> > From Michael Green: > > The excellent MCM—and everyone else—ignore a fundamental error of this CDC > study that makes it uninterpretable. > Mark writes that “what the study really proves, or reconfirms, is that > mask-wearing makes no difference, as people who'd worn masks and those who > hadn't worn them ‘caught COVID-19’ (i.e., tested positive) in the same > numbers.” The study is incapable of supporting any such conclusion > because it fails to compare the mask-wearing outcomes (COV+ vs COV-) of > comparable groups of persons, and ignores the relevant stats for the > remainder of the population. Yes, it compares the mask-wearing behavior > of clinically symptomatic patients testing + for COVID with those testing – > for COVID. But comparing the mask-wearing behaviors of symptomatic > groups who are C+ vs. C- tells us nothing about the efficacy of masks > unless we know how many people in the general population wore masks as each > group did, and what their outcomes were. It is quite possible that the > stats for people among the general population who wore masks as the C+ did > had a very much better outcome (lower incidence of C+) than those who wore > them less—and that is the relevant comparison, not one with symptomatic C- > patients. > To make the point another way, consider these extreme cases. If the > subjects (C+) and controls (C-) were the only symptomatic persons in a > population of 300,000,000 and all of the other people wore masks 100% of > the time, we might reasonably conclude that mask-wearing protected from > both COVID and other flu-like-illnesses (OFLI). Or, if all of the > remaining population was symptomatic, all tested positive for COVID, and > never-ever wore a mask, we might reasonably conclude that mask wearing > prevented some COVID but seems to have caused the control cases of OFLI. > Of course, the real world stats lie in between these imagined poles, but > until it is specified, this CDC “study” remains a jumbled batch of > uninterpretable numbers, despite all the excellent people it has seduced > with actual tests of statistical significance between its meaningless > numbers. This is a research methodology 101 error that readily deceives > even intelligent educated laypersons, but should not have gotten by the CDC. > Unfortunately, it is not the first time that the CDC has produced such > nonsense. > > Just for the record, masks are harmful, but part of a brilliantly evil > inverted Milgram component of the COVID PSY-OP. Instead of torturing the > innocent because the authority says it is necessary as in the famous > Milgram experiment, maskers follow the authorities’ advice to save the > lives of innocents by self-sacrifice and vigilance towards the > pathologically selfish: those of us with our heads screwed on straight. > > Michael Green > > > > Best > > Michael > ---
Support News from Underground: http://bit.ly/NFUSupport Visit News from Underground: https://markcrispinmiller.com You received this email because you are subscribed to News from Underground. To unsubscribe from this email list, please go to: http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=pIdjNUgiG2h8yxbhC54SSy4SEskAoEMs For archives, please go to: http://archives.simplelists.com/nfu
