{"id":9261,"date":"2020-08-19T15:32:22","date_gmt":"2020-08-19T14:32:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cassandravoices.com\/?p=9261"},"modified":"2020-08-19T15:32:22","modified_gmt":"2020-08-19T14:32:22","slug":"covid-19-the-perfect-storm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/casswp.eutonom.eu\/index.php\/2020\/08\/19\/covid-19-the-perfect-storm\/","title":{"rendered":"Covid-19: The Perfect Storm"},"content":{"rendered":"

Paying the piper?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

When a researcher publishes a research paper he or she is obliged to state clearly any funding source. The reasons for this are entirely obvious. Most \u2018bad\u2019, \u2018faulty\u2019, or \u2018unreliable\u2019 research is tainted by the interests of those who have provided financial support.<\/p>\n

There is nothing new in any of this, and scientific literature is replete with examples \u2013 from the use of Thalidimode for morning sickness to Andrew Wakefield linking the MMR vaccine to autism etc. \u2013 of bad or biased science. That is not to say necessarily that a scientist or expert offering scientific guidance has been influenced by the overt or covert desires of his sponsors; however, to preserve impartiality he must declare any sponsors before \u2018expert\u2019 or \u2018scientific\u2019 conclusions are tendered.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the same rigorous insistence on transparency in respect of funding does not extend to appearances on TV or Radio. Thus, if an \u2018expert\u2019 appears to promote a particular therapy, vaccination, or social behaviour, he is not obliged to declare a vested interests or private sponsorship.<\/p>\n

It falls to the media source itself \u2013 the newspaper or interviewer \u2013 to ascertain the affiliations or funding of a particular \u2018expert,\u2019 either prior to or during the delivery of scientific conclusions or guidance. This process is integral to maintaining ethical standards within journalism. It is particularly incumbent upon-state funded media, whose income is derived from mandatory licence fees that such standards are not compromised. Without this the general populace could find itself following faulty advice or guidelines to the advantage of \u2018he who pays the piper.\u2019<\/p>\n

This is precisely the dark territory we have entered in respect of public health guidelines on masks, lockdowns and vaccinations in response to Covid-19.<\/p>\n

Obligatory Mask-Wearing<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Irish government has recently made it compulsory to wear surgical face masks on all public transport and inside shops<\/a><\/span>.[i]<\/a> If a person refuses to comply, without providing a \u2018valid\u2019 medical reason, he or she faces a fine of \u20ac2500, or a prison sentence of up to six months. The Gardai are to police the validity of such medical reasons. The ethics of a law requiring a Garda to question a member of the public on his or her medical condition in a public places has yet to be discussed in a meaningful manner, despite the clear infringement on an individual\u2019s constitutional right to privacy.<\/p>\n

In respect of masks, there are indeed many strong counterarguments, drawn from respectable scientific literature<\/a><\/span>,[ii]<\/a> against<\/em> the anti-viral efficacy of masks, the safety of prolonged mask use; besides the social division they create, pitting advocates on both sides against one another.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the near pointless nature of mask-wearing has been pointed out to the Oireachtas by its own commissioned expert witness: Professor Carl Heneghan director of University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.<\/p>\n