“I am not dismissing anything. I am just looking at less controversial ways to help our communities. Even the most miraculous drugs may stop a person from dying, but the virus already did damage to the body. Obviously, prevention is a key. So, we have certain measures that also became controversial for whatever practical and political reasoning. So, I am suggesting people do CO2 monitoring of their mosdos – easy to do, does not involve medical procedures. Could you help people in your community?”
I am on the phone almost every night for hours with people who require treatment/prophylaxis for either covid or the vaccine, and helping them to get the necessary treatments. I am involved in one of the lawsuits challenging the vaccine mandates, and a bunch of other things that I can’t mention because of the sensitivity of the matter or individuals/institutions involved. I have seen firsthand that Ivermectin works, I know many, many people who were treated with it early, many whom were old &/or comorbidity ridden, and not a single one died. NOT ONE. There are a number of doctors in the US who have had similar results to what I just mentioned. The anti-Ivermectin movement is a Nazi-esque depraved murder movement that is immune to evidence in the practical sense of the word. Reliance on RCT’s or massive controlled studies of other sorts is not “best practice”, it’s corrupt and defies common sense. Clinical experience of doctors treating with a drug reproduced all over the world and even on country-wide levels through mass distribution campaigns is the ultimate, and indeed also unrebuttable, evidence of efficacy.
“> I challenge you to explain what they measured
I read the study, maybe not extremely carefully. Here is my imperfect recollection: the goal was to see group effects, not just individual people. They chose 100s of villages in different parts of the country, divided them in pairs of similar ones, then applied public measures in one set and kept the rest as controls. Most of measures were giving out masks of different types publicly, combined with public messages, and various incentives. Then, they measured number of people who turned up visibly sick, and send observers to measure mask compliance and level of SD. I summarized the results here previously.”
Here is an analysis (not mine, but I’m constrained for time to write one up myself from scratch):
The overall effects of this study are miniscule—0.07% absolute reduction in seroprevalence. But the topline finding is “We decreased seroprevalence by 10%!”
Technically true…
But even this finding is questionable. Let’s explore.
<b>What the study ACTUALLY measures is the impact of mask promotion on symptom reporting.</b> Only if a person reports symptoms, are they asked to participate in a serology study—and only 40% of those with symptoms chose to have their blood taken.
Is it possible that that highly moralistic framing and monetary incentives given to village elders for compliance might dissuade a person from reporting symptoms representing individual and collective moral failure—one that could cost the village money? Maybe?
Given that the difference is tiny, if this had even a small impact, it could completely skew the results. Might the same factors be at play when an individual weighed whether or not to be tested? After all, a positive test would indicate that your village was “failing”
The fact that age stratification shows that interventions had no impact on younger people, but did on older people calls this finding into question. There is no physical mechanism by which universal masking would protect the elderly, but not the young.
Such a result could be explained by the mask promotion campaign creating a sense of fear that resulted in elderly sequestering themselves. If that were the case, a more elderly-targeted approach could achieve the same results.
It is also possible that elderly people in intervention groups were less likely to report symptoms. 60+ are 2-3x more likely to be symptomatic than <40. Again, when having symptoms means you failed your village, might you choose not to mention them?
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the study is the difference between surgical and cloth mask villages. The authors claim that this is supported by the different filtration efficiencies of cloth and surgical masks.
However, these filtration efficiencies are taken in a no-gap scenario. And there is ALWAYS a gap. We can see that when considering gaps—the most important element of filtration–fabric & surgical masks perform nearly identically–not at all.
Given physical improbability, it is possible that this effect too, might be an artifact of bias in the control group. Surgical masks are “fancier,” & might feel like more of an intervention, and may make those in such a village even more likely to repress symptom reporting.
Whatever the result of the surgical masks, this shows that the impact from cloth masks is 0. (.02% absolute reduction and a p-value of 0.540 is zero, even if the authors want to pretend otherwise).
Color me skeptical on this one. This study increased mask wearing to 40%. In much of blue America mask compliance approached 100% for almost a year. Even with that kind of incredible compliance, there was no impact on case transmission rates.
<End Analysis>
This is just scratching the surface of the junk science that is the Bangladesh mask farce. This is how so many people get deluded by the vast reams of studies out there that are mostly junk science propaganda sporting methodology so poor that the most likely explanation is deliberate malfeasance.
“As advised, I looked at 4 top papers at FLCCC site ivermectin section: etc.”
I will respond re the studies when I have sufficient time to do so, but I will say for now that your comprehension of the Ivermectin studies is about as good as your comprehension of the Bangladesh “study”.