{"id":1426203,"date":"2022-04-08T17:44:46","date_gmt":"2022-04-08T21:44:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1426203"},"modified":"2022-04-08T17:45:03","modified_gmt":"2022-04-08T21:45:03","slug":"famed-bangladesh-mask-study-excluded-crucial-data","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/famed-bangladesh-mask-study-excluded-crucial-data\/","title":{"rendered":"Famed Bangladesh Mask Study Excluded Crucial Data"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">14<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Ffamed-bangladesh-mask-study-excluded-crucial-data%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1426203&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p><span>By James D. Agresti<\/span><br \/><span>April 8, 2022<\/span><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/mask_developing_country.png\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>With one exception, every <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justfacts.com\/news_face_masks_deadly_falsehoods#strong\">gold standard<\/a> study of masks in community settings has <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justfacts.com\/news_face_masks_deadly_falsehoods#gold\">failed to find<\/a> that they slow the spread of contagious respiratory diseases. The outlier is a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=Bangladesh+Mask+Study&#038;num=100&#038;lr=&#038;safe=images&#038;hl=en&#038;as_qdr=all&#038;source=lnt&#038;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A6%2F1%2F2021%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F7%2F2022&#038;tbm=\">widely<\/a> cited <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">study<\/a> run in Bangladesh during the Covid-19 pandemic, and some of its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/26\/opinion\/do-masks-work-for-covid-prevention.html\">authors<\/a> claim it proves that mask mandates \u201cor strategies like handing out masks at churches and other public events\u2014could save thousands of lives each day globally and hundreds each day in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In reality, the authors altered their study to exclude the data that could prove or disprove that very claim. This is a blatant violation of research ethics, and it biases the study to hide the harms of masks, which are far more <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justfacts.com\/news_face_masks_deadly_falsehoods#harms\">common and serious<\/a> than portrayed by governments and media outlets.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Study Design<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Bangladesh mask study, published by the journal <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">Science<\/a><\/em> in December 2021, was a \u201ccluster-randomized controlled trial.\u201d In plain language:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full\/10.1111\/1471-0528.15199\">randomized controlled trials<\/a> (RCTs) are studies in which people are randomly assigned to receive or not receive a certain treatment, like wearing a mask. This allows the study to control for every possible confounding factor, something that \u201cis not possible with any other study design.\u201d Thus, clinical research guides call RCTs the \u201cgold standard.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/530027a\">cluster RCTs<\/a> involve giving \u201cthe same treatment\u201d to people who interact with one another, whether it be households, villages, workplaces, etc. This is useful for studies on <a href=\"https:\/\/bmjopen.bmj.com\/content\/5\/4\/e006577\">masks<\/a> because the \u201cprevention of one infection in an individual can prevent a chain of subsequent transmission\u201d to others.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In short, the basic study design was ideally suited to determine if masks work, but as will be shown, the execution and interpretation are not.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Excluding the Death Data<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As required by research ethics, the authors of the Bangladesh mask study published a <a href=\"https:\/\/osf.io\/bjnvr\/\">pre-analysis plan<\/a> explaining how their RCT would be conducted and what it would measure. Pre-analysis plans are a tool to prevent biased or dishonest researchers from changing the goal posts after results begin to pour in. Per the journal <em><a href=\"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/epirev\/article\/21\/1\/7\/427240\">Epidemiological Reviews<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>In designing the protocol of any clinical trial conducted today, there would be a requirement that the endpoints and case definitions be clearly laid out in advance. In fact, regulatory authorities hold the investigators to these predetermined endpoints to avoid what is sometimes termed \u201cdata dredging,\u201d or looking for those outcomes for which significant differences would be found.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Likewise, an article from the World Bank\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.worldbank.org\/impactevaluations\/a-pre-analysis-plan-checklist\">Development Research Group<\/a> explains that the primary reason for pre-analysis plans \u201cis to avoid many of the issues associated with data mining and specification searching by setting out in advance exactly the specifications that will be run and with which variables.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/osf.io\/bjnvr\/\">pre-analysis plan<\/a> for the Bangladesh mask study states that it will measure \u201chospitalizations and mortality,\u201d but these measures are completely absent from the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">study results<\/a>. This is a flagrant breach of research ethics, and it obscures the only data that can objectively prove whether masks save or cost lives on net.