Brownstone Institute
The establishment still pretending masks prevent COVID transmission
From the Brownstone Institute
Naomi Oreskes, well-known science historian and co-author of Merchants of Doubt, argues that the public was “misled” by the 2023 Cochrane review, which concluded that wearing a face mask “probably makes little or no difference” in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
In an article published by Scientific American, Oreskes writes that “the average person could be confused” by the Cochrane study because its method of synthesising evidence prioritised “rigor over reality.”
Naomi Orestes, professor at Harvard University
Oreskes criticises the Cochrane review for basing its findings “on randomized controlled trials, often called the ‘gold standard’ of scientific evidence,” and said the analysis ignored “epidemiological evidence because it didn’t meet its rigid standard.”
Oreskes concludes that Cochrane got it wrong because its methods are too rigorous and that “it’s time those standard procedures were changed.”
Peter Gøtzsche, a physician scientist who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 and an expert in research methodology, says he is “stunned” by her comments.
“It’s clear that Oreskes lacks scientific objectivity,” says Gøtzsche in a stinging rebuke. “Oreskes is actually arguing that the researchers should have lowered their standards and relied on weaker evidence in their review.”
Peter Gøtzsche, Danish physician & co-founder of Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, now Deputy of the Institute For Scientific Freedom
Oreskes cites a string of observational studies to support the use of face masks in preventing the spread of viruses. But Gøtzsche says the problem with observational studies is that “they’re often wrong.”
“Observational studies have multiple confounding factors that are difficult to control, which is often why you cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship,” he explains.
“People argue that studies would show masks are effective if only people wore them correctly, but that’s nonsense,” says Gøtzsche. “If people won’t wear masks correctly, then that tells you that it’s not going to be an effective public health measure and shouldn’t be used.”
The CDC has published multiple observational studies in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), which has substantial influence on US health policy and is widely cited as evidence of mask effectiveness.
But an analysis by Høeg et al, published in Am J Med found that “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results.”
Two randomised controlled trials on masking were carried out during the Covid pandemic – one in Denmark and the other in Bangladesh– but both had underwhelming outcomes.
Oreskes castigates Tom Jefferson, lead author on the Cochrane study, for saying that wearing a face mask “makes no difference – none of it” and that he made “the classic error of conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence.”
But Gøtzsche says, “There is not an absence of evidence. There is evidence from randomised trials, including those trying to prevent influenza transmission, and it shows that masks just don’t work.”
They Knew All Along….
The reality is that health authorities knew there was no evidence that face masks could stop viral transmission during a pandemic.
In February 2020 for example, then US surgeon general Jerome Adams urged Americans against using face masks. “Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!” They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus,” he blasted in a tweet.
In March 2020, a WHO official said, “There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.”
England’s then deputy chief medical officer Dame Jenny Harries agreed, saying that masks in the community could cause harm by giving people “a false sense of security.” She warned, “The average member of the public walking down the street [wearing a mask] is really not a good idea.”
And Anthony Fauci who was then director of NIAID, told 60 Minutes, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.”
Fast-forward several weeks and the narrative suddenly changed. Not only did health officials flip on their advice, but they also pushed for masks to be mandatory in hospitals, outdoor settings, and schools for young children.
In hindsight, it was bad advice.
A new systematic review by Sandlund et al published in BMJ’s Archives of Diseases in Childhood shows that public health officials were wrong to mandate masks for children due to an absence of high quality evidence.
The authors write, “In medicine, new interventions with unknown benefit but known or potential risks cannot be ethically recommended or enforced until absence of harm is demonstrated.”
The study outlines “an extensive body of research” suggesting the harms associated with children wearing masks, and adds “we fail to find any evidence of benefit from masking children, to either protect themselves or those around them, from covid-19.”
The authors conclude that “recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms.”
