> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# The Fallacy of Covid-19 ‘Fact Checking’
- URL: https://goodoil.news/the-fallacy-of-covid-19-fact-checking/
- Published: 2021-01-10T23:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2021-01-09T21:27:35.000Z
- Author: Guest Post
- Tags: COVID-19, Health, NZ, Science, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2024-07-17 02:38

**Covid Plan B**  
[covidplanb.co.nz](https://www.covidplanb.co.nz/category/our-posts/?ref=goodoil.news)

Covid Plan B was ‘fact-checked’ as “misleading” for publishing on Facebook our article which used the existing conventional standard of statistical interpretation to find that a[ Danish study](https://goodoil.news/danish-mask-study-result-no-statistical-difference-from-not-wearing-one/) on mask wearing meant there was **no significant benefit to wearing a mask** against Covid-19.

This so-called ‘fact check’ used a non-conventional approach which would mean that any study showing no significant effect of the studied intervention would mean the intervention does work.

This is clearly astounding. It reverses decades of scientific interpretation. It defies common-sense. But that is what ‘fact-checking’ has become in the Covid-19 era: a means of upholding the establishment policy position (using non-scientist media staffers).

> It is not a means of checking facts. It is a means of denying them.

We outlined this deeply worrying development in an article in the British Medical Journal. [Danish mask study: masks, media, fact checkers, and the interpretation of scientific evidence | The BMJ](https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4919.full?ref=goodoil.news)

> Should we abandon convention altogether? If we did, we may eventually promote ineffective treatments. As an example, electrostimulation, laser therapy, and acupuncture are not generally thought to improve smoking cessation success, yet several promising pooled effects were calculated in a meta-analysis, although the majority were not“statistically significant.”  
>  
> The tone of the“fact checking”piece that apparently supports mass masking as having a“small protective effect”over a conventional interpretation as“misleading”turns usual scientific practice on its head. Pointingto observational evidence to contradict trial results is another subversion of usual epidemiological practice. While this may seem trivial, it is a subtle distortion of results and the politicisation of evidence in the covid-19 era.  
>  
> [bmj.com](https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4919.full?ref=goodoil.news)

[Danish Mask Study](https://www.scribd.com/document/489905235/Danish-Mask-Study?ref=goodoil.news#from%5Fembed "View Danish Mask Study on Scribd") by [Juana Atkins](https://www.scribd.com/user/492439751/Juana-Atkins?ref=goodoil.news#from%5Fembed "View Juana Atkins's profile on Scribd") on Scribd

Full PDF here: [bmj.m4919.full](https://www.covidplanb.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/bmj.m4919.full%5F.pdf?ref=goodoil.news)

**Please share this BFD article so others can discover *The BFD.***