By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker
Get a load of this before you believe the next so-called health expert when it comes to Covid19:
Artificially sweetened drinks may not be a healthier option after all, with a new study finding an increased risk of heart issues.
Results stemmed from the French NutriNet-Santé study with over 104,000 participants and their dietary records, completed every six months, according to a news release. Findings were published in the Journal of American College of Cardiology.
“Compared to non-consumers, both higher consumers of sugary drinks and of artificially sweetened beverages had higher risks of first incident cardiovascular disease, after taking into account a wide range of confounding factors,” study authors wrote.
Oh really? How do you validate those “dietary records”? Is there some means to know if the reporting is accurate?
Masks work because we have a computer model that says they do! — Same “scientists.”
Said “mask studies”:
- Has the “subjects” wearing them for a few minutes, or uses a machine to “simulate” breathing. A person doing shift work or a kid in school is wearing them for hours. None of the physical dynamics (evaporation of moisture, accumulation and replication of bacteria, etc) are accounted for because the trial is intentionally too short. It’s too short because actually instrumenting someone in a workplace or school is impossible. So those factors, which wildly change and in fact are recognized in OSHA regulations that mandate changing of said masks when used for particulate exposure in an industrial setting are ignored.
- Does not capture or measure anything except in front of the mask. Which, for other than N95s, flows a tiny fraction of the total airflow because a gas will preferentially take the path of least resistance which is around the unsealed part of the face. They then show “greatly reduced” particle emissions which arose because they only looked at the small fraction that went through the mask instead of around it.
- Intentionally ignores transport. The entire point of wearing a mask in any environment is to capture and sequester whatever either comes in (protecting you) or goes out (protecting others.) As soon as you move the capturing device from one place to another and continue to use it you expose everything and everyone who happens to come into contact with it to whatever it happened to capture. If any of that is released back into the environment then you have made the problem worse rather than better. Exactly zero “studies” control for any of this and that is intentional because if they did there would not only be no benefit possible the only outcome would be a finding of conclusive, massive harm at the level of intentional and malicious infection of others by operation of law or ordinance. Let’s put this very simply: Unless every person treats their mask once worn for as little as 30 seconds exactly as they treat a Kleenex that they just sneezed into you’re spreading disease, not protecting people from it.
- With one exception, which in fact showed increased emissions from paper and cloth masks over an unmasked control, focuses only on “droplets” and ignores particles under ~50um, which is the limit of visualization with the naked eye. This, despite universal recognition, including by the CDC, EPA, OSHA and everyone else that what is called “PM2.5”, or particles under 2.5um, are the ones of particular concern as they are able to get deep into the lungs without being trapped and consumed or expelled by the body’s mechanical defenses. This is especially relevant for a virus that infects the lungs on a direct basis rather than the upper respiratory tract.
There’s much more but this is plenty; at some point you just throw up your hands in disgust at what is obviously not science but rather flat-out hucksterism and fraud; the alleged “publication” of papers and “work” arising from a circumstance where you get accolades for a specific result and either no more grant money or even being fired if you produce something that does not back up the desired narrative.
We did the same thing, by the way, with AIDS, PCP and Bactrim when Dr. Anthony Fauci vociferously opposed guidance for the use of Bactrim in AIDS patients at risk of PCP until he could have conclusive random clinical trials and 30,000 AIDS sufferers died as a result. We later found exactly what was expected — that Bactrim worked — which we knew was likely because we discovered years earlier that it worked in another immune-compromised population — specifically, leukemia patients.
We spent decades with “medical experts” telling us that smoking cigarettes did not cause lung cancer; a laughable proposition.
We spent decades with “medical experts” telling us that we should eat processed carbohydrates and vegetable-based oils in preference to animal products such as steak, chicken, pork, cheese and eggs and that both vegetable and hydrogenated oils were perfectly safe. In fact they remain on the shelves of every single grocery store today. The result was an explosion of diabetes, obesity and heart disease. We shoved said products into our children via “school lunches” and saw their rates of obesity, diabetes and even heart disease skyrocket. Despite the fact that the Inuit had near-zero rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease while consuming a diet ridiculously high in animal fat since they ate seal as their primary protein and caloric source, and that when they gained access to our mass-machine-processed “foods” their diabetes, obesity and cardiac disease rates skyrocketed we maintained this knowing, intentional fiction and over a million Americans die every year as a direct and proximate result.
And now we have this — alleged evidence that these artificially-produced, man-made substances are dangerous to your heart. So says the alleged “scientists.” By the very same logic they use to tell you to wear a mask these substances must be immediately banned, right? After all the seller of such a substance is worse than someone with Covid in that they’re deliberately raising your risk of death! The person with Covid might not know they have it, and thus their transmission would be unintentional while this is outright malice!
Oh, wait — we’re going to ban those artificial sweeteners right along with your bacon, eggs, steak (don’t worry, you can have an “impossible” chemical substitute at twice the price that is allegedly “safe”), pork roasts and more. At the same time all that nice processed cereal is “part of a complete breakfast“, which the government allows them to say in advertising aimed at children even when laced with sugar.
Uh, I think not.
That’s the kindest word for it. I’ve got some more that are likely more-accurate than that.