Gøtzsche agrees, “Forcing people to wear masks has been a failure of public health. The reason we are still having the mask debate is because authorities relied on trash studies to justify their use, and wanted to appear as if they were doing something. In a crisis, it is always more difficult to do nothing.”
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
By 
Who Controls the Administrative State?
President Trump on March 20, 2025, ordered the following: “The Secretary of Education shall, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
That is interesting language: to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” is not the same as closing it. And what is “permitted by law” is precisely what is in dispute.
It is meant to feel like abolition, and the media reported it as such, but it is not even close. This is not Trump’s fault. The supposed authoritarian has his hands tied in many directions, even over agencies he supposedly controls, the actions of which he must ultimately bear responsibility.
The Department of Education is an executive agency, created by Congress in 1979. Trump wants it gone forever. So do his voters. Can he do that? No but can he destaff the place and scatter its functions? No one knows for sure. Who decides? Presumably the highest court, eventually.
How this is decided – whether the president is actually in charge or really just a symbolic figure like the King of Sweden – affects not just this one destructive agency but hundreds more. Indeed, the fate of the whole of freedom and functioning of constitutional republics may depend on the answer.
All burning questions of politics today turn on who or what is in charge of the administrative state. No one knows the answer and this is for a reason. The main functioning of the modern state falls to a beast that does not exist in the Constitution.
The public mind has never had great love for bureaucracies. Consistent with Max Weber’s worry, they have put society in an impenetrable “iron cage” built of bloodless rationalism, needling edicts, corporatist corruption, and never-ending empire-building checked by neither budgetary restraint nor plebiscite.
Today’s full consciousness of the authority and ubiquity of the administrative state is rather new. The term itself is a mouthful and doesn’t come close to describing the breadth and depth of the problem, including its root systems and retail branches. The new awareness is that neither the people nor their elected representatives are really in charge of the regime under which we live, which betrays the whole political promise of the Enlightenment.
This dawning awareness is probably 100 years late. The machinery of what is popularly known as the “deep state” – I’ve argued there are deep, middle, and shallow layers – has been growing in the US since the inception of the civil service in 1883 and thoroughly entrenched over two world wars and countless crises at home and abroad.
The edifice of compulsion and control is indescribably huge. No one can agree precisely on how many agencies there are or how many people work for them, much less how many institutions and individuals work on contract for them, either directly or indirectly. And that is just the public face; the subterranean branch is far more elusive.
The revolt against them all came with the Covid controls, when everyone was surrounded on all sides by forces outside our purview and about which the politicians knew not much at all. Then those same institutional forces appear to be involved in overturning the rule of a very popular politician whom they tried to stop from gaining a second term.
The combination of this series of outrages – what Jefferson in his Declaration called “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object” – has led to a torrent of awareness. This has translated into political action.
A distinguishing mark of Trump’s second term has been an optically concerted effort, at least initially, to take control of and then curb administrative state power, more so than any executive in living memory. At every step in these efforts, there has been some barrier, even many on all sides.
There are at least 100 legal challenges making their way through courts. District judges are striking down Trump’s ability to fire workers, redirect funding, curb responsibilities, and otherwise change the way they do business.
Even the signature early achievement of DOGE – the shuttering of USAID – has been stopped by a judge with an attempt to reverse it. A judge has even dared tell the Trump administration who it can and cannot hire at USAID.
Not a day goes by when the New York Times does not manufacture some maudlin defense of the put-upon minions of the tax-funded managerial class. In this worldview, the agencies are always right, whereas any elected or appointed person seeking to rein them in or terminate them is attacking the public interest.
After all, as it turns out, legacy media and the administrative state have worked together for at least a century to cobble together what was conventionally called “the news.” Where would the NYT or the whole legacy media otherwise be?
