Skip to main content

Sudden Cardiac Arrests in Young Athletes and Mask Myths

By November 20, 2023Commentary

It is not good to lie to people, and it is even worse to try to justify the lies by making up or distorting research.  The epidemic has provided lots of opportunities for both.  I have said recently that I am tired of looking at mask research.  Somewhat absurdly, we still see people trying to push research that they claim shows that masks made a big difference in community transmission.  This despite the obvious fact that they made no difference whatsoever, since 90% of the population, including all the mask wearers, has now been infected.  This study from Utah is equally idiotic, first in making the most grotesquely basic error of equating presence of a mask mandate with mask wearing.  If you aren’t actually studying fully adjusted analyses of infection rates between people wearing a mask and those not wearing a mask, your study is complete bullshit.  And this one is.  So no point in going any further in pointing out multiple other defects in the research.  (Medrxiv Paper)

And then there are my friends the vaccine safety nuts.  These people are convinced, with zero evidence, that vaccines have killed millions of people and are responsible for every health problem anyone is encountering.  They literally are delusional nuts, fed by people like Alex Berenstein and Robert Malone, who both are making money by shilling this garbage.  One of the claims was that vaxed athletes were dropping dead of heart attacks in record numbers.  Unfortunately for these despicable leeches, the actual research shows a decline in sudden cardiac deaths among athletes.  This study examined such deaths over a 20 year period in college athletes.  Hmmm, who would have thunk it, the rates have gone down, including during the epidemic.  The reason for the decline is likely the presence of better life-saving equipment, like defibrillators, at sports events, and better screening of athletes, as there is now a heightened awareness that many people have heart flaws that only show up under stress.  Well, I am sure the evidence won’t deter the VSNs, but at least you have the facts.  (AHA Study)

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • William Falzone says:

    I’ve read the Cochrane Review and think I understand its conclusions and limitations. However, I’m unaware of a study that supports mask proponents’ assertion that masking helps slow the spread of respiratory viruses. Has a (valid) study been conducted that either proves or disproves the efficacy of masking, under controlled conditions. I’d like to separate the two questions I think important; (1) If worn properly, under controlled conditions, does an N95 mask provide protection?; and (2) Under everyday use with normal wear and tear (removing the mask to eat, drink, etc.) does an N95 mask provide protection?

    The Cochrane Review seems to me to answer (2) above with a “More Likely Than Not, No”, but I’ve yet to see a study that answers “Yes” or even “More Likely Than Not, Yes” to question (1). [I’m a CPA – More Likely Than Not means to me better than 50/50].

    Thanks

  • joethenonclimatescientist says:

    William
    I am also a CPA – the study I am most familiar with is the Kansas mask mandate by county vs the no mask mandate by county study. That study is one that was highly cited.

    I obtained the excel spreadsheet from the KU center for policy analysis (?) – I am writing from memory since the spread sheet is at my office. Several points stood out in the data
    A) The non mask mandate counties were almost all rural, often with very low population densities. The new case rates were often zero for several days, to even 10-14 days, then large jumps in cases, which indicates most of the transmission was occurring where masks would not be worn such as at home.
    B) the mask mandated counties had fairly constant infection rates.
    C) toward the end of the study period, (the published study period) the gap started to close. The excel spread sheet provided to me had a few days post the end date of the published study period.
    D) I did a spot check of the infection rates for approximately 20 counties (out of the 99 counties) and the gap between the mask mandated counties vs the non mask mandated counties had not only closed but reversed such that the infection rate for the mask mandated counties was higher. I had contacted KU center for policy analysis via email using the same contact person to ask if they were going to update the study for some period after the end of the original study period. I received no response.
    This is why I considered the study to be borderline academic fraud. The study authors knew the published results were no longer valid, yet published their results anyway knowing there were post study data that invalidated their conclusions.

Leave a comment