@feld @freemo

Masks with close to zero efficacy according to a systematic review of 78 studies by Cochrane:

doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006

@vixxo @post @feld

Thank you. Now thst post has been clearly told in direct terms by cochrwin review thst he was wrong and what i and others said about the interpritstion is accurate lets see if he admits he is wrong... i higbly doubt it.

@freemo @vixxo @feld

No, the authors were forced by editors to change it, weren't you supposed to promote academic freedom?

@post @vixxo @feld

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.

@freemo @vixxo @feld

No, the results of the review were clear, they needed to rephrase the abstract because of the political implications. It's obvious for anyone that doesn't live in a world of unicorns and rainbows.

So, in your world of unicorns and rainbows, how do you explain the Lancetgate?

@post @vixxo @feld

I could easily just enail the authors and ask if thats the case, and i am certwin thry woukd tell you you are wrong, again, and im also certain youd fibd some new even more convoluted way to tell yourself you are right.

Follow

@freemo @vixxo @feld

You clearly live in a world of unicorns and rainbows.

So how do you explain the Lancetgate?

@post @vixxo @feld

None of the articles here were oart of lancet gate. If you want to argue about it as a seperate issue feel free to make that post. But that discussion has no place in this thread.

@post @vixxo @feld

Instead of the passive agvressive nonsense just start a seperate topic on it and tag me, i have always engaved with your nonsense so far.
It just has no place in this thread being a tangent and irrelevant.

@freemo @vixxo @feld

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.

@post

No one is denying issues in research or even potential issues from corruption more generally.

@vixxo @feld

@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".

@post @vixxo @feld

Why woukd that be naive? There is no penalty for them to say they were forced to change their wording against their will.

@freemo @vixxo @feld

> "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: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_p

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.