The Sit-Com and Game Show Entertainment Industry
Shouldn’t Be Relied on to Conduct Scientific Tests
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal
July 29, 2020
I recently watched a video forwarded to me via email. Its title was “Masks vs No Masks.” As soon as I saw the NBC logo, I immediately knew how the test was going to turn out. The theatrical news media really is that predictable.
The local KHQ television host, in Spokane, Washington had set up an experiment in what looked like a lab setting where he proceeded to speak, sing and cough at Petri dishes at various distances from his face both with a mask on and without a mask. The Petri dishes were then incubated in a warmer and the scary bacterial colonies that resulted from the “Without Mask” sample set was provided as proof that face masks work to prevent the spread of virus particles.
While the test setting looked official and “scientific” that test was the furthest thing from science that it could be.
The “tests” in that theatrical news video were certainly not controlled, or scientific. They only used one sample subject; not multiple. They did not have a “control” sample for any of the tests and were only counting alleged bacterial growth in a Petri dish, not viral replication in a human host (hence: they were comparing apples to oranges). For example, bacteria multiplying rapidly in a Petri dish in an incubator isn't even a “real world” scenario for bacteria - much less so for virus particles. Viruses don't behave in the same way as bacteria. A small amount of bacteria hitting a food source under ideal conditions with the right amount of heat and moisture content will grow into a large bacterial colony in a short amount of time. This is why bread rises in just a couple of hours. Viral particles, however, are not alive in the same sense as bacteria are and require a whole different criteria for multiplication - such as successfully infecting cells, successfully dividing, then being effectively shed - all while dodging the host's immune system response. These conditions present many more roadblocks to viral particles for successfully multiplying than the ease with which bacteria have in the relative comfort of a Petri dish. Ergo, the whole test appeared to be set up to support their fore-ordained position: authoritarian, big-government command and control enforcing of non-scientifically vetted face mask mandates. That is not science, that is politics.
The only thing that test proved was the fact that the typical human body is a literal bacterial zoo. Even a normal, healthy person has more bacteria and virus particles in the day-to-day composition of their body than the entire totality of their human cells. Ponder that for a moment...
With all that said, I have in my hands actual peer-reviewed studies published in prestigious medical journals that show to prevent community viral spread, non-N95 mask use is negligible at best. Even without a mask, substantial viral load to create measurable results - much less actual infection in a human host - is difficult to achieve in both the lab and real world scenarios when considering the random spread from coughing and sneezing and the perils a virus particle must face in the environment such as natural UV light and humidity and temperature variations.
One study from South Korea also showed how homemade cloth masks and those cheap “surgical” cloth masks (which state in the fine print that they are only rated for dust particles - not for medical use) are essentially useless in preventing any kind of spread of anything infectious. See front page picture in this edition of FFJ, showing the warning label on face masks sold at a local grocery store.
Peer-reviewed studies in medical journals are much more detailed and have better quality information than a theatrical news media presentation. Long story short, the NBC puff piece wasn't a real medical study and certainly not indicative of real world scenarios for viruses - though they tried to extrapolate critical viral load from exponential bacterial growth. That third-grade science fair mentality wouldn't survive a medical journal peer review for a second. Bacterial spread and growth - which is what was “tested” in that theatrical news production - is worlds away from viral replication. The parameters and subsequent extrapolation from bacterial growth to critical viral load in that particular theatrical news “medical test” wouldn't make it out of the gate in a medical peer-reviewed setting. I stop short of calling it a carnival trick - but that isn't too far off from what it was.
Society is being trained, like so many of Pavlov's dogs, to accept face masks - forever - when even the World Health Organization admits there is scant peer-reviewed, objective scientific evidence to support that position (I have that report in my hands, too). These amateurish theatrical news pieces don't even come close to that level of qualitative science. None of us should waste our time even considering them since they all start off with a preconceived conclusion then build the “test” parameters to create an implied outcome that supports those preconceived conclusions. We really shouldn't rely on an industry that creates mindless Jr.-High-level sit-coms and game shows to produce objective scientific studies under the guise of “news.”
For those in the public who want to believe cheap surgical masks, homemade cloth and bandana masks are effective at preventing community viral spread, that's fine with me; it's their constitutional right. Just know that idea at this point in time is based entirely on a subjective philosophical position - not evidence-based, objective scientific research. In fact, the U.S. CDC recently issued a study which reviewed all available data on medical and surgical masks like those worn by the public, and stated that they found no evidence that face masks reduce viral spread in respiratory illnesses. (Ref. story on page one for the quotes and web links).
Therefore, mask use should be a solely personal, voluntary decision - not one mandated by an ignorant government making ill-informed, knee-jerk decisions with little to no qualitative scientific data to back them up. We should expect more from our governments and the data they use to make decisions on our behalf; decisions that, at the end of the day, have the propensity to actually do more harm to us than good.
