Nov 23 - In these past couple of weeks, two important studies have been published that could dramatically increase our understanding of COVID-19.
Adding to the science of how we understand and treat this disease is something that should be welcomed, because properly understood it can save lives.
The only problem is that because the results from these two studies challenge what the media has established as conventional wisdom about the disease, the reports are at best being ignored and at worst being openly distorted by the mainstream media.
This is in my view a dangerous and foolish subjugation of science to politics and it may well end up causing many more unnecessary deaths.
First is the Danish mask study, which was completed several months ago but was only recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. The study took two groups and gave the first group masks to wear with instruction on how they should be used.
The other group was the mask-free control group.
The study found that coronavirus spread within the statistical margin of error in each group.
In other words, wearing the mask did little if anything to control the spread of the virus.
As the wearing of masks is still being mandated across the country and globally, this study should be reported as an important piece of counter-evidence. At the very least it might be expected to invite a rush of similar studies to refute or confirm the results.
However, while mostly ignored by the media, when it was covered the spin on the study was so strange that the conclusion presented was opposite to the findings. For example, the Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline, "Face mask trial didn’t stop coronavirus spread, but it shows why more mask-wearing is needed."
Similarly, a massive new study conducted in Wuhan, China, and published in the respected scientific journal Nature, reports that asymptomatic persons who have tested positive for COVID-19 do not pass on the infection to others.
Considering that mask mandates and lockdowns are all based on the theory that asymptomatic "positive cases" can still pass on the sickness, this is potentially an important piece of information to help plan a more effective response to the virus.
At the least, again, it should stimulate additional, far-reaching studies to either confirm or deny the Wuhan study.
We do know, based on information from widely-accepted sources as the CDC and World Health Organization (WHO), that lockdowns can have a very serious negative effect on society. On July 14th, CDC Director Robert Redfield told a seminar that lockdowns are causing more deaths than COVID-19.
So if there is a way to continue fighting COVID-19 and protecting those most at risk while drastically reducing deaths related to lockdowns, isn’t this worth some consideration? Isn’t this worth at least some further research?
Well, not according to the mainstream media. They have established their narrative and they are not about to budge. The two studies are fatally flawed, they report. Of course that might be the case, but isn’t that an argument to attempt to replicate the studies to prove it?
That would be the scientific approach. Sadly, “trust the science” has come to mean “trust the narrative I support.” That is a very dangerous way of thinking and can prove to be deadly.
This article originally appeared on the Ron Paul Institute website.
Ron Paul is a physician, author and former Republican congressman. Paul also is a two-time Republican pr'esidential candidate and the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in the 1988 U.S. presidential election. His latest book is "Swords into Plowshares." Read Ron Paul's Reports — More Here.
Copyright © 2020 by Ron Paul Institute