Over the past few months, the Trends Journal has shown the importance of closely reading mainstream media articles advocating for the imposition of mandatory mask-wearing. This reveals that while the conclusions drawn are mask-wearing is effective at slowing the spread of the coronavirus, in fact, the language used shows anything but conclusive proof, which science and medicine ought to be based on.
Note the following key examples.
In our 23 June issue:
Health advocate Peggy Hall analyzed the language in the seven research articles posted on the CDC website, which it claims supports wearing face masks. Ms. Hall first points out there are no links to the studies provided by the CDC.
This raised her suspicion about the strength of the articles. When she found them online, not one clearly confirmed that wearing masks slows the spread, but, instead, they used language such as “more research is needed,” “requires further study,” “results are unclear” and “presymptomatic” or asymptomatic transmission modes have not been definitely documented for COVID-19.” Looking carefully at the data provided by the CDC as to why they reversed their decision on mask wearing, their basic position is that while unproven, mask wearing by the public should be mandated based on the premise, ‘better safe than sorry.”
In our 18 August issue:
Joe Biden said last week, “Every single American should be wearing a mask when they’re outside for the next three months, at a minimum… Every governor should mandate mandatory mask-wearing… The estimates are we will save over 40,000 lives in the next three months if that is done.”
TRENDPOST: We researched the article Biden referred to above claiming 40,000 lives would be saved if people wore masks in public. What we found was this disclaimer at the top of it: “This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.”
The brief disclaimer linked to a more detailed one that explains:
“Typically, a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.
Readers should therefore be aware that articles have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.
We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous.”
Mask Confusion
In the 20 October Trends Journal, we wrote:
On 18 June, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statewide order that “Californians are now required to wear face coverings in public spaces.” The “order,” according to the governor’s office, was following up on guidance from the California Department of Public Health.
When examining the webpage of the state’s Department of Public Health, the evidence for mandatory mask-wearing is inconclusive. The agency’s official website on 1 April stated the following:
“How well do cloth face coverings work to prevent spread of COVID-19? There is limited evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could help reduce disease transmission.”
Yet, on 18 June, after Governor Newsom issued the mask-wearing order, the statement, “There is limited evidence…” was removed from the Dept. of Public Health’s website and replaced with: “There is scientific evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could help reduce disease transmission.”
The statement left in to make the case for the governor’s order are inconclusive: “Cloth face coverings are not a substitute for physical distancing, washing hands, and staying home when ill, but they may be helpful when combined with these primary interventions.”
Note the phrase “may be helpful.” No scientific evidence is given or linked to.
Another key example of media manipulation of data is the recent article published in Nature on 6 October, titled, “Face masks: What the data say.” The subtitle reads, “The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?”
That sounds definitive and implies there is conclusive evidence. Yet, read the following key paragraph, which claims to provide “enough evidence” by offering a study involving a total of two people:
“Confidence in masks grew in June with news about two hair stylists in Missouri who tested positive for COVID-19. Both wore a double-layered cotton face covering or surgical mask while working.
And although they passed on the infection to members of their households, their clients seem to have been spared (more than half reportedly declined free tests). Other hints of effectiveness emerged from mass gatherings.
At Black Lives Matter protests in US cities, most attendees wore masks. The events did not seem to trigger spikes in infections, yet the virus ran rampant in late June at a Georgia summer camp, where children who attended were not required to wear face coverings.
Caveats abound: the protests were outdoors, which poses a lower risk of COVID-19 spread, whereas the campers shared cabins at night, for example… Nevertheless, the anecdotal evidence ‘builds up the picture,’ says Theo Vos, a health-policy researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle.”
Does this convince you? Claiming strong evidence from two hairstylists and a bunch of kids at summer camp, the article ignores what the Trends Journal reported about the controversial motorcycle rally which took place during 8-16 August in South Dakota.
The mainstream media went ballistic over the failure to cancel the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota and then went into hyper-fear mode when 365,979 people showed up, and, over the ten days of the event, weren’t wearing masks and weren’t practicing social distancing. Predictions of mass infections and the spreading of death were predicted.
On 24 August, a CBS affiliate in Minnesota blared this headline: “Sturgis Motorcycle Rally Attendees Spreading COVID-19 Infections Fast, Far.”
The data it provided? “Health departments in four states, including South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wyoming, have reported a total of 76 cases among people who attended the rally.”
Seventy-six cases out of 365,979 were reported. Note: these were not deaths or hospitalizations.
Since then, according to a USA Today article on 17 September, the number of confirmed infections increased, but so did the estimate of the number attending: “At least 290 people in 12 states testing positive after attending the rally. About 460,000 people attended the rally. The infection rate based on the above numbers is 0.09%.”
More importantly, after all of the hyped-up criticism of allowing the rally to occur, and after all of the screaming about lack of masks and social distancing, how many of the 460,000 people attending the motorcycle rally died from COVID-19? Answer: one.
The one person who died, as reported by USA Today, was a “man in his 60s with underlying health conditions.”