Despatch Box Delusions

I'm writing this not as someone who was worked in an advisory role for this and previous governments, and is upset at not getting any invites to Westminster/Whitehall parties last year, but as someone dismayed that anybody with a University education such as the man stood by the Despatch Box yesterday could possibly think anybody (everybody?) is so stupid that they'll believe any of the absurdities he told at PMQs. 

I've been given many elaborate and inconsistent excuses by HE students over the last 20 years of working in HE, but nothing like our PM's desperate attempts to tell the world that a party didn't happen, but if it did (which it didn't), then no rules were broken as he's been assured that the guidance was followed by the people who attended the party which wasn't a party even though it didn't actually happen!

(Un) Masking the Truth

Some users of social media are claiming that a “Stanford University” or “NIH” (part of the USA's Department of Health and Human Services) study has shown that face masks are ineffective against the Covid-19 coronavirus and even harmful. There’s one problem with that claim though. It’s not really a Stanford study or a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study.

OK, there are two problems with that claim: it’s not a Stanford study, it’s not an NIH study, and, in fact, it’s not even really a study. All right, there are three problems with that claim: it’s not a Stanford study, it’s not an NIH study, it’s not really a study, and oh, it didn’t really show that face masks are ineffective against the Covid-19 coronavirus. Check that, there are four problems with that claim: it’s not a Stanford study, it’s not an NIH study, it’s not really a study, it didn’t really show that face masks are ineffective against the Covid-19 coronavirus, and by the way it didn’t really show that face masks are even harmful.

Umm, let’s start again.

Recently, there have been posts on social media, claiming that a “Stanford study”, “Stanford mask”, or a “Stanford face mask study” showed that face masks are ineffective against the Covid-19 coronavirus and may have “devastating health consequences”, and that the same “study” is from the NIH or was supported by the NIH.

But, and it's a big BUT, the sole author of the publication is someone named Baruch Vainshelboim, PhD who is not actually “from Stanford,” when it comes to properly designating from where the study came. It looks like the publication has him listed  as being affiliated with the Cardiology Division at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System and Stanford University. However, that appears to be like a worn out underwear band as Stanford Medicine describe him as a one -year visiting scholar, and that's very different from being a true faculty member.

Also, the publication’s only connection with the NIH is that it can be found on PubMed. PubMed is a database and search engine maintained by the NIH’s National Library of Medicine (NLM). The database includes all articles that are published in a variety of biomedical and life sciences journals.

So rather than being published by, for, in, at, through, on, over, under, or on top of the NIH, the publication entitled “Facemasks in the Covid-19 era: A health hypothesis,” was actually published in a journal called Medical Hypotheses, one of over 5,000 titles that are currently indexed in PubMed which range significantly in type, quality, and focus. Some of the journals in PubMed don’t even publish scientific studies, instead focusing more on other types of papers such as commentaries, review papers, or, in the case of Medical Hypotheses: “theoretical papers.”

Yes, this journal actually published papers “which describe theories, ideas which have a great deal of observational support and some hypotheses where experimental support is yet fragmentary.” Can you imagine being asked or told to eat something with a caveat like “support that the thing is edible and won’t hurt you is fragmentary” or telling you just before a skydive that “the quality checks for parachute have been fragmentary?”

The journal description also states that that Medical Hypotheses will “give novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine open-minded consideration, opening the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals.” Would you feel reassured just before an operation by the surgeon telling you that he/she is "going to try a radical hypothesis that would be rejected by most conventional medical journals?”

After all, Dictionary.com indicates that “a scientific hypothesis is made before testing is done and isn’t based on results. Instead, it is the basis for further investigation.” It also says that hypothesis refers to “a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument,” or “mere assumption or guess.”

Medical Hypotheses is the journal that has published things like “Is there an association between the use of heeled footwear and schizophrenia”, “Ejaculation as a potential treatment of nasal congestion in mature males”, and “Losing weight by defecating at night.” Before you start wearing flip-flops all the time, masturbating furiously when you’ve got a stuffy nose, and sleeping on the toilet bowl, keep in mind that such articles, commentaries, and letters in Medical Hypotheses merely advance hypotheses without necessarily providing enough scientific evidence or any for that matter. After all, how many legitimate doctors will tell you, “hmm, to help us decide what treatment to give you, let’s take a look at Medical Hypotheses?” So if you have a radical idea that would be rejected by other scientific journals and a spare $1850 to pay the journal, you may be able to publish that idea in Medical Hypotheses.

