RT @CT_Bergstrom: Remember that paper that said masks don't work because if you cough through them on a petri dish, some viral RNA gets thr…
@ChasKimbrough @DocFlynnNFL @MikeGiardi Retracted due to error in methodology: https://t.co/Z8VEdssm2W
@BrucknerHartwin @holgerkopp Du hast schon den Hinweis in deinem Link gelesen, das der Aufsatz von den Autoren zurück gezogen wurde, weil er fehlerhaft war?! https://t.co/rFrkPxqHA9
@realTheoStone @KingWillzerr @Ohkey21 @JasonRobergeVA @JoeBiden If you're referring to this article, it was retracted. https://t.co/aLjMcms5vc
Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2 | Annals of Internal Medicine ‘It is hard to understand how the authors deemed that an 80% reduction of viral emission constitutes an “ineffective” intervention.’ https
@startchangeri It would appear the article was retracted. https://t.co/S7VCxLls4t
@AmRadDrehen @SandroMercando @jens140180 @DonGiardino @ThorstenBr Steht auf dem Screenshot? Ansonsten, falls Sie des Lesens nicht mächtig sind: https://t.co/2swidL8pQj https://t.co/LPBEhD71B4
@TJBurton11 @MSNBC @LesterHoltNBC Ooops, seems it’s been retracted. Let’s look for another https://t.co/AUHHHKwq1r
El artículo fue retirado. https://t.co/1gDkImvDSP
@BrucknerHartwin @martinpallmann @stephie_hh @hochbahn "According to recommendations by the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine, we are retracting our article" "Their results, [...], show that surgical masks reduced median viral emission by 27.5% and c
RT @Tipuncho: Étonnant, c'est pas dans ses habitudes de relayer n'importe quoi sans vérifier pourtant... 🤔 https://t.co/O9UpoTn9AY
RT @schrod_erwin: Les pathétiques tribulations de @silvano_trotta et @CorinneReverbel... lorsque le complotisme et l'incompétence se mêlen…
Combo trota/reverbel, dire qu'une étude montre que les masques sont inutiles. Cette études disait que les masques cotons réduisait de 80% les émissions... L'etude est rétractée. MME Reverbel supprime son tweet Elle avait pourtant sûrement pris le temps de
Étonnant, c'est pas dans ses habitudes de relayer n'importe quoi sans vérifier pourtant... 🤔
@MaestroLondon2 @ApothekerDer Und die ersten Zeilen plus zugehörigem Link ignorieren wir einfach? Anmerkung der Redaktion Der Artikel in den Annals of Internal Medicine wurde zurückgezogen, siehe die Anmerkung der Zeitschrift https://t.co/AEAslTaY8b
https://t.co/tIktNnLv89 There can be #truth to be #read... or... lies that are #red... but if neither is in print... it be the #reader in the end... that knows the least... whether as lies... or the truth... #censorship is about an agenda... so..! why #st
Retracted article continuously being shared in #socialmedia https://t.co/BFdXmMVZ0X Let's stick to the #science still challenging cloth & surgical masks! #cloth #masks COULD CREATE FOMITES https://t.co/6Ehjj77vVR Protect poorly https://t.co/I8NXsx6ZKK
@jens140180 @mattenb @p_manske @verusoss1 @jcgka BITTE SERIÖS BLEIBEN! Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton #Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2 #covid19 #pandemie #corona https://t.co/K9mntYsl7q https://t.co/arg2ciadWl
RT @DrGomi: le cherry picking et les fake news sur le manuportage et les masques : étude rétractée portant sur 4 patients https://t.co/vLV…
RT @DrGomi: le cherry picking et les fake news sur le manuportage et les masques : étude rétractée portant sur 4 patients https://t.co/vLV…
