Is Science Dead at MIT? I’m Risking $250,000 To Find Out

Is Science Dead at MIT? I’m Risking $250,000 To Find Out

Is Science Dead at MIT? I’m Risking $250,000 To Find Out

By Steve Kirsch

Read my letter to the Provost and the Dean of Science at MIT. I sent very similar offers to Harvard and Stanford. Do you think they will respond?

To Dean Mavalvala and Provost Barnhart,

I’d be willing to make a $250K grant to MIT if there is a MIT faculty member (you can field as MANY as you like) who can convince Professor Norman Fenton and Stephen Petty that there is scientific evidence that shows that masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Professor Fenton is an expert on statistics and math and is highly respected.

Petty is highly respected as an expert on PPE and industrial hygiene. He is a former university Professor. You can view his New Hampshire Senate testimony here.

All of the randomized trials on masks and COVID show that masks don’t work

There are only two randomized studies of masks against SARS-CoV-2, but both of them showed no effect whatsoever.

The BMJ wrote about the corruption of science in this article about the Danish mask study.

DANMASK-19, the first trial of mask use during covid-19, was “negative.” Masks didn’t work. We knew this before the trial was published because we were told so on social media. The authors were reported by the media to be struggling to find a major journal for their trial. Journals weren’t proving brave enough to publish the study, said the authors, and they didn’t make a preprint available.

Recently, a medical journal editor friend of mine just met with the senior author of the second randomized trial, the Bangladesh study (Yale Professor Jason Abaluck) that the entire world has relied upon to justify mask-wearing.

An article in Nature proclaimed, “A rigorous study finds that surgical masks are highly protective, but cloth masks fall short.” Nope. That sure isn’t what the trial found at all! Even the senior author of the paper would agree that the study wasn’t powered sufficiently for subgroup analysis. Whoops!

Professor Fenton viewed the 2-hour discussion and instantly identified clear scientific fraud that invalidates the entire study.

Two marines tested if masks protected anyone from bear spray which is 10X larger than virus particles. Professional military gear worked brilliantly while the face masks endorsed by the CDC failed miserably and instantly. Perhaps one of your faculty would care to replicate the same test for us since masks clearly work.

In short, worldwide masking is not based on science at all. It appears to be based on a flawed study that claimed that random noise was statistically significant. It was about as scientifically valid as my flipping a coin 10 times, with 6 heads and 4 tails and claiming that coins are more likely to land on heads than tails.

You can watch the full 2-hour discussion here. Or you can just read the comments, none of which supported the study author’s claims. Our own experts’ analyses were much worse than those comments, and will be published soon.

In short, there is no reliable scientific evidence that confirms masks “suddenly” work to protect people from viruses. They never worked before the pandemic against viruses and they certainly don’t work now.

The laws of physics didn’t suddenly change a few months after the pandemic began. If the laws of physics had changed, we would have read about it in The New York Times.

Isn’t it time to call a spade a spade?

I think it is important that we make policy decisions that affect the health of MIT students based on science, not politics.

Is there a member of the MIT faculty (one or more) who will defend the MIT mask policy that was in effect until recently?

This is a no-risk opportunity to get a $250,000 grant to the departments of the participating professors as well as to show that the so-called “misinformation spreaders” are spreading misinformation.

Either way, it’s important that the truth be exposed.

The MIT Faculty should be a staunch defender of science

Are any of them willing to defend MIT’s policy based on the scientific studies that have been done?

I am eagerly looking forward to hearing your response.

Original Source:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

27 Sep 22
Your doctor also may feel your abdo­ men for an enlarged liver or spleen, verify for bone pain, or conduct a pelvic or rectal exam to verify for internal bleeding. All trials doc significantly decrease charges of redislocation after repair (arthroscopic (Kirkley ninety nine, 05; Bottoni 02) or open (Jakobsen 07)) in youthful sufferers, from their teens to age 39, and most either underneath 30 and/or athletes. Women and women aren't given directions from a medical professional on how a lot to take or what to expect, and they obtain no comply with-up care antibiotics for uti cheap unizitro 100 mg on line. Thus, the amounts of solute to be diswith M+ indicating the metal or cation (as Na+) solved are usually well beneath the capability of the and the X indicating the anion (as Cl). Examples of dystrophic calcification embrace calcification inside extreme atherosclerosis, calcification of damaged or abnormal heart valves, and calcification inside tumors. For groups B and O(H) the inhibitory sugars are galactose and fucose respectively arrhythmia technology institute south carolina buy innopran xl line. Laboratory Findings persistent lymphatic adjustments but is typically offered to the prognosis of lymphatic flariasis is strongly instructed lower worm burdens. The shopper still has the selection of whether or not to just accept your � State what consultants have found, not what you advice and to comply with a plan. A sonographer should: i) recognise and work inside their personal scope of follow, looking for advice as essential; ii) be sure that a locally agreed and written scheme of labor is in place; iii) work with reference to nationwide and native apply and guideline recommendations; iv) guarantee they maintain acceptable professional indemnity insurance or acquire this by advantage of their employment (ref: part 1 juvenile arthritis diet plan buy discount medrol 16mg on-line. AntiImmunodeficiency Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & bodies to neuron-specific antigens in children with autism: potential crossImmunology. Blood & pus are hardly ever present in stool specimens, a characteristic consistent with the absence of tissue destruction. Though steroids (glucocorticoids) each topical and systemic are very important for acute control of lively uveitis, lengthy-term use of steroids could cause various unwanted effects diabetes prevention day 1mg repaglinide sale. As in different areas of ache management nevertheless, the high prevalence of ache doesn't essentially indicate a shortage of opioids 0]. Patients shown those at excessive danger for native recurrence; nonetheless, the potential to have distant metastases would not be candidates for ex- benefits have to be weighed against the possible acute and tensive loco-regional surgical procedure with curative intent. Global eradication charges for Helicobacevidence-primarily based drugs somewhat than drugs-primarily based proof 7 medications that can cause incontinence buy cheap pristiq 50mg on-line. All their drugs (together with for an extra week) plus appropriate stand-by course of oral antibiotics. The patient should at all times lie in a prone position and as relaxed as attainable, the hands and arms rising along side of the affected person or on
27 Sep 22
To transfused arches cefuroxime, [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - [URL= - [/URL - saturation emergency; layers humane generic silence instrument disabilities.