Mask ruling isn’t about the facts

THE press watchdog Ipso has now revealed its full judgment on my alleged wrongdoing, in saying that a major study showed masks were useless. It is clear from this that the dispute is not about fact, but about interpretation, which should be none of Ipso’s business.

Meanwhile, let me try to explain the story of the Danish mask study with a metaphor. Imagine: a group of scientists, with huge government and media backing, build a new type of space rocket, using techniques and engineering which have never been shown to work.

Launch day arrives. The rocket rises a few inches, judders and explodes in a vast ball of flame.

Supporters of the project say ‘This is not conclusive!’ and ‘Well, it did actually ascend for six whole inches’ and ‘This only proves that it does not work vertically’.

They also impose a news blackout on the disaster, saying:

‘It was such a success that we need to keep it secret!’

Then the one newspaper which actually reports what happened is censured by Ipso.

Meanwhile, an expert medical doctor and epidemiologist, Dr Antonio Lazzarino of University College London, has backed my view that if loose cloth masks don’t keep the virus out, they’re unlikely to keep it in, saying: ‘It is very unlikely that surgical masks provide a substantial protection from an infectious wearer.’