Skip to main content

Update on the Fargo Mask Study

By February 16, 2022Commentary

It is because of evidence like this that the mask religionists are having to stop abusing children.  Updated file from the Fargo area, clearly showing at best no difference in mask optional, West Fargo, versus mask mandate, Fargo Public, schools, in the same area, different .  Hard to find serious confounders here.  This is being written up into a paper by the researchers and will get published, just not by the CDC.

Join the discussion 7 Comments

  • WS says:

    Yes I have been following this study on Twitter. I have to admit Dr. Hoeg has been a great resource to shed light on not only masks, but she has also been asking questions about the vaccine for children that need to be asked and explored. I have really appreciated her commentary and sharing insights from Europe, especially Denmark when it comes to policy either mask wearing or vaccines. I look forward to when everything comes out.

  • Chuck says:

    Ummmm…. If I’m reading the chart correctly, West Fargo percentage exceeded Fargo for a few days along the way in October and December. But primarily had far lower percentage of cases. I think it is obvious from this data that masks create worse results. No claim could be made for no difference!!! This clearly shows masking produces WORSE results.


  • joe Kosanda says:

    Kansas mask Study

    KU (center for policy analysis?) sent me the raw data file in excel when I requested the data (they had a link to the excel file). This excel file listed every Kansas county and listed the number of new cases each day.

    My first observation was that the non mask mandated counties cases were very clustered. ie several days with zero cases the non mask mandated counties, , then one or two cases with 5-10 cases. That indicated to me that the cases were arising in situations where masks would not every be worn (at home, for example)

    My second observation was that the infection rates prior to the mandate in the non mandated counties was much lower so the surge in the mask counties was partly due to the normal catch up

    My third observation was that toward the end of the study period, the gap was closing. I emailed the authors of the study to see if they had updated their study for a time period after the end of their study. I did not receive a response.

    I did a partial attempt to ascertain if the infection rates were similar. My spot check of approx 7-8 mask and non mask mandate counties should little or no difference – oct/Nov 2020 time frame.

    The failure to update the study for the 4-6 weeks post end of their study indicated to me that they knew the answer.

  • quentin49 says:

    Is there a link to this study or story? I am very familiar with Fargo and West Fargo – they are two distinct cities in many ways. Fargo being the “left wing” of North Dakota.

    • Kevin Roche says:

      It is a study done by Betsy? Hoeg, you can follow her on Twitter. I don’t know if the local papers have written stories on it or not.

  • joe Kosanda says:

    Kentucky vax plus natural immunity vs natural immunity only study

    Since we are on the subject of bad studies, the CDC promoted the Kentucky study stating that the an unvaxed person who was previously infected was 2x-2.5x more likely to more likely to be infected than a previously infected person who was also vaxed.

    Several problems with the study
    A) they had basic math error when calculated the probability.
    B) they used an invalid denominator in the formula. Instead of using the entire population of previously infected individuals, the created a “control group” to use as the denominator. That “control group” supposedly represented the entire population, though the data was not presented to ascertain its validity.
    c) the study period cut off at the end of Aug 2021 – noticably short of the 6 months when vax effectiveness begins to drop off

    I emailed the contact person with the CDC to get clarification on the data (at that point , just asking for clarification) I did receive a response to that email.

    Subsequently, I twice emailed the cdc contact person to get clarification on the computational math error and the basis for the “control group. I also sent an email to the author of the study via linkedin. I did not receive answers from any of those emails.

    Note – I am not opposed to vaxing

  • joe Kosanda says:

    Kevin – the person I emailed regarding the Kentucky reinfection with /without vax study was Conner Glick Epidemiologist at Kentucky Department for Public Health. the person I emailed with the CDC was alyson cavanuaugh. I will forward copies of my emails to you

Leave a comment