re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?
re: The Healthy Skeptic
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
The CDC is now in the business of pure propaganda and anti-science, by cherry-picking only the data that supports the narrative.
by Kevin Roche, 2021-09-28
...Here is the press release announcing studies supporting masking in school, with links to each paper. (CDC Garbage)
One of the studies, a supposed comparison of CV-19 rates among children in counties with and without a school mask requirement, is an absolute embarassment that is the worst piece of dreck yet, so bad that it doesn’t even use statistics properly...
Now what is the first thing that we look for in a CDC study? That’s right, a cherrypicked time period. Now what is the second thing we look for in a CDC study? Correct again, completely ignoring important and relevant potential confounders...
...Just a made-up inference that it must have been associated with school.
...So no assessment of whether the cases were transmitted in the school, in other words, the study tells you absolutely nothing about actual transmission in schools. The major statistical trick here is that they tried to eliminate schools which had a mask mandate enacted after the school year started from the analysis. Why? Because if you include them 52% of schools with a mask mandate had an outbreak versus 48% of schools that didn’t.
I don’t know why I bother reviewing these CDC studies when other people do a fantastic job. Here is a beautiful explanation of how bad these studies are. (Prasad Review) In a normal world that actually believed in science, they would never pass peer review, in fact they would be laughed at.
WIND: junk science from the CDC is now the norm. But that is too much praise for what is really outright scientific fraud.