Tag: facemasks

Operation Warp Speed: The Good, the Bad, and the Deadly

Ihave been a strong supporter of Donald Trump since the first Super Tuesday primary in February 2016, when he trounced the competition in races held in the heart of the ‘Bible Belt.’ Those results convinced me that if any Republican had a prayer (excuse the pun) of winning the White House, he was the only game in town.

One of the key elements of the Trump administration’s response to the Covid pandemic was Operation Warp Speed (OWS). A unique feature of OWS was that it was used, respectively, by Trump’s supporters and detractors to laud or denigrate the initiative, depending almost solely on political party affiliation. This bifurcation even extended to the healthcare establishment, a clear indication that medical science had been eclipsed by political science. In so doing, the physician’s creed, “First, do no harm” was shredded. The impact on patient outcomes, not surprisingly, was devastating.

In an attempt to move the discussion away from political slogans and bumper stickers, and towards a more nuanced assessment, I will examine six major OWS initiatives:

  • Ventilators
  • Masks 
  • Disinfectants
  • Hospital Beds for NYC and Los Angeles
  • Repurposed Therapeutics: Hydroxychloroquine
  • mRNA Vaccine Development, Production, and Distribution

Ventilators

In preparing for airborne pandemics, it had been the consensus for several years that the number of ventilators available would be woefully inadequate. To meet this challenge, Trump pulled every emergency lever at his disposal in order to direct the nation’s manufacturing capabilities towards producing the number of ventilators required. This effort succeeded to the degree that the metrics for ventilator production were quickly exceeded, and a more than sufficient number was produced and distributed. 

Clearly, this was a logistical triumph…but there’s the rub. It was determined early on that almost all patients with Covid-induced respiratory failure who were placed on a ventilator succumbed. You’d think that someone in authority would have made the observation that ventilators caused harm whenever used, and use of this modality would have ceased. Well, if you thought that, you’d be mistaken. Ventilators were used for months after it was clear that they caused harm. So where does responsibility for this debacle reside? Was it with OWS for supplying too many ventilators or with the healthcare providers who, under cover of perverse incentives, continued to use them? 

Masks 

As with ventilators, there was great concern that supplies of masks would be inadequate. Given the fact that more than 100 years of public health policy and practice had demonstrated that mask use outside of healthcare settings was a useless exercise, pulling the trigger on OWS should never have been done. However, when it came to Covid, deliberately fanning the flames of fear overcame sound public health policy, and the trigger was pulled. Sadly, all of the predicted collateral damage that universal masking could cause came to pass (as has been well-documented elsewhere), with none of the purported benefits. An additional adverse consequence that has not been mentioned is to the environment. Between the masks and the plastic straws, I’m surprised there are any sea turtles left! 

Once again, where does responsibility for this debacle reside? Is it with OWS for supplying a huge number of masks or with the public health agencies that continued to push, and, in many cases, mandated a useless modality that could and did cause harm? 

Keep reading

CDC Used Journal To Promote Masks Despite ‘Unreliable’ And ‘Unsupported Data’: New Analysis

A new analysis of studies in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) flagship scientific journal found the agency promoted the effectiveness of masks using unreliable data with conclusions unsupported by evidence.

The preprint, published July 11 on MedRxiv, found the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) made positive findings about the efficacy of masks 75 percent of the time, despite only 30 percent of studies testing masks, and less than 15 percent having “statistically significant results.”

No studies were randomized, yet the CDC in over half of their MMWR studies, made misleading statements indicating a causal relationship between mask-wearing and a decrease in COVID-19 cases or transmission, despite failing to show evidence of mask effectiveness.

The inappropriate use of causal language in MMWR studies was directly adopted by then CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky to promote masks and recommendations urging Americans to mask up. The authors said their findings “raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy” and suggest bias within the journal.

The MMWR, often called “the voice of the CDC,” is the agency’s primary vehicle for “scientific publication of timely, reliable, authoritative, accurate, objective, and useful public health information and recommendations.”

The publication—subject only to peer review internally by the agency—is frequently used to draft national health policies. For example, mask requirements implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic for federal workers, travelers, schools, businesses, healthcare workers, and Head Start programs—“mirrored” CDC recommendations.

Of the 77 reviews cited in the agency’s MMWR used to promote masks, researchers found the following:

  • Only 23 of 77 studies assessed the effectiveness of masks, yet 58 of 77 studies claimed masks were effective.
  • Of the 58 studies, 41 used “causal language,” and 40 misused causal language. Causal language is where an “action or entity is explicitly presented as influencing another” and should not be used in observational studies because these types of studies merely identify “associations” and cannot establish that the “associations identified represent cause-and-effect relationships.”
  • According to the analysis, the 40 studies that used causal language indicated with certainty that masks lower transmission rates, despite the fact their results, at most, found a correlation. In addition, 25 of the 40 studies didn’t even assess the effectiveness of masks. The one remaining study used causal language related to particle filtration on mannequins with “unknown relevance for human health.”
  • Of the 58 studies referenced above, only one mentioned conflicting data on mask effectiveness—the authors noted it was an international study primarily focused on influenza.
  • Four of the 77 studies had more cases in the mask group than in the comparator group, yet all four studies concluded masks were effective.

None of the 77 studies assessed after 2019 were randomized, and none cited randomized data.

Keep reading

When It Comes To Masks, There Is No “Settled Science”

The literature on masks broadly looks at the efficacy of different types of masks and their efficacy at preventing particle penetration (controlled studies) and the likelihood of infectious spread (case studies of healthcare workers). Other studies question the detrimental effects of masks, particularly with prolonged use. Cloth masks, which have become the norm for public use, have been shown to have penetration rates as high as 97% according to a BMJ study (which used to stand for the British Medical Journal, but is now titled by its acronym). A study of the use of cloth masks during the far more serious 1918 influenza pandemic showed no beneficial results, and another study demonstrates that cloth masks are particularly ineffective compared with medical masks. Surgical and cotton medical masks fared better, but still with discouraging results overall (see here, here, here, here, and here).

As masks-for-all advocates are quick to point out, N95 respirators do show beneficial results in containing viral infections, but these are virtually unworn by the public (and they have only recently become available to those outside of the healthcare profession).

Keep reading