We Can’t Allow Coronavirus Politics to Dictate Science
In these past couple of weeks, two important studies have been published that could dramatically increase our understanding of COVID-19.
Adding to the science of how we understand and treat this disease is something that should be welcomed, because properly understood it can save lives.
The only problem is that because the results from these two studies challenge what the media has established as conventional wisdom about the disease, the reports are at best being ignored and at worst being openly distorted by the mainstream media.
This is in my view a dangerous and foolish subjugation of science to politics and it may well end up causing many more unnecessary deaths.
First is the Danish mask study, which was completed several months ago but was only recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. The study took two groups and gave the first group masks to wear with instruction on how they should be used.
The other group was the mask-free control group.
The study found that coronavirus spread within the statistical margin of error in each group.
In other words, wearing the mask did little if anything to control the spread of the virus.
As the wearing of masks is still being mandated across the country and globally, this study should be reported as an important piece of counter-evidence. At the very least it might be expected to invite a rush of similar studies to refute or confirm the results.
However, while mostly ignored by the media, when it was covered the spin on the study was so strange that the conclusion presented was opposite to the findings. For example, the Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline, “Face mask trial didn’t stop coronavirus spread, but it shows why more mask-wearing is needed.”
Similarly, a massive new study conducted in Wuhan, China, and published in the respected scientific journal Nature, reports that asymptomatic persons who have tested positive for COVID-19 do not pass on the infection to others.
Considering that mask mandates and lockdowns are all based on the theory that asymptomatic “positive cases” can still pass on the sickness, this is potentially an important piece of information to help plan a more effective response to the virus.
At the least, again, it should stimulate additional, far-reaching studies to either confirm or deny the Wuhan study.
We do know, based on information from widely-accepted sources as the CDC and World Health Organization (WHO), that lockdowns can have a very serious negative effect on society. On July 14th, CDC Director Robert Redfield told a seminar that lockdowns are causing more deaths than COVID-19.
So if there is a way to continue fighting COVID-19 and protecting those most at risk while drastically reducing deaths related to lockdowns, isn’t this worth some consideration? Isn’t this worth at least some further research?
Well, not according to the mainstream media. They have established their narrative and they are not about to budge. The two studies are fatally flawed, they report. Of course that might be the case, but isn’t that an argument to attempt to replicate the studies to prove it?
That would be the scientific approach. Sadly, “trust the science” has come to mean “trust the narrative I support.” That is a very dangerous way of thinking and can prove to be deadly.
This article originally appeared on the Ron Paul Institute website.
About the author: Ron Paul is a physician, author and former Republican congressman. Paul also is a two-time Republican pr’esidential candidate and the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in the 1988 U.S. presidential election. His latest book is “Swords into Plowshares.” Read Ron Paul’s Reports — More Here.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method
Trackback from your site.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
An even more straightforward experiment could establish the usefulness, or not, of the mask as described here (http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3488). However, as the virus sample is not available, such a simple study cannot be conducted. Also, not able to conduct such a study should provide evidence of the non-existent virus or pandemic (http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3548).
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hello,
I think the narrative behind the mask mandates isn’t about protecting the wearer, that would make sense for the non-infected super-majority (99.8% in Canada) and your experiment would prove that this couldn’t work; but, the rags/paper muzzles people are forced to wear are “to protect others” = virtue signalling at best, obedience training in reality! Either way, political rather than medical issue…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Brian James
| #
Today Bill Gates has the final say! Aug 14, 2020 Bill Gates : Reduce World Population With New Vaccines
In this Ted Talk, Bill Gates says CO2 causes ecosystem collapse, and top scientists tell him we have to get CO2 emissions down to zero. He then goes on to say that we need to reduce population, and we can use new vaccines to do that.
https://youtu.be/wfstBe1buaA
Reply
Roger Higgs
| #
Thanks for the link Brian. Astonishingly, Gates does indeed say (final 15 seconds) that vaccines can help REDUCE world population. Moments ago I posted a comment at that same YouTube site …
Reply
James
| #
I’ve seen pandemics (57 and 68) when I was at school in London and starting work in Milan. At school everything continued as normal, we all caught it, spent a week in bed. Quite a lot died in London that winter; and the word was Smog due to coal fires; of which there was certainly no lack. That’s when the move to coke first and then gas heating began. In Milan we just stayed off the trams and out of the cinemas (very smoky too in those days); and caught nothing. In Milan I was buying Bunker C and then 3-5°E fuel oil and the sky was black, seen from a distance; now all gas, apart from the traffic. It’s an ill wind.. Maybe the masks will help, but how much? 10%, 12% risk reduction? Rev. Bayes still around? Certainly not 100%, but what can we expect from something so simple and easy to make money on?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31201-0/fulltext
Reply
Tom O
| #
You said – “something so simple and easy to make money on,” and hit the “mask nail” on the head.
People forget or never knew that even wearing so called “N-95” masks are useless against a virus. Why? They are made to stop the passage of particles much larger than a virus, and that 95 number says they are only expected to stop 95% of them to start with. Yes, when it comes to particles of dust and other irritants, stopping 95% is a lot better than not stopping any, but does it really matter that much with a virus? Wouldn’t 5% be enough to create a major infection?
As for the cloth masks, if you have ever seen the videos of people blowing smoke through them, you should realize that a smoke particle is a lot larger than a virus cell, and if the smoke passes without effort, why wouldn’t the virus?
Of course, all that is sort of “moot” since they still haven’t isolated this virus to prove it exists.
Reply
Peter F Gill
| #
There is to be a Royal Soc. uTube meeting on the what how and why of the pandemic (or should it be plandemic) starting 18:15 hrs on December 7. See: https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2020/12/what-how-why-pandemic/?utm_source=adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_project=Scientists%20newsletter&utm_workspace=Newsletters&utm_campaign=6969&utm_name=2020-11%20Scientists%20newsletter It will be interesting to see if the people involved are part of the problem or the solution.
Reply
Alan
| #
Even one of the authors of the Danish study was interviewed and said the study did not mean that mask wearing was not beneficial.
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
It’s immaterial what masks can and cannot do.
The chance of catching, developing severe symptoms and dying from Covid are ridiculously small.
The question then arises as to why society has been destroyed using Covid as an excuse.
The ‘Great Reset’ is not a conspiracy. Nobody denies it. From Schwab to Johnson, it is being actively pursued.
Reply
Alder
| #
The authors say,” the study did not mean that mask wearing was not beneficial.”
Agreed. There are countless things that the study would not mean.
To my understanding of words, the study did find:
No proven benefit to mask wearing.
Reply
Mervyn
| #
Today, the left has no respect for the truth. In 2016, I heard Bill Clinton state, “In this post truth era, facts no longer matter.” I now understand what he meant. It’s the progressive liberal agenda that says, for example, if a man decides he is a woman, then he is a woman.
Reply