That’s a superb clarification and Carl’s closing analogy makes this lucid, if it wasn’t already. I’m startled that Cochrane ambushed you with that statement on Friday with no prior correspondence. Unprofessional and threw rocket fuel on the smouldering embers of criticism.

I do think (based on my weak observational study!) that many of us on substack have the stamina for long podcasts where the topic can fill one.

Someone once said “everything should be made as simple as it can be, but no simpler than that”.

Expand full comment

Thanks. Clear and concise summary off a complex issue! Please keep going!

Expand full comment

Excellent recording chaps.

Great courtroom analogy by Carl at the end.

Tom, your composure is incredible, especially as it’s your work that is being denigrated.

You’re a better man than I am!

The most relevant point for me was at the very end of the conversation when Tom used the study on asymptomatic transmission as an example of how a review must always reach a conclusion.

The reason that particular study wasn’t later spun to be labelled “inconclusive” is because it had already reached the correct conclusion in the eyes of special interests.

It was already in line with the mainstream narrative and gave credence to social distancing and quarantining of healthy individuals.

Tom and Carl you must see by now that the game is rigged.

Unless the science you practice reaches conclusions that support the measures already imposed then it doesn’t stand a chance.

Good science is being shut down by people at the top of reputable institutions who’ve been compromised by their investors.

Both of you suffered the same fate when you promoted the Danmask study as evidence of masks being ineffective against community transmission.

Full Fact hit piece:


FaceBook Censorship:


Scroll down within the link to see a list of Full Fact’s major donors:

I’ll give you a clue.....one of them begins in Face and ends in Book:


Google and WhatsApp are also contributing heavily to FullFact but like FaceBook I’m sure they have absolutely no influence whatsoever! 🤔

I mentioned in a previous post that what we have is an unholy alliance between the state, big tech, big pharma and the MSM.

This is present in almost every western democratic country.

There are very few boarders that this alliance doesn’t cross and there is no science that they cannot spin or destroy.

From seroprevalence studies early in the pandemic to early treatment protocols.....

From Vitamin D studies to Vaccine safety signals.......

Nothing has been able to put a dent in the dogma.

There is an impenetrable ring around the Covid narrative. It has been constructed by those who benefit from lockdowns, masks, testing, vaccines etc.

It has absolutely nothing to do with public health and everything to do with shifting socioeconomic systems, control, power and money.

If we continue to ignore the architects of this destruction of civil society we will fail and the future will be theirs.

Expand full comment

Excellent. This is such an important subject, don't be concerned about extending your discussion.

Expand full comment
Mar 17·edited Mar 17

I understand that good trials of effectiveness are designed to show how likely it is that a predetermined clinically significant difference (measured in the two experimental groups) is real or artificial. This difference might be a 50% reduction in cases etc etc

The issue is that many do not acknowledge or understand this way of approaching scientific enquiry particularly if they have an arts or social science education. Many journalists fall into this category (even some health or science journalist working for major media companies) and their attitude matters

"We tried hard but can't find reliable evidence that wearing mask prevents spread of respiratory viruses" is clear and understandable to most people. Claims masks don't work at all will always be liable to quibles or attempts to muddy waters.

Expand full comment

I find this very interesting.

If I understand Carl's point (and I may have this wrong) a Cochrane review can never be inconclusive? Does it depend on the question you ask?

If for instance the only evidence out there are really poor studies, can your conclusion not be there there is simply no evidence to support any answer?

By the way I do think Cochrane has behaved very badly and runs the risk that no scientist will review for them again. If there was an issue, I would have expected this to be picked up in peer review or else for the lead author to be asked about any issue.

Expand full comment

Thanks for making sense of this complex issue and fighting back against the proponents of newspeak. Incidentally, anybody who has listened to a Brett Weinstein or Joe Rogan podcast could ever accuse you of going on too long 😂

Expand full comment