RT @DrGomi: le cherry picking et les fake news sur le manuportage et les masques : étude rétractée portant sur 4 patients https://t.co/vLV…
RT @DrGomi: le cherry picking et les fake news sur le manuportage et les masques : étude rétractée portant sur 4 patients https://t.co/vLV…
RT @DrGomi: le cherry picking et les fake news sur le manuportage et les masques : étude rétractée portant sur 4 patients https://t.co/vLV…
RT @DrGomi: le cherry picking et les fake news sur le manuportage et les masques : étude rétractée portant sur 4 patients https://t.co/vLV…
RT @DrGomi: le cherry picking et les fake news sur le manuportage et les masques : étude rétractée portant sur 4 patients https://t.co/vLV…
le cherry picking et les fake news sur le manuportage et les masques : étude rétractée portant sur 4 patients https://t.co/vLV91QvuDQ
@BillSpadea That article has been RETRACTED, which means they admit it was a faulty study. https://t.co/Fiw6RnwHy4
@Bruno062418 @WayneDupreeShow @Firecoil @DeAnna4Congress The VERY FIRST one of your articles that I pulled up for verification printed a RETRACTION on this very specific point. https://t.co/nxwlSGABny
@PatriotCzar @WillieTsays Wow back atcha. Retracted. Read the first comment. https://t.co/uUN8Yje1pD That said I'm grateful you're researching. Keep going. You can come over to the masked side by choice not b/c of the mandate. Do it. It feels good to do th
@Flyers4Cup @NYGovCuomo Read much? "EDITOR'S NOTE: The study upon which this article was based has since been retracted by the Annals of Internal Medicine. Here is the Retraction Notice." https://t.co/oHKawKJWo8
@Yoann2944 @DIVIZIO1 J'étais tombé sur cette publication il y a quelques temps : https://t.co/Vl15JOYX1b Ils ont rétracté leur article : https://t.co/ijAn46fMWT Sinon, il y a ça : https://t.co/fvI1u0YlEV https://t.co/dnWEBOVzj5 https://t.co/Fa9M9sqxY3
@niffinandback @ZubyMusic ...interestingly enough, I just noticed that that article was officially retracted. I don't know how long after it was published that it happened, but nonetheless I'm sure contributed to a lot of confusion when we were in the midd
@sadarific Ese articulo tiene una nota de retracción no jodas está en las primeras dos líneas https://t.co/kNdSospLPx
@AmericaKilling @conciousness777 @JohnnyWuLV This "study" has been done with 4 (*four*) patients and has meanwhile been retracted... 👏 https://t.co/QA9c4m6zvb
@Alicia1984N @mzelst @roelgrif @Ammer_B Ah kijk, dit is waarom je altijd de bronnen even moet nagaan: het artikel waar dat tweede screenshot op gebaseerd is is teruggetrokken. https://t.co/SYSZYHl2H9
@NiklasHintze @DrKassandraPari Nicht gesehen sorry. https://t.co/pBHgyXkQia
@wolfie_tx @kurtbardella “Not pro-life” and “anti-science” But. What’s happened to science here https://t.co/Sh3WfMUttc
Retracted: WHO April 2020 “masks are ineffective” article results: “surgical masks reduced median viral emission by 27.5% & cotton masks reduced median viral emission by 80.4%....the public was misled to believe the masks were totally ineffective.” h
@bananaDanarama @CTVNews You misspelled "maskers" https://t.co/RvPyCLQsIN Then read why it was retracted https://t.co/cd7IBnLQN1 Editors "requested retraction" of entire study instead of correcting the value https://t.co/Pp9bQl8ud5
@OkantosAlambria https://t.co/Hig7sG4c5s Αυτό το διάβασες ???
