Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Even MORE FauciFraud

This guy Fauci can't stop lying.  

This essay notes that CDC and Fauci's NIAID are both part of HHS.  

Does Fauci read HHS publications related to epidemics?  Or, perhaps a better question:  Does Fauci remember any of what he reads? 

...The CDC has lots of branches and publications. One of them is the Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases. It is dedicated to “Fast and broad dissemination of reliable information on emerging infectious diseases.” One would expect Dr. Fauci to both be aware of the Journal, and up to date on its contents. So when he spoke with Dr. Ashton in July, we would expect that he should have read the May 2020 issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases. In it we find, “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures.”

This paper from three months before the interview reviews “the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings … in pandemic plans...."

Yup.  That's the topic of the NEJM article we've mentioned a few times, too.  Fauci may or may not read the NEJM--but one expects him to read "in-house" HHS publications, particularly when they touch on the reason for Fauci's current star status, right?

Maybe not.

...First, let’s recall that randomized controlled trials are considered the “gold standard.” ... These investigators looked at fourteen – count ‘em – fourteen RCTs in a “meta-analysis.” Evidence from these RCTs “did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Translation: You can wash your hands all you want or take a bath in hand sanitizer. Or not. You can wear any mask you want. Or not. It’s not going to matter. It won’t make any difference on whether you get Wuhan flu or not. That’s the science....

But that's not all.  Fauci has other problems with studies.

...But that’s not all. Fauci told MarketWatch on July 24 that “masks and respirators reduced the risk of infection by anywhere from 78 percent to 85 percent.” He cited a paper in Lancet to bolster his assertion. But he misrepresented the paper. One key factor is that the authors reviewed 172 observational and 44 comparative studies, but not one RCT. Not one. Further, their search “did not retrieve any systematic review of information on physical distancing, face masks, or eye protection to prevent transmission…”

In short, the paper Fauci cited didn’t have any proof relevant to the question....

In short, if Fauci tells us that rain falls down, it's prudent to check on that.  Tin-Pot Tony Evers and his Abortion Barbie Andrea Palm won't.

No comments: