises in line with Britain’s inflation.

inews detailed the account of one refugee, Maiia Habruk, who reportedly fled the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv last year to settle in southeast London. After suffering a severe toothache, she logged her symptoms on an NHS chatroom and was told to expect a call from a medical professional the following day. This never happened, so she went to her local Accident and Emergency (A&E) department, also without success.

“After waiting four hours, the doctor didn’t even look at me, and she also told me to take paracetamol. Again, it didn’t help, and I was still in severe pain,” Ms. Habruk told the news outlet.

She ended up traveling back to Ukraine via Poland where she says she was seen by a doctor immediately.

“I was told it was an urgent issue with my wisdom tooth and that I had to have an extraction immediately.

“I do not in any way want to criticize the NHS. I think it’s amazing that everyone can get help for free,” she added.

The Ukrainian woman told the news outlet she knew of three others residing in London who had opted to return to war-torn Ukraine for medical treatment instead of waiting to use Britain’s public healthcare system.

Another Ukrainian woman living in the Scottish city of Glasgow, whose healthcare system is managed by the devolved left-wing Scottish government, also reportedly traveled home for medical treatment, according to Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton, who raised the issue with Scotland’s First Minister earlier this week.

Some members of the public took to social media to question whether it is right that those choosing to make trips back to Ukraine remain entitled to claim asylum in Britain.

“If they are able to and willing also to return to Ukraine then they weren’t a ‘refugee,'” wrote one social media user, while another said:

“If the refugee can go home to see their doctor, then why are they in the U.K.? If it’s safe to see your doctor, it can’t be unsafe to live there too.”

A third added:

“Odd definition of refugee if they’re going back to their native country for appointments. Very odd indeed!”

The U.K.’s Conservative government announced in March last year that Ukrainians arriving in England are eligible for free-of-charge access to NHS healthcare, including GP and nurse consultations, hospital services, and urgent care centers.

However, nurses and ambulance staff in England have been on strike over the winter as they attempt to force the government’s hand to agree to pay hikes. The strikes have seen millions of Brits waiting even longer for medical appointments and ambulance response times being the worst on record.

Two more 12-hour nurse strikes have been organized for next week, while ambulance staff will walk out again on Jan. 23 if no suitable compromise over pay has been agreed upon.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ukrainian-refugees-britain-are-going-home-medical-treatment-rather-endure-nhs-waiting

How Can We Trust Institutions That Lied?

 by Abir Ballan via The Brownstone Institute,

Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told.

Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking. 

In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter Files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19. 

They suppressed ‘the truth,’ even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm). 

From fact-checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information.’ 

“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation.” — Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC

But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?

Although the problem of spreading false information is usually conceived of as emanating from the public, during the Covid-19 pandemic, governments, corporations, supranational organisations and even scientific journals and  academic institutions have contributed to a false narrative. 

Falsehoods such as ‘Lockdowns save lives’ and ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’ have far-reaching costs in livelihoods and lives. Institutional false information during the pandemic was rampant. Below is just a sample by way of illustration.

The health authorities falsely convinced the public that the Covid-19 vaccines stop infection and transmission when the manufacturers never even tested these outcomes. The CDC changed its definition of vaccination to be more ‘inclusive’ of the novel mRNA technology vaccines. Instead of the vaccines being expected to produce immunity, now it was good enough to produce protection. 

The authorities also repeated the mantra (at 16:55) of ‘safe and effective’ throughout the pandemic despite emerging evidence of vaccine harm. The FDA refused the full release of documents they had reviewed in 108 days when granting the vaccines emergency use authorisation. Then in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it attempted to delay their release for up to 75 years. These documents presented evidence of vaccine adverse events. It’s important to note that between 50 and 96 percent of the funding of drug regulatory agencies around the world comes from Big Pharma in the form of grants or user fees. Can we disregard that it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you?

The vaccine manufacturers claimed high levels of vaccine efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (between 67 and 95 percent). They failed, however, to share with the public the more reliable measure of absolute risk reduction that was only around 1 percent, thereby exaggerating the expected benefit of these vaccines. 

They also claimed “no serious safety concerns observed” despite their own post-authorisation safety report revealing multiple serious adverse events, some lethal. The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at 6 months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent. 

They also claimed that natural immunity is not protective enough and that hybrid immunity (a combination of natural immunity and vaccination) is required. This false information was necessary to sell remaining stocks of their products in the face of mounting breakthrough cases (infection despite vaccination). 

In reality, although natural immunity may not completely prevent future infection with SARS-CoV-2, it is however effective in preventing severe symptoms and deaths. Thus vaccination post-natural infection is not needed. 

The WHO also participated in falsely informing the public. It disregarded its own pre-pandemic plans, and denied that lockdowns and masks are ineffective at saving lives and have a net harm on public health. It also promoted mass vaccination in contradiction to the public health principle of ‘interventions based on individual needs.’ 

