Masks with close to zero efficacy according to a systematic review of 78 studies by Cochrane:
🇳🇱
Where do you get thst from.. their original version quite clesrly states what i said. Ut people misinterprited what they said to erroneously claim they meant what you said.. so they are changing the wording to be more explicit so people like you dont try and put words in their mouth like you did.
Nice reply, in the meanwhile here there is a concept for adults:
The fundamental issue here is that you are severely affected by positivism and the Lancetgate is the most famous recent example of corruption in scientific journals.
It doesn't matter the example, you are refusing to integrate your vision of the world with well known facts and I already mentioned some, like Snowden and Assange's revelations and what is happening to them.
This is why your "I can email the author" is naive, to be kind: you are acting like you never heard of so called soft power.
> "For Nye, power is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes you want. There are several ways one can achieve this: one can coerce others with threats; one can induce them with payments; or one can attract and co-opt them to want what one wants. This soft power – getting others to want the outcomes one wants – co-opts people rather than coerces them."
From the Wikipedia article on Soft power I liked a few messages ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
@freemo @vixxo @feld
So don't you think that mailing the authors now that they were scolded is naive? Why don't you just read the whole review and judge by yourself?
Months ago I said to you that studies in favour of masks were garbage and that you can't just use them to imply a symmetry with the ones against masks.
Later a systematic review showed exactly that by concluding masks' effectiveness is *probably* near zero with "moderate evidence".
This is what the review says, it doesn't say "we have no idea, it's like flipping a coin".