Anyway, back to Vainshelboim’s article (which is not a study) about face masks presents arguments that fly in the face of scientific evidence and does so in highly flawed manner. First, when trying to claim that face masks are not effective against the Covid-19 coronavirus, the article interestingly focuses on studies of other types of respiratory viruses instead. It fails to mention the studies from 2020 that supported the use of face masks in preventing the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV2). As has been repeated over and over again, Covid-19 is not the flu. The SARS-CoV2 is not like influenza and some of the other respiratory viruses that Vainshelboim mentions. It seems to be more transmissible through the air, hence the face mask requirements.

Secondly, the article makes a number of leaps that really are not justified. For example, it claims that “trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia,” and then cites some book chapters without really explaining how exactly these book chapters might support this claim. Is this a bit like claiming that you are an amazing lover and then citing The Joy of Sex?

Keep in mind that wearing a standard face mask is not the same as wearing a fish bowl or solid concrete and a microwave oven around your head. Oxygen and carbon dioxide should be able to move through the face mask material, assuming that you didn’t just take a condom and stretch it over your nose and mouth.

Then the article says, “severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine.” How exactly would a standard face mask, which again allows oxygen to pass through its material, even cause “severe” hypoxemia, which is very low levels of oxygen in the blood, in most healthy people? If your oxygen levels have ever gotten that low, there’s a good chance that you would have already felt lightheaded, short of breath, and like you are going to pass out before experiencing any more longer term problems. This makes the next statement in the article potentially misleading: “low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension.” A person doesn’t just develop conditions like a heart attack (which is apparently myocardial ischemia) or pulmonary hypotension just from wearing a face mask. These are conditions that develop over time from other factors. For example, a person typically has underlying coronary artery disease before suffering a heart attack.  

I'm all for debate and the sharing of information, but it needs to be open, honest and accurate. In this instance, it's surely theoretically possible that someone convinced by the article to not wear face masks, catches and transmits the Covid-19 coronavirus to someone else as a result? The other person could end up suffering or even dying. And that’s not just a hypothesis, given how much the article is getting shared on social media and used an ammunition in a war against mask wearing, it’s a real concern.

Embarrassing Confession or What?

Quite what's wrong with me, I've no idea, but something must be when I agree with Piers Morgan!

Admittedly, he does occasionally stray towards the side of common sense, but it's not exactly something that sane, sensible, people associate with his points of view. 

As a rule, he comes across as a not particularly pleasant character with a penchant for being difficult and contrarian which is probably how he has carved such a successful media career. Nevertheless, it often lands him on the wrong side of the argument and means that he can never be talked down from whichever hill he has chosen to die on, which in this case is everyone’s favourite doe-eyed D-list princess: Meghan Markle. 

As is ever the case, the discussion surrounding Meghan has been turned into a discussion about race. Anyone daring to question the motives of such an obviously ambitious self-aggrandiser has to field a barrage of ludicrous accusations that they dislike her only due to the pigmentation of her skin because there are no unpopular white royals - I mean we could start with Andrew and go from there depending on how monarchistic our base line is... 

Nevertheless, blatant lies about the Royal Family – particularly the suggestion that Meghan and Harry’s son would not receive a title due to his skin colour – are little match for concocted outrage in the arena of public debate. The fact that Archie never was in line for a title at this point vanishes like a snowflake in a blast furnace when up against Meghan’s ‘perceptions’ and ‘lived experiences’. 

But it was not merely the smears of racism where nobody and therefore everybody was put under the spotlight of speculation Meghan was also supposedly suicidal. She didn’t want to live any more. So cruel had the world been to her – bagging a prince, becoming part of the world’s most glamorous monarchy, and having her life’s wishes served up on a platter – she had not realised such a lifestyle comes with responsibilities. Spoon-fed Disney and hollow to the core – a prerequisite of modern stardom – she saw the position as a platform for magazine exclusives and a brand name with which to peddle meaningless modern PR slogans such as ‘body positivity’, ‘wellbeing’ and ’empowerment’.

And in amongst expressing his doubts that dear old misunderstood, victimised, Megan might not be the most credible of interviewees, Piers Morgan dared question her claim to suicidal thoughts, which when we're being encouraged to believe all victims, is apparently tantamount to heresy. The very idea that someone he called a "Pinocchio Princess" could be conflating a period of depression (which assumes that there is at least some basis to her claim and its not completely fabricated) into an existential battle in order to court sympathy and bolster her status as victim extraordinaire hardly comes into play. 

Morgan is (very) often wrong, but in this instance, I'm with him. If Megan is going to sit in front of one the most high-profile women in the world giving a 2 hour TV interview claiming to desire privacy, whining that "The Firm" had confiscated her passport but was still able to take private jets, saying she hadn't seen her sister for 20 years despite attending the latter's graduation, that she'd "never Googled Harry and didn't know who he was before their first date " (who on this planet DOES believe that!? ) then why should the rest of it be believed?

Harry, has a seagull dropped what Piers Morgan said was the Bovine version of what I've been saying on my dress?