@Tawdge You’re promoting a report that has since been retracted. #COVID19SK https://t.co/Bq7DhSDOfk
@Thingstheywont1 @markus_heitz Das steht allerdings auch im Artikel "Anmerkung der Redaktion Der Artikel in den Annals of Internal Medicine wurde zurückgezogen, siehe die Anmerkung der Zeitschrift https://t.co/3rgeH7fhc7"
@Thingstheywont1 @faznet Verstehen Sie die Angaben der Konzentrationen als log Kopien? Falls ja, hätten Sie bemerken müssen, dass die Masken sehr wohl viel gebracht haben. Siehe Kommentar 1 hier: https://t.co/lh9DEBfI6Y
@chesapeakedawn @JPFinlayNBCS the article was literally retracted but go off https://t.co/Lcs8tUG6Ag
RT @newborl: @ClemensLeathley @DEmobil2030 Die Studie wurde zurück gezogen https://t.co/gIXR5nnSx2
@ClemensLeathley @DEmobil2030 Die Studie wurde zurück gezogen https://t.co/gIXR5nnSx2
@DERKREUZKNAPPE der Artikel ist durchaus "zulässig ", nicht aber die daraus so gerne konstruierten falschen Schlussfolgerungen. btw Der Artikel wurde wegen methodischer Fehler in der Studie zurückgezogen, https://t.co/lwQwOBFMmz
@MrShirt7 @ae42195 @Viktori34387417 @ahoi_polloi @EichholtzAlex @_donalphonso Die Studie wurde leider zurückgezogen: https://t.co/qkqtIgeUSk
@anarchy4angels This study was subject to peer review by the scientific community and subsequently fully retracted by the authors due to it methodology. https://t.co/njqrpCTXgo
@PaulaPasst @thew0rd15theb1r @SHomburg Referenz 25 wurde inzwischen zurückgezogen. https://t.co/zbkh4HTfq2 https://t.co/ZwMhSV3F0o
Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2 | Annals of Internal Medicine https://t.co/FhHhT344i9
@DailyKaffee @TheRealMibra @SvenStrasen @Karl_Lauterbach Glaub dir auch nicht, schnell paar Begriffe raussuchen kann ich auch. Mehr als heiße Luft kommt da eh nicht von dir. 🤭 Aber gern hier, eine Metaanalyse zu influenza https://t.co/24q1UP9A0f und zu sar
@shawndennis1977 @MCSOFlorida Moreover, the singular study that attempted to measure the efficacy of cotton masks was retracted: https://t.co/3T92Jh3GT0 I urge you to expand your comprehension of mask efficacy using scientifically *factual* data instead o
@Katja97788539 @daennrichsen @besserwissi @alvar_f @Afelia Bitte lies doch wenigstens mal Deine eigenen Quellen: „Anmerkung der Redaktion - Der Artikel in den Annals of Internal Medicine wurde zurückgezogen, siehe die Anmerkung der Zeitschrift https://t.co
YesI understand retraction. Hard to argue virus did not penetrate the mask at all However,proposed new study has not been performed which goes to my first point regarding masks is we deserve the same study with the actual virus,not a model or saliva study.
@GlennArthur18 @AmeshAA As @martywalser points out, the article you link to was retracted by the journal and the authors due to the authors’ failure to account for <LOD values, thus rendering the study’s findings scientifically uninterpretable and, in s
@camilocammas Éste es el retracto del artículo detrás del punto 1. https://t.co/dD9z9Md6ZE
My point is, on a matter this important why isn’t there a study with the real virus. Also, why hasn’t this group updated their study as planned? Also we know from a study in the Philippines cloth masks (influenza) are dangerous for the wearer. They get c
RT @martywalser: @GlennArthur18 @numinosity @AmeshAA That study has a huge retraction note literally right at the top — that notes the data…
@GlennArthur18 @numinosity @AmeshAA That study has a huge retraction note literally right at the top — that notes the data was misrepresented/misinterpreted. https://t.co/npbhXn9J0j
Poprawność naukowa. Ostatnie zdanie jest, niestety, dołujące. @sjastrzebowski @krzysztofbosak https://t.co/DNcy2ijXFp
@str8truther @7News Did you even bother to read this article! The article which was based on 4 patients, was retracted. https://t.co/JL19KhPOXL
@Banner_Wolf @akara53426 @donttestmesis @TomDangora Also, a study that claimed cotton & surgical masks weren’t effective was later retracted for misinterpreting the results: https://t.co/VJqv3KxEW6
@CoinAgnostic There's an update in it saying they misinterpreted the data https://t.co/I3UUfEyAUx
@Yolanda5870 @Dt_Aerzteblatt Dieser Artikel wurde "retracted" wegen Fehl-Interpretation der Daten - siehe hier - https://t.co/6NCoBU5vbx
