I admit things have changed since I was a young student in elementary school. And I’ve learned a lot since then, too.(1) I’m old enough, though, to remember when science was science, not a joust with numbers.
Father Michael “Iron Mike” Hindelang, S.J., was right when he announced day one of Latin class that the so-called “dead language” would be the linchpin of a rich and rewarding life. One of the first words we learned in Room F-118 was “scio: to know.” From that Latin verb comes the English word science. Note, then, that the word science does not mean, “to guess,” or “to count,” or “to estimate.” It means “to know.” And that’s what I was taught early on.
Back then, science meant that when you studied an event or experimented with objects, if the action is consistent, the outcome will be consistent. It was called the “scientific method.” If nitrogen and hydrogen atoms combined in a ratio of one to three, the result will always be ammonia. The intensity of light over distance is and always will be measured to be 1/r2. That’s the inverse square law and it doesn’t change. The velocity of gravity is always calculated as g = 9.807 m/s2 no matter where on the planet you go. Science, then, means reproducible, consistent outcomes. If the outcome is not consistent, it is merely statistics, odds. Odds play well in Las Vegas but not in my sandbox.
Numbers game. There’s nothing wrong with statistical analysis. There is nothing wrong with analytics. Odds helped Oakland A’s baseball manager Billy Beane make managerial decisions. But according to what I learned as a student, it’s not science. The research we see these days doesn’t fit the definition of science. It is, to steal from the Brad Pitt movie about Billy Beane, nothing more than Moneyball.
None of the research articles I have seen describing the efficacy of face masks vis-à-vis the current virus known widely as Covid-19, have demonstrated consistently reproducible results. They are not, in my opinion, science but rather statistical analysis. They are, in a word, iffy. Yet mainstream media, government, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are overwhelmingly pushing face masks of differing kinds as effective in preventing the spread of a virus. Maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. It depends on which research one follows.
Mainstream certainly is pushing only one side of the narrative. But I’m old enough to remember when so-called “alternative” newsweeklies actually presented alternatives to the mainstream narrative and published the other side of the story rather than parroting lockstep positions with the local. In keeping with that philosophy, consider that opposing research does exist. And to steal from Stephen Stills, for what it’s worth.
Good enough to read. I’m a bit of a research-aholic. I owe some of that to former copy editors at The Reader. Fine, talented folks like Amy Golding, Nicole LeClerc, Max Sparber, Chickenbone and too many others to mention, nagged me for citations to published claims. Of course I knew my facts but they taught me the value of documentation. I am grateful for that nudge.
So when Tucker Carlson exposed a novel virus likely concocted in a gain-of-function research lab in China, funded in part by U.S. tax dollars, was a threat, (2)(3)(4)(5)(6) I started collecting references. Many of the links and pages I downloaded were actual research papers, not mere media reports. For just the year 2020, I have over 329 files downloaded in just one of the many folders about the Wuhan virus. There are hundreds more since 2021. Enjoy this particular page: (7) It has some very alternative claims and many links to follow. If only ten percent of the information proves accurate, it paints a pretty damning picture. (7)
It’s important to note the shadow funding by the Government. Agencies commonly shuffle funding through NGOs which have no accountability to taxpayers. Ask some of our local “philanthropists” how that works. The National Institute of Health under direction of Tony Fauci did likewise. So go to the official site and view the NGO they paid off. (8)
Oh, and here’s a link to actual research, (not one of his ubiquitous media lap dances) where Tony Fauci states, “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 [are similar to] those of severe seasonal influenza”. That didn’t get a lot of mainstream play, did it? (10)
Logic has left the building. When it comes to mandates, there is little logic. To wit: The Omaha mask ordinance dictates that a suitable face covering complying with the law can be a surgical mask or — wait for it — a gaiter. According to our local health gurus, when it comes to protection from WuFlu, a gaiter I might wear turkey hunting is about as good as a surgical mask in effectiveness. Well, I actually agree with them.
Your candy. Here’s your reward for reading. A research article that tells you that masks, described in the article as “public health interventions”, don’t work to protect the population. And the chilling quote is, “Finally, the research suggests that some public health interventions may be ‘gateway’ interventions and could lead to increased acceptance of and compliance with future public health interventions.” (11)
In other words, masks are gateways, just the beginning of “compliance.”
Be well or at least, be wary.
Heartland Healing is a metaphysically based polemic describing alternatives to conventional methods of healing the body, mind and planet. It is provided as information and entertainment, certainly not medical advice. Important to remember and pass on to others: for a weekly dose of Heartland Healing, visit HeartlandHealing.com.
Michael Braunstein — 2021.04.20
1 Such as the judicious use of pleonasms.
[pages 13 – 14]