That's not true. There is a LOT of interest in research like this. It's one of the hottest topics among public health officials, especially given how they're trying to brace themselves for the next pandemic. If so, what results have they produced?
Even those who are opposed to lockdowns should find value in research, I certainly support research. I haven't seen it. I think it starts with getting to the bottom of lying out of government.
Like Fauci saying first, "No masks", then without ANY science to back it up, he suddenly says, "Yes, masks". Then, at some point claiming that only N/KN95 work but without a shred of evidence of that. I don't know the current count but at one point there were six distinct positions he took with respect to masks, essentially all of them falsely predicated.
Or the "Six feet apart" rule for businesses, which was financially devastating in many of those areas that practiced it. There was no evidence for it. Finally, they admitted it.
The most shocking thing to me was when Fauci changed his position, there was a remarkable effort to push scientists to change their position -- and their articles (the one I linked to was one of many) to reflect NOT the science but the Fauci position du jure on masking. It was astonishing to watch. Simultaneously, articles flooded the Internet that used entirely non-scientific approaches to convince people that mask-wearing was essentially to saving lives (this was before Fauci's shift to N95). There were 100s of studies dating back decades finding in RCTs that masks did essentially nothing to prevent transmission of various ailments. All over the world, the findings were at best doubtful, and at worst, actually contributed to transmission.
So, we need honesty and I'm not sure if we're getting it, and I sort of doubt we can until the scientific community is able to break apart from its political dogma via clear experimental design.
Over time, that will happen. Hopefully. |
