When Facebook fact-checkers conflict with peer-reviewed studies, who is right?

What should we learn from this?
What should we learn from this?

The Federalist:

A high-quality, large-scale D4n1sh study finds no evidence that wearing a face m4sk significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting C0VID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coron4v1rus infection rates between m4sk-wearers and non-m4sk-wearers. In fact, according to the data, m4sk usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection.

“The recommendation to wear surgical m4sks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general m4sk use,” the authors summarized their results.

While m4sk-wearing has been advertised by health officials all around the world, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Dr. Anthony F4uci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to prevent the spread of the coron4v1rus, the Danish researchers found that there was no statistically significant difference between wearing a m4sk or not in preventing people from contracting C0VID-19.

“In the third post hoc analysis, which investigated constellations of patient characteristics, we did not find a subgroup where face m4sks were effective at conventional levels of statistical significance,” researchers found.

The randomized-control trial, which is considered the “gold-standard” design for scientific research, had a large sample size of more than 6,000 people. Most studies conducted on various kinds of face m4sks against various coron4v1ruses are neither randomized, controlled trials nor conducted regarding the specific virus currently affecting the world.

This clinical trial was conducted from April through June in Denmark, a largely unm4sked area with government recommendations only to social distance and wash hands frequently as the country began to reopen in May. Roughly half of the 6,024 participants, 4,862 of whom completed the study, were randomly assigned to wear surgical m4sks “outside the home among other persons together” while the other half continued to operate in public without a m4sk.

Note: this study doesn’t not prove that masks don’t protect OTHERS from people who have the virus. That was not the topic of this study. And that would also be hard to measure in any case.

3 thoughts on “When Facebook fact-checkers conflict with peer-reviewed studies, who is right?”

  1. Sooner, exactly. It’s all a power play.
    The appeal to studies is not based on a heart’s desire for truth in fear of God’s judgment but a manipulative tool to squash dissent. It works too, that’s why they use it. It keeps mushminded Christians pacified, which is another demonstration of why we like this blog and WK’s efforts at having stronger thinking and discernment.


  2. They needed a new trial for that? It was already common knowledge that surgical masks do not protect against catching viruses, you would at least need an FFP3 mask for that. The western mindset doesn’t seem to comprehend that you wear a mask to prevent contaminating others. That’s why many Asians wear them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s