@thorsten_bude @EgonZentrich @flyvendeheksa @Komisaar @PhilVloggt Dieser Artikel wurde "retracted" wegen Fehl-Interpretation der Daten - siehe hier - https://t.co/6NCoBU5vbx
RT @BjoernBruecher: @nesim_kzi @HasselerMartina @RND_de Dieser Artikel wurde "retracted" wegen Fehl-Interpretation der Daten - siehe hi…
@nesim_kzi @HasselerMartina @RND_de Dieser Artikel wurde "retracted" wegen Fehl-Interpretation der Daten - siehe hier - https://t.co/6NCoBUn635
@_lnnen_WT Dieser Artikel wurde "retracted" wegen Fehl-Interpretation der Daten - siehe hier - https://t.co/6NCoBU5vbx
@SergeWinkler1 @CamilleLotheZH Dieser Artikel wurde "retracted" wegen Fehl-Interpretation der Daten - siehe hier - https://t.co/6NCoBUn635
@SergeWinkler1 @HeinzelmannSus1 @alex_baur Dieser Artikel wurde "retracted" wegen Fehl-Interpretation der Daten - siehe hier - https://t.co/6NCoBU5vbx
@SergeWinkler1 @andre_schaad @alex_baur Dieser Artikel wurde "retracted" wegen Fehl-Interpretation der Daten - siehe hier - https://t.co/6NCoBUn635
RT @ragnorakishere: Thanks Ryan for all you do. Might have some of these links already, but will check them out. There are always some who…
RT @ragnorakishere: Thanks Ryan for all you do. Might have some of these links already, but will check them out. There are always some who…
RT @ragnorakishere: Thanks Ryan for all you do. Might have some of these links already, but will check them out. There are always some who…
Thanks Ryan for all you do. Might have some of these links already, but will check them out. There are always some who will never check the research or break it down like you. @GordonDimmack @Sativa00982728 @trikileaks @inmydumpster @darrenmark69 @NeilCla
RT @alexdoan96: Next: The Annals of Internal Med Paper. This paper was retracted. https://t.co/KroLpPAGjL The authors themselves wrote "o…
Nachtrag: Die in der Kurzinformation des Deutschen Bundestags genannte Studie wurde wegen Fehler zurückgezogen siehe https://t.co/DHLHLIq4K4
Next: The Annals of Internal Med Paper. This paper was retracted. https://t.co/KroLpPAGjL The authors themselves wrote "our findings are uninterpretable." So...that's that. (11/?)
update: https://t.co/Bzh7jyeYz2
RT @showfl2: @Mauerblmchen8 @wiese_jurgen @___Jeannette__ @Markus_Soeder Tatsache, da will man die Studie dazu mal genauer anschauen --> zu…
@Mauerblmchen8 @wiese_jurgen @___Jeannette__ @Markus_Soeder Tatsache, da will man die Studie dazu mal genauer anschauen --> zurückgezogen! https://t.co/XyI9AVg8q5 Sowas! Vielleicht deswegen... https://t.co/fIRye5QJf2
@theangelremiel @RossNorth5 @temennuconsult @iainmartin1 @ICTmagazine_NL Wow. How damning is the first comment underneath the retraction https://t.co/ymMKS4Mo2o
@mickydicky1280 Thers plenty, if you're capable of reading. This retraction was notable, as the study's results were interpreted such that people like you flran with it. Read. https://t.co/nOQnWgJmfe
@essentialgreed @meselmdor @BluntandHonesty @esaagar And here is where it was retractrd. It was insufficient data, I believe based on only 4 people. Try again.https://t.co/uIp2qBofgG
“It is hard to understand how the authors deemed that an 80% reduction of viral emission constitutes an ‘ineffective’ intervention.”
"We had not fully recognized the concept of limit of detection (LOD) of the in-house reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction used in the study (2.63 log copies/mL), and we regret our failure to express the values below LOD as “<LOD (value).” htt
@futilecauz @LizaOvatiana @BusyElves I'll post this here too. You're using a RETRACTED study as proof. "EDITOR'S NOTE: The study upon which this article was based has since been retracted by the Annals of Internal Medicine. Here is the Retraction Notice.
@futilecauz @Waffleboard47 @BusyElves ...You're using a RETRACTED study as proof? Good job champ. "EDITOR'S NOTE: The study upon which this article was based has since been retracted by the Annals of Internal Medicine. Here is the Retraction Notice." htt
@dphaw @Lok52 @Over_the_Rainb @RealCalNana @LibyaLiberty @DonCheadle Here's how science works. All of which say "Wear a mask". https://t.co/zdW0DeBHOi https://t.co/kfD9mEswtH https://t.co/8i06jgE1Oo And one study of 4 people which found that they weren'
RT @MesiaArte: @AusAntiLeft here you go, wonder no more: https://t.co/ycqw9BJoWe