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Import of the Death Data<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>To accurately measure the impact of masking or any other medical intervention on death, one has to measure actual deaths\u2014not some other variable. This is because measuring whether masks prevent C-19 infections, as the Bangladesh study does, doesn\u2019t measure how many people died from C-19 or any of the lethal risks of masks identified in medical journals, such as:<\/p>\n<p>Only RCTs that measure deaths can capture the net effects of all such factors. That\u2019s why medical journals call \u201call-cause mortality\u201d in RCTs:<\/p>\n<p>Unlike other data which can be easily manipulated through <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justfacts.com\/immigration#crime_media_statistics\">statistical tampering<\/a>, all-cause mortality in RCTs is straightforward and solid. If an RCT is large enough and properly conducted, a <a href=\"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full\/10.1111\/1471-0528.15199\">simple tally<\/a> of all deaths among people who receive and don\u2019t receive a treatment proves whether the treatment saves more lives than it takes. This gets more complicated for cluster RCTs, but it is still a clear-cut process.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Excuses<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Because the lead and final authors of a clinical study are <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1769438\/\">most responsible<\/a> for it, Just Facts asked Yale economics professors <a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.som.yale.edu\/jasonabaluck\/\">Jason Abaluck<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.som.yale.edu\/mushfiqmobarak\/\">Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak<\/a> why they flouted their pre-analysis plan to measure deaths. As documented in this <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justfacts.com\/document\/bangladesh_mask_study_correspondence.pdf\">full record<\/a> of the email exchange, they gave counterfactual answers and then failed to reply after they painted themselves in a corner.<\/p>\n<p>In a key part of the exchange, Abaluck claimed:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Collecting mortality data would have required us to revisit every household at endline in order to survey them (we only collected blood from the small subset of households symptomatic during our study period). Given the nationwide lockdown that went into effect, another round of revisits would have been prohibitively expensive and complicated, and we prioritized the other outcome variables where we had much better hope of being statistically powered.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Directly quoting the authors\u2019 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.poverty-action.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/Mask_RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.pdf\">working paper<\/a>, Just Facts asked:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Given that your team was \u201cable to collect follow-up symptom data\u201d from \u201c98%\u201d of the individuals in the study, why would they need to \u201crevisit every household at endline to survey them\u201d?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Likewise, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.poverty-action.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/Mask_RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.pdf\">working paper<\/a> reveals that their study \u201csurveyed all reachable participants about Covid-related symptoms\u201d and then used the data to calculate that masks reduce the risk of \u201cCovid-like symptoms.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>During the very same surveys, they could have easily asked the participants if anyone in their household died. In fact, the authors may have done that, because they <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justfacts.com\/document\/bangladesh_mask_study_correspondence.pdf\">wouldn\u2019t answer<\/a> these questions:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Did you collect mortality data during any part of the study before the endline? If so, would you share it?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Just Facts asked those straightforward questions twice, but the authors did not reply.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Other Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Beyond excluding the death data, the authors engaged in other actions that reflect poorly on their integrity. One of the worst is touting their findings with far more certainty than warranted by the actual evidence. For example, some of the authors wrote a New York Times <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/26\/opinion\/do-masks-work-for-covid-prevention.html\">op-ed<\/a> declaring that \u201cmasks work,\u201d a claim undercut by the following facts from their own study:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">study\u2019s<\/a> \u201cprimary outcome,\u201d a positive blood test for Covid-19 antibodies, found that less than 1% of the participants caught C-19, including 0.68% in villages where people were pressured to wear masks, and 0.76% in villages that were not. This is a total difference of 0.08 percentage points in a study of more than 300,000 people.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">paper<\/a> lays down 4,000 words before it <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">reveals<\/a> the sampling margins of error in the results above, which show with 95% confidence that:\n<ul>\n<li>surgical masks reduced the relative risk of catching symptomatic C-19 by as much as 22% to not at all.<\/li>\n<li>cloth masks reduced the risk of catching symptomatic C-19 by as much as 23% or increased the risk by as much as 8%.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.acpjournals.org\/doi\/10.7326\/M20-6817\">Not statistically significant<\/a>\u201d is the common term used to describe study results that aren\u2019t totally positive or totally negative throughout the full margin of error, like the results above. Yet, the authors skip this fact in their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/26\/opinion\/do-masks-work-for-covid-prevention.html\">op-ed<\/a> and bury it in their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">paper<\/a>, writing at the end of an unrelated paragraph that it showed \u201cno statistically significant effect for cloth masks.