It also went as far as excluding natural immunity from its definition of herd immunity and claimed that only vaccines can help reach this end point. This was later reversed under pressure from the scientific community. Again, at least 20 percent of the WHO’s funding comes from Big Pharma and philanthropists invested in pharmaceuticals. Is this a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune? 

The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, published a paper claiming that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — a repurposed drug used for the treatment of Covid-19 —  was associated with a slight increased risk of death. This led the FDA to ban the use of HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients and the NIH to halt the clinical trials on HCQ as a potential Covid-19 treatment. These were drastic measures taken on the basis of a study that was later retracted due to the emergence of evidence showing that the data used was false. 

In another instance, the medical journal Current Problems in Cardiology retracted —without any justification— a paper showing an increased risk of myocarditis in young people following the Covid-19 vaccines, after it was peer-reviewed and published. The authors advocated for the precautionary principle in the vaccination of young people and called for more pharmacovigilance studies to assess the safety of the vaccines. Erasing such findings from the medical literature not only prevents science from taking its natural course, but it also gatekeeps important information from the public.

A similar story took place with Ivermectin, another drug used for the treatment of Covdi-19, this time potentially implicating academia. Andrew Hill stated (at 5:15) that the conclusion of his paper on Ivermectin was influenced by Unitaid which is, coincidentally, the main funder of a new research centre at Hill’s workplace —the University of Liverpool. His meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin reduced mortality with Covid-19 by 75 percent. Instead of supporting Ivermectin use as a Covid-19 treatment, he concluded that further studies were needed.

The suppression of potentially life-saving treatments was instrumental for the emergency use authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines as the absence of a treatment for the disease is a condition for EUA (p.3).

Many media outlets are also guilty of sharing false information. This was in the form of biased reporting, or by accepting to be a platform for public relations (PR) campaigns. PR is an innocuous word for propaganda or the art of sharing information to influence public opinion in the service of special interest groups. 

The danger of PR is that it passes for independent journalistic opinion to the untrained eye. PR campaigns aim to sensationalise scientific findings, possibly to increase consumer uptake of a given therapeutic, increase funding for similar research, or to increase stock prices. The pharmaceutical companies spent $6.88 billion on TV advertisements in 2021 in the US alone. Is it possible that this funding influenced media reporting during the Covid-19 pandemic? 

Lack of integrity and conflicts of interest have led to an unprecedented institutional false information pandemic. It is up to the public to determine whether the above are instances of mis- or dis-information. 

Public trust in the Media has seen its biggest drop over the last five years. Many are also waking up to the widespread institutional false information. The public can no longer trust ‘authoritative’ institutions that were expected to look after their interests. This lesson was learned at great cost. Many lives were lost due to the suppression of early treatment and an unsound vaccination policy; businesses ruined; jobs destroyed; educational achievement regressed; poverty aggravated; and both physical and mental health outcomes worsened. A preventable mass disaster. 

We have a choice: either we continue to passively accept institutional false information or we resist. What are the checks and balances that we must put in place to reduce conflicts of interest in public health and research institutions? How can we decentralise the media and academic journals in order to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on their editorial policy?

As individuals, how can we improve our media literacy to become more critical consumers of information? There is nothing that dispels false narratives better than personal inquiry and critical thinking. So the next time conflicted institutions cry woeful wolf or vicious variant or catastrophic climate, we need to think twice.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-can-we-trust-institutions-lied

UnitedHealth brushes off hit from 'tripledemic' of respiratory diseases

 UnitedHealth Group Inc said on Friday the so-called "tripledemic" of respiratory diseases in the winter had not substantially driven up medical costs at its health insurance business in the fourth quarter.

Medical costs of the industry bellwether, the first health insurer to report its fourth-quarter earnings, were expected to be under pressure from the "tripledemic" of flu, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

But UnitedHealth said the "tripledemic" did not materialize in force, with demand for healthcare services remaining within the ranges of a typical fourth quarter.

UnitedHealth's shares rose nearly 2% and also lifted rivals after the company beat expectations for profit.

The early elevated flu season had deepened uncertainty among Wall Street analysts over medical costs for health insurers, which have been in flux during the pandemic.

However, UnitedHealth said on Friday that expectations around medical costs, including for the recent flu season, are now becoming more predictable with the world in the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We're sort of out of that zone of the unknowns ... and (are) really managing a book of business with greater predictability back to sort of the expectations that we had pre-pandemic," said Brian Thompson, chief executive of the company's health insurance unit.

UnitedHealth's medical cost ratio – the percentage of payout on claims compared to its premiums – fell by nearly a percent to 82.8%, marginally lower than analysts' estimates of 82.87%, according to Refinitiv IBES data.

"It appears that this year, flu's impact is going to be much more concentrated on just the fourth quarter and less so on the first quarter," Stephens analyst Scott Fidel told Reuters.

