Editorial (Continued)

They DID publish it! Go Figure.

So, I was surprised — the Bloomington Herald Times DID publish my CoVid-1984 Editorial. The editor told me “I feel the opinion page is a place to share all sides of debates. Readers sometimes criticize me for publishing questionable ideas, but we wouldn't debate those ideas if I never allowed them to be presented in the first place.”

Of course there were some very negative responses:

https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/opinion/letters/2021/09/04/tim-ellisons-no-viral-expert-letter-writer-says/5673781001/

https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/opinion/columns/2021/09/04/guest-column-ellisons-covid-stance-refuted-questions-answered/5674158001/

I would have liked to respond to them, but the H-T, as many papers, limits columns and letters to once per month from individuals. So, I submitted a response to the I.U. Student Paper, which I’m also SURE will not be published! Submission below:

Re David Underwood’s 04 Sept Herald Times (H-T) Letter, “Ellison’s views questioned”. Yes, while my expertise is not virology, my Engineering/Physics practice provides me with experience discerning “Models, Stories and Narratives” (which can say anything, e.g., those 1000’s to 100,000’s percent wrong Imperial College of London Models) from Science and DATA, and the understanding that science is the practice of repeatedly testing Models with DATA.

I thank Craig Stewart for his H-T Guest Column, “Ellison's COVID stance refuted, questions answered”, that wonderfully demonstrates Belief in Models, Stories and Experts (Religion) vs. Trust in DATA (Science).

Regarding face masks I asked:

“Can you please present clear DATA proving the effectiveness of masking?”

And stated:

“Of the 14 Randomized Control Trials (RCT, gold standard) three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence, that masks might be useful; the other eleven suggest that masks are either useless or actually counterproductive.”

Craig Stewart “refuted” this with an aptly-named, in authors’ words, “Narrative Review”: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7848583/#r31) which:

• admits lack of any clear evidence proving the efficacy of mask usage from RCT’s;

• lists a myriad of studies “suggesting” (“suggest” is used 22 times, “prove” or “proof” 0 times) the usefulness of masks, and

• presents an untested Model showing how masking Might affect Re. (100% Model; 0% DATA); and

• and does not investigate whether the myriad of instituted “mask mandates” have proven to be (NOT!) effective.

A review of RCT’s (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article) concluded “evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

The additional recent Danish masking RCT specific to CoVid (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/) stated “the difference observed was not statistically significant”.

Perhaps that is why as of 10 Sept ‘21 Denmark will rescind ALL Covid “mandates” and “testing”, and live life as normal humans.

The Danish are “following-the-science” (Trust in DATA) rather than the “Follow-the-Science Religion” (Belief in Narratives, Models and Experts). DATA always trumps Models in Science.

The times of Galileo (Inquisitions, Dogma, Narratives, Imprimaturs [Censorship] fear campaigns, and ineffective “economy-killing” mandates) are over; now is the time for Science.