Masks have failed every test

Tech genius Steve Kirsch has been relentlessly analyzing last year’s widely-publicized Bangladesh mask study. Kirsch recently engaged the lead author of the study in an exhaustive review discussion regarding the study.

(The Bangladesh study was trumpeted on the front pages of every major newspaper in the fall of 2021. Many newspapers blared headlines such as “Study Proves Masks Work.”)

But after Kirsch’s back-and-forth debate with the Yale University professor behind the study, one expert said that the publicized conclusions were “worse than just sloppy work.” “This is bordering on fraud.”

“In short,” writes Kirsch, “the Bangladesh mask study again failed to prove that masks make a difference.”

“For example, here’s the graph for purple cloth masks. If masks worked, it would be highly unlikely for these curves to be on top of each other. For some strange reason, graphs such as these were omitted from the paper. Can you guess why??? Yes, it’s because the study was designed to fit the narrative.”

Kirsch writes that there have only been two randomized trials testing the hypothesis that masks can reduce the spread of COVID.

(Prior to COVID, every study of mask effectiveness vis-a-vis similar diseases such as influenza, showed virtually no effectiveness.)

“The first one, in Denmark, was negative. Masks made no difference. But in order to get the study published, they had to change the science to match the narrative. This was all well documented in the BMJ, one of the few honest journals left.”

The second one, in Bangladesh, claimed masks are effective. It is the study that all the “experts” seized upon. “See, masks work!!”

But Kirsch demonstrates that the Bangladesh study did not properly categorize study groups or scrutinize data.

So now you know why we can’t find any authority who wants to debate our team on any of our points: they know they will lose. So they make up excuses to avoid being challenged like that we are misinformed, lack credentials, or that they don’t have time for such silliness as defending their study. This is also why there is such an intense focus on censoring, deplatforming, gaslighting, and discrediting us: because they don’t want their bad science to be exposed.

See here.