So ferocious has been the pushback against even the paltry successes and often cosmetic reforms of MAGA/MAHA/DOGE that vigilantes have engaged in terrorism against Teslas and their owners. Not even returning astronauts from being “lost in space” has redeemed Elon Musk from the wrath of the ruling class. Hating him and his companies is the “new thing” for NPCs, on a long list that began with masks, shots, supporting Ukraine, and surgical rights for gender dysphoria.
What is really at stake, more so than any issue in American life (and this applies to states around the world) – far more than any ideological battles over left and right, red and blue, or race and class – is the status, power, and security of the administrative state itself and all its works.
We claim to support democracy yet all the while, empires of command-and-control have arisen among us. The victims have only one mechanism available to fight back: the vote. Can that work? We do not yet know. This question will likely be decided by the highest court.
All of which is awkward. It is impossible to get around this US government organizational chart. All but a handful of agencies live under the category of the executive branch. Article 2, Section 1, says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Does the president control the whole of the executive branch in a meaningful way? One would think so. It’s impossible to understand how it could be otherwise. The chief executive is…the chief executive. He is held responsible for what these agencies do – we certainly blasted away at the Trump administration in the first term for everything that happened under his watch. In that case, and if the buck really does stop at the Oval Office desk, the president must have some modicum of control beyond the ability to tag a marionette to get the best parking spot at the agency.
What is the alternative to presidential oversight and management of the agencies listed in this branch of government? They run themselves? That claim means nothing in practice.
For an agency to be deemed “independent” turns out to mean codependency with the industries regulated, subsidized, penalized, or otherwise impacted by its operations. HUD does housing development, FDA does pharmaceuticals, DOA does farming, DOL does unions, DOE does oil and turbines, DOD does tanks and bombs, FAA does airlines, and so on It goes forever.
That’s what “independence” means in practice: total acquiescence to industrial cartels, trade groups, and behind-the-scenes systems of payola, blackmail, and graft, while the powerless among the people live with the results. This much we have learned and cannot unlearn.
That is precisely the problem that cries out for a solution. The solution of elections seems reasonable only if the people we elected actually have the authority over the thing they seek to reform.
There are criticisms of the idea of executive control of executive agencies, which is really nothing other than the system the Founders established.
First, conceding more power to the president raises fears that he will behave like a dictator, a fear that is legitimate. Partisan supporters of Trump won’t be happy when the precedent is cited to reverse Trump’s political priorities and the agencies turn on red-state voters in revenge.
That problem is solved by dismantling agency power itself, which, interestingly, is mostly what Trump’s executive orders have sought to achieve and which the courts and media have worked to stop.
Second, one worries about the return of the “spoils system,” the supposedly corrupt system by which the president hands out favors to friends in the form of emoluments, a practice the establishment of the civil service was supposed to stop.
In reality, the new system of the early 20th century fixed nothing but only added another layer, a permanent ruling class to participate more fully in a new type of spoils system that operated now under the cloak of science and efficiency.
Honestly, can we really compare the petty thievery of Tammany Hall to the global depredations of USAID?
Third, it is said that presidential control of agencies threatens to erode checks and balances. The obvious response is the organizational chart above. That happened long ago as Congress created and funded agency after agency from the Wilson to the Biden administration, all under executive control.
Congress perhaps wanted the administrative state to be an unannounced and unaccountable fourth branch, but nothing in the founding documents created or imagined such a thing.
If you are worried about being dominated and destroyed by a ravenous beast, the best approach is not to adopt one, feed it to adulthood, train it to attack and eat people, and then unleash it.
The Covid years taught us to fear the power of the agencies and those who control them not just nationally but globally. The question now is two-fold: what can be done about it and how to get from here to there?
Trump’s executive order on the Department of Education illustrates the point precisely. His administration is so uncertain of what it does and can control, even of agencies that are wholly executive agencies, listed clearly under the heading of executive agencies, that it has to dodge and weave practical and legal barriers and land mines, even in its own supposed executive pronouncements, even to urge what might amount to be minor reforms.