Excluding items, the company's profit of $5.34 per share for the quarter ended Dec. 31 beat analysts' estimates of $5.17, according to Refinitiv IBES data.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/unitedhealth-quarterly-profit-beats-medical-111302847.html

House Oversight Committee urges spending cuts to avoid U.S. debt default

 House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said on Sunday he hoped a U.S. debt default could be avoided but put the onus on Democrats to agree to spending cuts being pushed by his fellow Republicans.

"We hope that this is avoided. We hope that the Senate, House - Democrats and Republicans - will agree to spending cuts. Look, this has to stop. We cannot continue to operate with these types of deficits," Comer said in an interview with CNN. 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-oversight-committee-urges-spending-141800511.html

President Biden to give sermon at Martin Luther King's church in Atlanta

 President Joe Biden will become the first sitting American president to speak at a Sunday service at Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta as he seeks to bolster support among African Americans ahead of an expected run for re-election in 2024.

Marking the national holiday celebrating the slain civil rights leader, Biden will deliver a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church at the invitation of its pastor, Democratic U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia.

Sunday would have been King's 94th birthday. He was assassinated at age 39 in 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee, by avowed segregationist James Earl Ray. King was pastor of Ebenezer church from 1960 until his death.

Keisha Lance Bottoms, former Atlanta mayor and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, told reporters on Friday that Biden "will deliver remarks reflecting Dr. King's life and legacy" and how "we can go forward together."

He will speak on a number of issues "including how important it is that we have access to our democracy," she said.

Many presidents, including Biden, have visited Ebenezer to honor King, usually during events around the time of his birthday. But on Sunday, Biden would become the first to speak from the pulpit at a regular morning service, according to Lance Bottoms.

On Monday, a national holiday to celebrate King, Biden will meet with civil rights advocate Al Sharpton in Washington, and speak to his group, the National Action Network.

The Atlanta visit comes as Biden girds for what is expected to be an announcement of his re-election bid in the weeks ahead.

Biden was elected in 2020 with strong support from Black voters after pledging to do more to expand voting rights and address other racial justice issues. But some activist groups boycotted his 2022 speech honoring King, disappointed by what they see as his lack of action.

"The president has done and will continue to do all that he can do in his executive powers," Lance Bottoms said. "Now we need Congress to act."

"Ebenezer is a cornerstone of the Black community and I'm sure the president will get an earful on what our needs and our desires are for our country," she said.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/president-biden-sermon-martin-luther-100701305.html

Retirees feeling the impact as Social Security checks fell short last year

 America’s senior citizens and retirement community might be feeling the additional financial strain in recent months as there was a big shortfall in their Social Security payments last year.

According to the nonpartisan Senior Citizens League, there was a sharp increase in the cost of living in 2022, and inflation-adjusted payments given to Social Security recipients decreased in that same year. This resulted in a 46% gap in the monthly benefit checks received by 70 million Americans.

The organization reported Social Security recipients received a 5.9% cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) last January, which saw the average benefit check increase $92.30, from $1,564 in 2021 to $1,656.30 for 2022.

The league reported, however, that the 5.9% inflation adjustment was short of the actual inflation figure every month by 46% on average.

This calculated discrepancy resulted in the average Social Security benefit check falling short by more than $42 per month and more than $508 for 2022, according to their report.

"While Social Security recipients are looking forward to an 8.7% increase in Social Security benefits in January, inflation in 2022 has taken a toll on retiree budgets," the league said in a statement. "Many retirees have been forced to spend through savings far more quickly than planned and those without savings have turned to food pantries and low-income assistance programs in higher numbers."

The inflation-adjusted rate was calculated using 2021’s figures, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

The annual inflation rate for 2021 was 7%, but the adjustment for Social Security benefits is calculated based solely on the change in third-quarter reportings of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).

The third quarter runs from July 1 through Sept. 30.

In the third quarter of 2021, CPI-W increased by 5.9%. That rate jumped by the end of the fourth quarter to 7.4%, leaving seniors short even before the start of 2022.

Going forward into 2023, these rates have adjusted again.

As of January 2023, Social Security benefits have increased by 8.7% or about $140, increasing the average check to nearly $1,800.

This increase was again calculated through third-quarter inflation rates: Inflation was 7.1% by November, falling from its shockingly high 9.8% in June.

Federal agencies are forecasting that 2022 will end with an annual inflation rate between 7% and 8.01%.

While senior citizens are looking forward to the increase in Social Security payments in 2023, many are still contending with 2022’s shortfall between their inflation and their Social Security payments.

The Senior Citizens League reported that 33% of the senior citizens apply for food stamps or visited a food pantry this year, compared with 22% last year, and that 17% applied for assistance with heating costs, compared with 10% last year, according to a recent study.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/retirees-feeling-impact-social-security-checks-fell-short-last-year-report