Karl Lauterbach, German health minister makes a complete moron & buffoon of himself by citing & showcasing this laughable incredibly corrupt, incomprehensible 'mask' review (Alishan); utter nonsense!
by Paul Alexander
I am embarrassed for this dolt that he would cite this as the content is laughable, it is so very flawed, yet it is good news for it helps show us the constant garbage the research community publishes
People who shared this study must have had a bad head injury for they would be nuts to do that, it would be embarrassing as this is just pure junk. This is illogical, nonsensical, drivel, absurd, and irrelevant research, and it is not even research.
I mean, the presented statistical analysis cannot be interpreted and is really nonsense, pure hilarity. I am an evidence-based medicine expert and can make no sense of it, NONE! It is clear the authors of this mask review have no idea, none, of what they are doing or tried to do, and places like Germany, Canada, US (for we do get these in our North American nations too), would be better served having a gorilla lead it’s health agencies like CDC and NIH and in this case, the German Health ministry.
Could this just be people punking us? A hoax, for this cannot be real as written. The methods are so poor yet the interpretation is unreal. I think what this shows us is how inept and incompetent researchers are today, how terribly low quality, putrid, bottom of the barrel the COVID research is and always was. Pure academic sloppiness. Just money whore academic scientists and medical doctors who know nothing about research or what they are saying, absurd, illogical, irrational and non-sensical on their best day, running after research grants and the journal editors as part of the conspiracy doing all it could to advance any research against Trump or early treatment or research to support the failed COVID injections.
COVID has helped destroy evidence-based medicine (EBM), academic research, academic research writing, and the medical journal publishing. It is over. No more credibility.
So here are some of my views on this piece of garbage research on facemasks.
1)First, this is a pre-print (not yet peer reviewed) and I will be willing to bet even the fraud LANCET or JAMA or even two timing BMJ will not publish this garbage tripe.
2)methods were confusing and very unclear and seemed sub-optimal e.g. said three reviewers judged study inclusion. The key is not the number of adjudicators but if it was done independently.
3)They did not tell us in an open, explicit, transparent manner why the vast majority of the over 1300 papers were excluded. We need to know this.
4)Did they compute p values and t-tests for each group separately? This makes no sense. ‘The probability of getting COVID-19 for mask wearers was 7% (97/1463, p=0.002), for non-mask wearers, probability was 52% (158/303, p=0.94). The Relative Risk of getting COVID-19 for mask wearers was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.10-0.16).’ What are they trying to say here?
What are they comparing? Am I right that they ran t-test in each group e.g. mask group and computed infection vs no infection? What nonsense! Everyone had the intervention of ‘mask’. If ‘mask’ is the independent variable (intervention) that is being manipulated, so one group has mask and one does not, then you assess the risk of infection with the relevant statistical test.
What is the relative risk they report? Oh God, I can’t take this junk.
These people did not know what they were doing. The German health minister is a clown to cite this study. I do not think any journal, will publish this.
5) Did they include a study from 2004? There was no COVID then. e.g. Chaovavanich 10?? Look at the Caruhel 22 reference; it says looked at 11 people on a flight yet reported 0 infections of 20 people…what? This is just pedestrian, garbage. Yet when I look at the study in detail (Caruhel) it is not about people on a flight but on gas masks in military etc. “Military gas masks allow safe performance of tracheotomies when faced with a high risk of virus transmission”.
6)all the study designs of included studies differed? You cannot do this, you cannot lump these together as too much heterogeneity, too much variability between methods, groups, interventions etc. We get hair salons, healthcare, flights etc. I mean this is nonsense.
7)All studies of incredibly low quality, near garbage, not proper comparative effectiveness research, of 1700 screened studies, only used 13
8)All included studies were in 2020 and none after. Why? We have many studies in 2021 etc. that are much more suitable.
9)lumping data at higher levels e.g. facilities vs personal individual level.
Bottom line: tear this up, garbage it, better yet, use it as toilet paper. Or my bad, give it to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, he will use it for COVID policy.