Whoever is in charge of such a system, it is clearly not the people.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
By
“People are reacting because they hear things about me that aren’t true, characterizations of things I have said that are simply not true. When they hear what I have to say, actually, about vaccines, everybody supports it.”
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been confirmed as Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Within hours, my news feed was populated with angsty articles hand-wringing about the future of vaccines under Kennedy, whom legacy media and the establishment are certain would confiscate life-saving vaccine programs, raising the spectre of mass waves of illness and death.
In particular, this quote from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the only Republican who voted against Kennedy’s confirmation, appeared over and over again:
“I’m a survivor of childhood polio. In my lifetime, I’ve watched vaccines save millions of lives from devastating diseases across America and around the world. I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures, and neither will millions of Americans who credit their survival and quality of life to scientific miracles.”
Yet, I could not find one piece of mainstream coverage of this quote that mentioned the astonishing fact that 98% of polio cases in 2023, the most recent year for which we have full data, were caused by the polio vaccine.
You read that correctly. In 2023, 12 wild polio cases were recorded (six in Afghanistan, six in Pakistan), with a further 524 circulating vaccine-derived cases, mostly throughout Africa. This trend is in keeping with data from the previous several years.
An important contextualising detail, wouldn’t you think?
The cause of this polio resurgence is that the world’s poor are given the oral polio vaccine (OPV), which contains a weakened virus that can replicate in the gut and spread in feces, causing vaccine-derived outbreaks.
People in rich countries get the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), which does not contain live virus and therefore does not carry the risk of spreading the very disease it’s vaccinating against.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and vaccine-promoting organisations say that the way out of the problem is to vaccinate harder, as the argument goes that outbreaks only occur in under-vaccinated communities.
This may be well and good, but the total omission of the fact from media coverage that the goalposts have shifted from eradicating wild polio (not yet complete but nearly there, according to the WHO) to eradicating vaccine-derived polio (the main problem these days) underscores that this is why hardly anyone who knows anything trusts the media anymore.
A member of my extended family has polio. It’s nasty and life-altering and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
That’s why I would hope that any vaccines given would be safe – contracting polio from the supposedly preventative vaccine is the worst-case scenario, second only to death.
This is Kennedy’s expressly stated aim.
“When people actually hear what I think about vaccines, which is common sense, which is vaccines should be tested, they should be safe, everyone should have informed consent,” he said at his confirmation press conference.
“People are reacting because they hear things about me that aren’t true, characterisations of things I have said that are simply not true.
“When they hear what I have to say, actually, about vaccines, everybody supports it.”
Grown-ups who support vaccines can walk and chew gum. From the point of view of the public health establishment, the polio vaccine has prevented millions of cases and has nearly eradicated the disease.
At the same time, the world’s poorest are afflicted with polio outbreaks which we can work to prevent, and the safety of all polio vaccine products on the market should be subject to the rigorous standards applied to all other medicines.
Unless you think that poor people don’t matter, in which case the status quo might suit you fine.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
Police Associations Endorse Conservatives. Poilievre Will Shut Down Tent Cities
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy: When the Economist Becomes More Dangerous Than the Drama Teacher
Pope Francis has died aged 88
Red Deer Justice Centre Grand Opening: Building access to justice for Albertans
-
Alberta10 hours agoGovernments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoPoilievre Campaigning To Build A Canadian Economic Fortress
-
Automotive1 day agoCanadians’ Interest in Buying an EV Falls for Third Year in a Row
-
Entertainment2 days agoPedro Pascal launches attack on J.K. Rowling over biological sex views
-
International9 hours agoHistory in the making? Trump, Zelensky hold meeting about Ukraine war in Vatican ahead of Francis’ funeral
-
conflict2 days agoTrump tells Zelensky: Accept peace or risk ‘losing the whole country’
-
Alberta8 hours agoLow oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances
-
Business8 hours agoIt Took Trump To Get Canada Serious About Free Trade With Itself