Activist Blog
Facebook
Twitter
 

2021-09-20 ::: Do Face Masks Reduce COVID-19 Spread in Bangladesh? Are the Abaluck et al. Results Reliable?

Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Summary

The cluster-randomized trial study of Abaluck et al. (2021) is fatally flawed, and therefore of no value for informing public health policy, for two main reasons:

  1. The antibody detection was performed using a single commercial FDA emergency-use-authorized (EUA) serology test that is not suitable for the intended application to SARS-CoV-2 in Bangladesh (not calibrated or validated for populations in Bangladesh; undetermined cross-reactivity against broad-array IgM antibodies, malaria, influenza, etc.).
  2. The participants (individual level, family level, village level) in the control and treatment arms were systematically handled in palpably different ways that are linked to factors established to be strongly associated to infection and severity with viral respiratory diseases, in particular, and to individual health in general.

These disjunctive fatal flaws are explained below. Either one is sufficient to invalidate the results and conclusions of Abaluck et al.

Furthermore, the Abaluck et al. symptomatic seroprevalence (SSP) results are prima facie statistically untenable. The treatment-to-control differences in numbers of symptomatic seropositive individuals are too small to rule out large unknown co-factor, baseline heterogeneity, and study-design bias effects. In addition, they are at best borderline significant, in terms of purely ideal-statistical estimations of uncertainty. Finally, the practice of using whole households while reporting on an individual basis, introduces unknown correlations/ clustering, and vitiates the mathematic assumptions that underlie the statistical method.

Table of Contents

      Purpose

      Summary

      Can the chosen antibody test be used in this application?

 

Is the antibody assay specific for SARS-CoV-2?

 

Is the antibody assay validated for use in Bangladesh?

 

Was “spectrum bias” duly examined by InBios and Abaluck et al.? Are the positives reliable?

 

Conclusion regarding the serology test

      Are the control and treatment arms valid (comparable)?

 

Treatment alone versus adding super-treatment interventions

 

Science of the stress-immune relationship

 

Mechanisms of bias from the super-treatment interventions

      Is the size of the trial sufficient for the results to be reliable?

 

All adults, 18 through 60+ years old, both mask types together

 

Oldest age group, 60+ years old, surgical masks only

      Conclusion

      References

      Appendix A:  Media reviews of the Abaluck et al. (2021) mask study

      My competence to review science about COVID-19

 


Downloads:


Links:


VIEW OF DOWNLOAD:
Do Masks Reduce COVID19 Spread in Bangladesh----2.pdf