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">analysis<\/a> doesn\u2019t quantify any of the uncertainty caused by the fact that they only tested 3%, or 10,790 of the study\u2019s 342,126 participants. This tiny sample may not reflect the other 97% because:\n<ul>\n<li>the study didn\u2019t attempt to test people for Covid-19 unless the \u201cowner of the household\u2019s primary phone\u201d reported that a member of their household had symptoms like a fever, sore throat, fatigue, and headache.<\/li>\n<li>60% of the people who reportedly had symptoms did not submit to a Covid-19 test.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">analysis<\/a> assumes that the following \u201cmask promotion interventions\u201d had no effects on the objectivity or willingness of participants to accurately report symptoms:\n<ul>\n<li>Making them watch \u201ca brief video of notable public figures discussing why, how, and when to wear a mask.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Sending them \u201ctwice-weekly text message reminders about the importance of mask-wearing.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Asking them to make \u201ca verbal commitment to be a mask-wearing household.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Asking \u201cthem to place signage on doors that declares they are a mask-wearing household.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Giving a \u201cmonetary incentive\u201d of 190 U.S. dollars to \u201cthe village leader\u201d if at least 75% of the village adults wore masks.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Like their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">paper<\/a>, their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/26\/opinion\/do-masks-work-for-covid-prevention.html\">op-ed<\/a> states that \u201cpeople over age 50 benefited most, especially in communities where we distributed surgical masks,\u201d but this \u201cdoes not suggest that <em>only<\/em> older people need to wear masks, but rather that widespread community mask wearing reduces Covid-19 risk, especially for older people.\u201d However, their <a href=\"https:\/\/osf.io\/bjnvr\/\">pre-analysis plan<\/a> to measure results for \u201ceach decade\u201d of age ranges shows no statistically significant effects among people aged 18\u201329, 30\u201339, 40\u201349, and 70+. Furthermore, they excluded this breakdown from their paper and relegated it to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/action\/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1126%2Fscience.abi9069&#038;file=science.abi9069_sm.pdf#page=18\">supplement<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">paper<\/a> engages in the dishonest practice of <a href=\"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/epirev\/article\/21\/1\/7\/427240\">data dredging<\/a> by featuring results that were not included in their <a href=\"https:\/\/osf.io\/bjnvr\/\">pre-analysis plan<\/a>, like \u201cimputing symptomatic-seroprevalence for missing blood draws.\u201d This allows them to transform statistically insignificant results into significant ones.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">analysis<\/a> uses complex analytic strategies like a \u201cgeneralized linear model with a Poisson family and log-link function,\u201d evoking these warnings from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justfacts.com\/immigration#crime_media_statistics\">academic works<\/a>:\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cManipulation of data involves subjecting data to multiple statistical techniques until one achieves the desired outcome.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cA general principle of data analysis recommends using the most appropriate, yet simplest, statistical techniques in research so findings can be better understood, interpreted, and communicated.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Statistical \u201cmalpractice typically occurs when complex analytical techniques are combined with large data sets. \u2026 Indeed, as a general rule, the better the science, the less the need for complex analysis\u2026.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Based on their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.abi9069\">study\u2019s<\/a> finding that \u201cmask-wearing\u201d was 13% in villages that were not pressured to wear masks and 42% in those that were, the authors <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/26\/opinion\/do-masks-work-for-covid-prevention.html\">extrapolated<\/a> their results to claim that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cif everyone wore masks, the reductions in Covid-19 cases would most likely have been substantially larger.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/Jabaluck\/status\/1434586971880542213\">our best estimate<\/a> is that every 600 people who wear surgical masks in public areas prevent an average of one death per year given recent death rates in the United States.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Those claims are based on shaky statistics laced with absurd assumptions, and they fail to account for any of the lethal risks of masks. Worse still, simply counting the people who died in their study could settle this issue, or at the very least, define the outer boundaries of the effects of masks on death. Yet, the authors didn\u2019t collect this easily obtained data as specified in their pre-analysis plan\u2014or they are withholding it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By James D. AgrestiApril 8, 2022 Overview With one exception, every gold standard study of masks in community settings has failed to find that they slow the spread of<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":498,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1426203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1426203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/498"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1426203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1426203\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1426203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1426203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1426203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}