Ugh. Seriously? This mask mandate nonsense should have been settled in early 2020? So very, very painful to learn. Thanks to you, Dr. Jefferson, for allowing Dr. Demasi to interview you. Excellent interview, you two.

Expand full comment
Feb 6Liked by Maryanne Demasi, PhD

Do you think Cochrane intentionally delayed that 2020 review? – “During those 7 months, other researchers at Cochrane produced some unacceptable pieces of work, using unacceptable studies, that gave the 'right answer'. What do you mean by “the right answer”? Are you suggesting that Cochrane was pro-mask, and that your review contradicted the narrative. Is that your intuition? – “Yes, I think that is what was going on.”

. . .

Here's an excerpt from Dr. Pierre Kory's post where he described how the July '21 Cochrane review similarly gave the “right answer” to support the “narrative” that Ivermectin was ineffective for treating Covid::


”Recognize that the Cochrane library was for decades considered the gold standard amongst academia ... Note that I said “was the gold standard.” … Because, you guessed it, they got captured by Pharma and Gates. In 2018, mass resignations of Cochrane Library Board members occurred due to what one said was a “growing top-down authoritarian culture and an increasingly commercial business model” that “threatens the scientific, moral and social objectives of the organization.” I am sure the fact that Gates becoming a donor two year earlier had nothing to do with it. Yeah right. ...

Tess [Lawrie] knew that a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence supporting ivermectin published by the Cochrane Library would result in all global health agencies recommending its use and would immediately have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. So, Tess proposed to Cochrane for her team to do a “Rapid Review of Ivermectin.” They initially accepted her proposed study protocol! She had a green light. But not for long. They changed tune fast, likely due to pressure from Gates or one of their Big Pharma funders. My money is on Pfizer.…

What happened next is that all of a sudden, the Cochrane editors informed Tess that a “Rapid Review” was inappropriate and that a “Full Review” protocol should be followed. She quickly agreed to do so and submitted a Full Review protocol as her team, in anticipation, had actually already completed the work. ...

Pressure was on. The corrupted Cochrane Library was in a bind. Unsurprisingly, they then started accusing her of “conflicts of interest” because of her video plea to [British PM] Boris Johnson … Her defense to Cochrane editors fell on deaf (or dumbed) ears. They simply told her to go publish in another journal and instead assigned the Full Review work to a German team led by Popp et al.

I don’t know Popp but don’t have to. Popp proceeded to employ the identical tactics that the WHO research team did, a brazenly manipulated review which came to a very different conclusion than Tess’s team, i.e. instead, after dismissing most of the evidence base, they concluded that the evidence for ivermectin was of “very low certainty” and thus insufficient to support a recommendation. …

Tess’s team masterfully tore apart the fraudulent Cochrane review here. It’s a must read for science and stat geeks. Note it remains on a pre-print server. … “Gold standard” eh? Whatever. Clown world.

Expand full comment
Feb 6Liked by Maryanne Demasi, PhD

Thank you Maryanne and Dr. Jefferson. Unfortunately it has never been about the science. At the start of the pandemic, I recall reading this from the CDC.

Non-pharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings—personal protective and environmental measures

Policy Review by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.” (Xiao et al., May 2020)

Expand full comment
Feb 6Liked by Maryanne Demasi, PhD

I love that guy. He reminds me of Goetzsche, he has that same healthy bluntness.

I'm hoping that they possibly had a few beers together after work in the old days, making fun of the immense stupidity and corruption of the world.

Expand full comment

Brilliant interview Maryanne. A genuine scientist speaks in rational, common sense, matter of fact terms. They say it how it is. Dr Jefferson is not lost in self-aggrandizement. He is just saying it how it is. I wonder about the immeasurable damage inflicted on good people through fear by chief health officers, politicians and bureaucrats across the globe. But I also wonder about schools and the lack of education for students, teaching them to question all "science", to hold the preachers accountable for their message. We saw it lead to untold cruelty, degradation and abuse in the community, leaving many feeling stupid and abused, while others proved themselves to be profoundly stupid and abusive, simply because they could not pay attention to their own intuitive resistance to bullshit.

Expand full comment

In light of the far more measured language in the Author's Conclusions section of his own abstract, I think Dr Jefferson was irresponsibly pugilistic here.

For a more nuanced view on your interview, and the Cochrane review, citing other scientists, see this Slate article


One might also note : "No study pitted N95s against no masks at all."

Expand full comment