Have you seen the editor of SA? She practices and is a pedlar of superstition.
Pseudoscientific American.
Indeed, the literature up to 2020 showed masks to be ineffective. The body of evidence against its use is overwhelming in both community and hospital settings. It's worth noting from the day the mask was invented and used in hospital…
Have you seen the editor of SA? She practices and is a pedlar of superstition.
Pseudoscientific American.
Indeed, the literature up to 2020 showed masks to be ineffective. The body of evidence against its use is overwhelming in both community and hospital settings. It's worth noting from the day the mask was invented and used in hospitals it was met with skepticism from doctors. They were originally meant for BACTERIA and not viruses.
Either these two are not good at what they do or they have an agenda. They conflate the two thus misleading people. Only; they can answer if this is done on purpose. Epidemiologists are NOT PPE experts. They're germ chasers. A physicist is far more qualified to discuss masks.
Epidemiology is more art than science. This is why they're accepting unreliable 'mathematical models ' as their base for evidence rather than RCTs. I notice that every epidemiologist here who screamed for masks IGNORED the three major RCTs that were published but amplified flawed observational mathematics models that confirmed their bias.
Epidemiology at the moment is one step above astrology. In fact, I'm thinking astrology has more merit. It's more honest.
Epidemiology done right is rational and scientific. "Done right" means following the techniques of John Snow, the English physician who is the father of epidemiology, and who literally stopped an outbreak of cholera in London in the 1850s with nothing more than a map and a pencil.
Have you seen the editor of SA? She practices and is a pedlar of superstition.
Pseudoscientific American.
Indeed, the literature up to 2020 showed masks to be ineffective. The body of evidence against its use is overwhelming in both community and hospital settings. It's worth noting from the day the mask was invented and used in hospitals it was met with skepticism from doctors. They were originally meant for BACTERIA and not viruses.
Either these two are not good at what they do or they have an agenda. They conflate the two thus misleading people. Only; they can answer if this is done on purpose. Epidemiologists are NOT PPE experts. They're germ chasers. A physicist is far more qualified to discuss masks.
Epidemiology is more art than science. This is why they're accepting unreliable 'mathematical models ' as their base for evidence rather than RCTs. I notice that every epidemiologist here who screamed for masks IGNORED the three major RCTs that were published but amplified flawed observational mathematics models that confirmed their bias.
Epidemiology at the moment is one step above astrology. In fact, I'm thinking astrology has more merit. It's more honest.
Not a doctor but I do believe viruses and bacteria interact in the body.
Could be. That would make sense. But the original reason for masks was to prevent bacteria from spreading in the OR.
Epidemiology done right is rational and scientific. "Done right" means following the techniques of John Snow, the English physician who is the father of epidemiology, and who literally stopped an outbreak of cholera in London in the 1850s with nothing more than a map and a pencil.
Models are a poor substitute for data.
Done right. Yes.
It has not been done right since 2020.
Brother, you ain't kidding!