wow. ty, chris and jim, you can take off your masks now
(no message)
Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/face-masks-made-little-no-001748577.html
Replies to: wow. ty, chris and jim, you can take off your masks now
The CDC no longer believes in evidence based medicine
The vast majority of studies concur that masks are not helpful in general population use. Evidence based medicine would dictate ending the practice. This is not being followed.
We were right all along, andwe knew it
Just like you - You must be supporting the CDC then.
(no message)
You've got a very short attention span...the attached NEJM report's data shows masks work...
we resolved this already...unless you can refute the findings in America's top peer-review Medical Journal...we should be done here (I wish ;-))
Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2213556
Masks are Progressive MAGA hats.
(no message)
The NEJM report says masks work...on what basis do you disagree, Curly?
(no message)
Maybe on the actual "studies" that say they were useless.
And no matter which conclusion is correct, clearly there is no scientific consensus on this issue even now. Yet people who argued against mask mandates were censored and falsely labeled anti-science by the great progressive name-calling spin machine. There was no debate allowed in policy making. A shameful corruption of the process.
The science has changed, you need to get on board.
(no message)
The NEJM article is not a study & has no data & was written before Cochran Study release
This is the kind of disingenuous behavior that we have sll come to expect. It was written by just two liberal nonmedical doctors, snd it expresses undpecified opinion. It was not presented as a scientific article at all and thus does not carry the imprimatur of the NEJM (who has published false COVID articles in the past btw)’
Where is the “data” that was referenced by the poster? It does not exist,
Google Doc is looking for anything and then misrepresenting ehat he posts, It is why I feel that he is not worth engaging.
All anyone had to do was "CLICK" on the "LINK" to the actual report...here, let me help you and your
fellow intellectually challenged friends...
In the NEJM Editorial's third paragraph, you'll find this...
--------------------
A study by Cowger and colleagues, the results of which are now reported in the Journal,8 provides new evidence that the removal of universal school masking policies in Massachusetts was associated with an increased incidence of Covid-19.
-------------------
The number "8" is there for "REFERENCE" purposes...sort of like a board link...so you go to the upper left portion of the Editorial and find the link that says "10 References"...you click on that and all their headings display...now go to #8 and find the following...
------------------
8. Cowger TL, Murray EJ, Clarke J, et al. Lifting universal masking in schools — Covid-19 incidence among students and staff. N Engl J Med 2022;387:1935-1946.
Free Full Text
Medline. opens in new tab
Google Scholar
-----------------
Next, you click on "Free Full Text"...TaDa!...you get the entire report...isn't the digital age wonderful?...since I fear that some still might not be able to figure this out, I've attached the Study in the link.
I don't know what the heck happened to you, Baron, but you've "LOST IT"...this example of laziness and lack of intellectual awareness is not unique...it's the same pathology as two years ago with the "MIT Report"...you need help...and all your 'Acolytes' need to wake up to this reality.
Note: Edits for grammar
Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2211029
Wow, I read it and it is obvious there is no control aspect to their data. It’s like saying in&out
Gave me the runs one time and therefore In&Out must give everyone the runs. Not accounting for anything like maybe the food was under cooked or the server did not wash their hands, etc.
First off, do you now see how stupid you were to follow Baron's "assessment"?...are you ready to
apologize for your own lack of intelligence in assessing the NEJM study?...once we get through that stage, we can discuss the findings...which to save time, unequivocally demonstrate the value of universal masking in schools when necessary.
No, if anything I see how stupid you are with your string theory links.
(no message)
Well, clearly you are impenetrable to logic, reason and data...thanks for eliminating all doubt.
(no message)
Still clinging to old science, old data, old links… thats real logical.
(no message)
LOL...please define what "Old Science"..."Old Data"..."Old Links" mean...this should be fun.
(no message)
Anything you post about Covid.
(no message)
You just made his day by referencing his post.
(no message)
I Knew he’d post some falsity to thus. Misrepresenting an editorial as a study w/data and
… not only is it just an editorial opinion piece by two liberal nonmedical doctors, its an editorial of an opinion formed BEFORE the Cochrane study was known.
The thing is, he probably didnt understand what he was posting - he’s an uneducated Cliff Claven wanna be….with lots of relatives
to quote, I am sure.
Now back to ignore for him.
One more thing...how does ANY doctor who reads NEJM not IMMEDIATELY go to the 'References' when
reading the Editorial?...after the supposed decades of work in the medical field, including hundreds of various Journal reviews, how did you not think to do that?
I'll take you at your word about being a physician, but there's something not right about this episode.
You can apologize...for the first time ever...right here and now. It's the first step in healing
whatever malady has turned you into what you've become...a person devoid of truth.
Ha!
‘an uneducated Cliff Claven wannabe’
That’s perfect.
Are you in position to refute the New England Journal off Medicine’s
findings?…what’s wrong with it?…did school districts who dropped universal masking not show an increase in COVID cases as opposed to the districts that maintained the practice?
I’m not, but other scientist are and you don’t want to believe them.
(no message)
I have my doubts, as do others (see link), about Cochrane Library's potential bias, among other
things...in this particular instance, the link from WestCoast had this caveat...
-----------------
However, Dr. Marc Siegel, professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center and a Fox News medical contributor, pointed out a key limitation: "The researchers focus primarily on randomized trials, but most of the studies that have been done on masks are population studies," he said.
"There are very few randomized trials on masks."
In a randomized trial, researchers place participants in different groups and observe the results in a controlled environment.
By contrast, population-based studies measure outcomes in a "real-world" setting.
-----------------
On a less rigorous level, it's annoying to me to see so many "Probably's"..."Little's", etc. in the review...as opposed to the NEJM study that specifically showed the data...using the very rigorous "Difference-in-Difference" method to make their unambiguous conclusion that MASKS WORK....btw, if you'd like more on the rationale and workings of "Difference-in-Difference", I'll be glad to provide a link for you.
Link: https://www.mdlinx.com/article/cochrane-reviews-controversy-are-the-concerns-valid/7tjNVFB6sLR2l9VoaXqQDc
Bingo. He'll ride this one all the way down to the turf.
(no message)
You're no more qualified to make sense of these conflicting studies than the rest of us. -
Check your arrogance.
You're dancing around this example...now that I've done the work for you to see the NEJM report can
you stand there and cite errors that disprove their findings?...i.e. that Universal Masking in schools when conditions dictate,,.WORKS.
The NEJM researchers show their rigorous methods and all their data...WestCoast's 'Cochrane Study' authors, on the other hand were criticized in his linked article for more than a few shortcomings by another doctor, which I've posted about earlier...NEJM is undeniably the best Journal we've got...right along with Lancet and Nature...Cochrane is way down the list and has been openly criticized for bias (see my prior link for proof)...who are you going to trust?
Oh come on now, of course he is. LINK Please!
(no message)
Love how they try to poke at the study while glossing over the biggest reveal…
… this review took all known studies with adequate study protocols…..it definitively shows that there was never the scientific evidence to wear masks as Fauci claimed.
His initial snicker at gen pop mask use on 60 Minutes was exactly the truth. Then he went to the WH and came out of the meeting spewing the lie about masks.
We told you so, but libs didnt care cuz it helped perpetuate fear to keep the lockdown going.
.
(no message)