It Was Never About a Virus

But I repeat myself:

1) Twitter Files #FauciPharmaFiles

Last December, @elonmusk sent out his viral tweet about Fauci.

Fauci went on Fox News and said he had "no clue what [Elon] was talking about." pic.twitter.com/L0RIZVRsEO

— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) April 20, 2023

 

Follow the whole thread. 

**

As it played out, the Cochrane report did not merit a single mention in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times or USA Today for over three weeks. The first reference in any of those outlets came not through the news sections but rather an opinion column by Bret Stephens. Both Stephens and the Cochrane report soon faced fierce counterarguments. Some of the criticism was fair, such as the difficulty in combining results from RCTs with different designs and populations. The Cochrane Library itself accepted a separate critique that the report covered only mask interventions followed imperfectly by subjects, not the potential benefits of masks per se.

Other responses showed a profound ignorance of evidence-based medicine. One common attack pointed to the laboratory and observational studies supporting masking. By excluding those studies from its purview, the Cochrane authors supposedly engaged in cherry picking. These critics didn’t seem to understand that within evidence-based medicine, focusing on RCTs over weaker studies is a strength, not a weakness. The top of the hierarchy of evidence is a meta-analysis of RCTs, which is precisely what the Cochrane Library offered. Cochrane follows that approach for all of its reports, not just the one on respiratory infections. The same people who previously treated the Cochrane Library as authoritative are being hypocritical in dismissing its conclusions that happen to challenge one of their cherished beliefs.

Article content

The report itself, unlike its critics who think they know the truth and proclaim it with utter certainty, follows proper scientific practices in recognizing the limits of current knowledge. The Cochrane authors said the evidence on medical/surgical masks was of only “moderate certainty,” while the data on N95/P2 respirators was “very uncertain.” Rather than declaring the case closed, the Cochrane report called for “large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations.” It’s possible that such studies would demonstrate what experts such as Michael Osterholm have said from the beginning: cloth and surgical masks are largely ineffective against COVID, but N95s offer protection so long as they are worn correctly and consistently.

The ball is now firmly in the court of the CDC and other leaders in public health. It’s not too late for them to recommit to science and fulfill the Cochrane request for large-scale RCTs.

**

What about everything else they shouldn't be allowed to investigate?:

A government health committee has agreed that the Liberal government cannot review its own response to COVID-19.

MPs on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health decided at their April 20 meeting that Liberal bill C-293, An Act Respecting Pandemic Prevention, needs to be revised.

The bill would give the health minister power to “establish an advisory committee” to review the government’s COVID management over a two-year period. It would also require the minister to establish, “in consultation with other ministers, a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan.”

Blacklock’s Reporter reported that MPs on the committee endorsed the drafting of a preparedness plan but rejected the internal review as self-serving for cabinet.

B.C. New Democrat MP Don Davies said the internal review was self-serving.

“It’s not independent, it’s not transparent,” said Davies, adding that it “would constitute a whitewash.”