Viral ideologies corrupt science

Face masks must be used again, nothing to do. In January, a Cochrane Review was published that challenged the effectiveness of masks, pointing to problems within scientific institutions. There is no effect from non-pharmaceutical intervention ('measures') at population level. The analysis showed not only that there is no evidence that masks reduce the disease, but even that there is a lot of evidence that this measure does not work in large populations, which was actually known for a century. Recent studies point to the health damage caused by face masks (the environmental damage had long been accepted as collateral damage).

It was observed that the necessary condition of impartiality is increasingly fading into the background.

Unsurprisingly, that claim caused a stir. Those who had mandated or strongly recommended masks to frightened people didn't like being put on their number.

Now, the Cochrane Review is considered a standard source for medical information. In such a Review, meta-analyses are made of randomized controlled trials, conducted by researchers worldwide. Normally a highly respected method that is considered a valuable summary of the state of affairs at the time of publication.

That's where the draft came we already saw in a Dutch study presented as Cochrane Review. Or should we say "an essay by a select group of vaccine promoters posing as Cochrane Netherlands"? In retrospect, it turned out that this essay could not be regarded as a real "Cochrane Review", while Minister Kuipers had served it as such to the House. All possible, all may all, never heard of it again, not even from Cochrane International. Minister Kuipers' answer to various questions was meaningless.

If such a Cochrane analysis of mask effectiveness goes against the view of the government and the medical establishment, then the boat is on. There was fierce criticism worldwide that this could not be done. One article by David Strom reconstructs that controversy, which I summarize below.

Climate activists and journalists were given ample space in authoritative media, such as the New York Times. The editor-in-chief of the investigation broke out in a sweat and, in apparent panic, quickly added an annex suggesting that the findings were inconclusive. This appendix has since been used as evidence that the review was flawed or even retracted. However, this has never been the case and it is clear that the editor-in-chief simply succumbed under pressure from news organizations such as the New York Times.

Many people have gotten the impression that that Cochrane study has been "debunked" or "retracted", but that is not the case. The study still stands, contrary to the narrative. However, nothing is being done with it, face masks are safely in the toolbox of the next minister. Critical questions about face masks are blunted with the alleged withdrawal of the negative investigation. Why, we don't know – but can you expect someone to admit to making mistakes for so long?

Back to publisher Soares-Weiser, who also received an email from the New York Times. The editor's response was hasty and sloppy: she implied that the research was rattling and did so without even seeking comment from the authors of the piece. Mind you, she herself was unfamiliar with the subject.

Scientific institutions, including publishers, make themselves utterly implausible through ideological influence. Where has unbiased evidence gone, where are honest scientists? Editors-in-chief and directors of scientific publishers drive around in fat cars. So they will do something right, but science is no longer it.

It's like a virus taking hold, something with ideology, wokism, viceism, globalism, I don't know. Scientific facts must fit into a diverse, inclusive, sound and, above all, obedient framework. The media participates lustily because the government likes docility and without government support, many media have a hard time, especially the media that pretend objectivity.

The motive of 'truth-finding' has disappeared at every level. Everywhere, it looks like an infectious virus. That virus isn't just raging in the medical industry. In the climate industry, it's just as bad, possibly worse.

Only Corona or also climate?

We see a similar state of affairs with a 2022 paper that was withdrawn. Climate scientists who disagreed with the content sounded the alarm. It was a neat paper that questioned the certainty of climate alarmism, which was questioned by some valid and substantiated questions. That was a point of contention and therefore it was not allowed. No further research, no further scientific discussion. Taboo.

We are in a disturbing episode in which the scientific method, the academic peer-review process, the publishers and the media have been corrupted by political and financial motives that manifest as indisputable ideology.

In 2022, "A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming," (A critical assessment of trends in extreme events in times of global warming), which assessed the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The article mainly gave an overview with substantiated caveats. That provoked strong reactions. Some activist climate scientists and journalists (including The Guardian) put pressure on the publisher, Springer Nature, to withdraw the article. This resulted in an investigation into the article and eventually in its retraction. There were no valid reasons for withdrawing the article. There was no evidence of investigative fraud, misconduct, conflicts of interest or anything else. They simply disagreed.

It shows that climate science, like medical science, has become part of an industry, a political-financial conglomerate. The publication process is successfully influenced from all sides, both openly and behind the scenes. The powers are too great.

This cloning of those in power in industry, politics, the media, banking is a prominent characteristic of a current that I will not mention because that word alone is already chasing people to such an extent that their thinking is blocked.

Roger Pielke describes the course of events in its Substack. Read it and shudder. Below is a telling excerpt, translated.

Not a word about incorrect methodologies, fraud, data manipulation, conflicts of interest – they simply disagreed. And then science bows to peer pressure. Faith in the scientific method is broken. Neither the publisher (Springer) nor the editor-in-chief respond to questions about the highly unusual protocol followed in the peer review.

Links to the documents on which etc. is based are in a follow-up article by Pielke to find.

In America, Biden has announced new rounds of vaccinations for every American age 6 and older.
Panic is also starting to take hold in the UK. The start of the announced jab campaigns has even been brought forward there, see John Campbell.

It has nothing to do with science or health.

I remember we used to have a bully in the classroom. His brother, who was a few years older, was even worse. They frightened unsuspecting children with threats. The feeling of being able to exercise power must have played a role there. They forced frightened classmates to pull gum off the street and eat it. They lured a dog and then kicked him disabled. Just because you could. People like that exist.