@feld @chiasm @freemo

This is by an organization focused on evidence-based medicine, in this context they require very strong evidence to assert something, otherwise they will use these “probably”.

Evidently you can’t interpret the results in context, so you just focus on wording in the abstract.

@post @feld @chiasm

So wqe agree that the evidence to support a conclusion is very weak?

@freemo @feld @chiasm

It depends, do you know how difficult it is for Cochrane to say that there is strong evidence? Context matters.

@post

You are the one who touted this study as superior to all others because its a concrain review… but only the parts you like, none of the parts that explicitly disagree with you… ok

@feld @chiasm

@freemo @feld @chiasm

Dude, a systematic review by Cochrane is superior to a single study by definition.

@post @feld @chiasm

Except for the parts that disagree with you, and except for literally the entire conclusion part of the report… none of that is superior… but yea the parts taht agree with you, totally superior I guess.

@freemo @feld @chiasm

There are not parts that disagree with me, they said that effectiveness of masks is close to zero but the evidence is weak.

This means that they valued studies against masks more than the one in favour of them and it was evident if you actually read the studies instead of just saying “there are also studies that say the opposite”.

But they also pointed out that the ones against masks don’t meet their requirements for strong evidence and I think this will never be the case since it is hard to produce such evidence.

Instead of accusing others of not reading the studies, admit that I was right when I told you that the studies against masks were better than the ones in favour of them.

@post

So I should look at the studies the review links, but the reviews conclusions itself should be ignored…

Man not once have i spoken to you and you’ve added something of value to a conversations, not once.

@feld @chiasm

@freemo @feld @chiasm

Again, the conclusions are the ones I highlighted, with weak evidence.

I should had pointed out from the beginning that for me the best we can have on this matter is this review by Cochrane but it is a communication mistake by me, I should know that people would pick everything they can just to contradict me.

My point has always been that making masks mandatory was criminal because there were no evidence of their effectiveness. Also people were made to believe masks were very important to the point of physically attack even who didn’t wear them correctly.

Finally you admitted that there is no evidence in favour of masks and that is enough for me. Before, you insisted in saying that there are also studies in favour implying it was enough to justify such crimes.

You can accuse me of being a “conspiracy theorist” as much as you want, I don’t care. I never mentioned any conspiracy. Thinking there must be a conspiracy to explain certain crimes is induced by an ideology called positivism.

You should instead ask yourself if people denoucing mass surveillance before Snowden deserved to be called “conspiracy theorists”.

You should ask yourself if journalists today are free to report such crimes since what is happening to Julian Assange for revealing crimes by US army in Iraq and more.

And your attack on me is a way of admitting that you have no more arguments on the matter.

Today I eroded another piece of rhetoric: starting today you won’t be able to say anymore “but there are also studies that say the opposite” and that’s enough for me, for today.