@tanaryo1008 ? 数があればいいんですか?? エビデンスレベル大事っていってませんでしたか? https://t.co/a2Q05KBDui https://t.co/0lRKuP9coH
RT @yneb_on: The best evidence shows that masks and N95 are very poor in preventing viral transmission: Pre-COVID https://t.co/rN22VyrFIo…
@codicknight @nomandatesco @Firemaster4009 You just proved my point Codi. You’re broken and there exists no cure for what broke you. Ps… while a virus isn’t typically toxic there are instances where it can be. Ps masks don’t work for anyone. Science matter
@MIGO_Offiziell Bitte lesen sie sich die beiden Studien in der Studie zu SarsCov2 mal durch. Hier der Link, viel Spaß: https://t.co/HuHgLNzatJ und https://t.co/QkbVCNiwfg
@GrahamWerstiuk @chedancer @FLSurgeonGen @JosephFraiman @BretWeinstein @DrJBhattacharya @MartinKulldorff @TracyBethHoeg @StabellBenn The DANMASK-19 study proved that surgical facemasks have limited air filtering capacity with respect to SARS-CoV-2. The be
@BrendaJeanCDN @jordanbpeterson @JustinTrudeau @fordnation She’s wearing a mask outside lol …. The masks were needed as a compliance tool to scare the booster monkeys into taking more jabs … the only people still wearing masks are ones who have 4 boosters
@zeynep If masks don’t work they don’t : https://t.co/WYoJHT3LTO If these vaccines don’t work they don’t.
@Grady_Booch @JohnnyFoxRox @NoelFritsch @FirstHealth But then your point of view is the uninformed one… https://t.co/VOAgpCwIHN
@shallit43 No statistically significant difference between medical masks & N95s: https://t.co/g8cArire9K No statistically significant difference between medical masks & wearing NO masks: https://t.co/mfbH92Jvp6 https://t.co/JrIcnFnhNq ht
@JamesSurowiecki Here you go https://t.co/VfdxruD3zg
@Grady_Booch @NoelFritsch @FirstHealth I assume you are unaware of the well designed investigative studies: https://t.co/X0nyRAIIVj This is what you might call real-world: https://t.co/9VEIJv2LeS
@JamesSurowiecki The only one I know of concluded: "Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection." Which is why it is ridiculous to insist they work and t
@JNAlexandratos @skane2600 @gorskon Here’s a randomized controlled study instead of surveys and meta analysis. https://t.co/VIxvOpILe3
@isa_picard Pas ces études-là en tous les cas ... https://t.co/Aszz46DmXr
Réponse "clé en main" si on vous dit que les masques sont efficaces... 👇💪⬇️
@Frollein_Katze @doc_ecmo @dukla_DE Nach drei Jahren würde Dich sicher auch die Masken-Studie in Dänemark mit 6.000 Teilnehmern und all die anderen nicht überzeugen oder? https://t.co/0eXvufSGlI FYI, wenn ich Seuchenbehörden zu ihrem Datensalat berate, da
@SimonLeggX @MurielBlaivePhD @BreesAnna Wearing a N95 has NO statistically significant benefit against aerosolized respiratory coronavirus or influenza virus transmission! You are also NOT contagious without symptoms! https://t.co/ArdU9gltsK https://t.
@soncharm @UWMedicine The danish study is funded by a retail group - I wonder why a retail company would want to fund a study that says ‘hey it’s all safe’ 🤔 https://t.co/YYLedrjgnb https://t.co/PSGi8QGSAv https://t.co/dpv3qdFE0d
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 3 https://t.co/fGT3EUmJQf
RT @jinpeiishii: @blanc0981 先生は私との議論で「マスクが有効」という根拠となる論文もデータも論理も一つも示されておられないと思いましたが見逃しでしたでしょうか?こちらはお示ししてますよ。 この図の中だけでも。 https://t.co/q1Mscz8…
@CarlynZwaren Masks don't work. A mask study from Denmark was published. 6,000 people in the trial. 50% wore masks, 50% didn’t, randomly assigned. After one month the results showed no statistically significant difference in COVID infection rates. https:/
RT @DevourerOmen: Why aren't people gathering in boatloads to severely sue the controlled institutions that are still pushing such nonsense…
RT @LoveHamma9: Mask data: Start of pandemic, we KNEW: Cochrane Review 2011 https://t.co/F2fpKnscr3 CR Nov 2020 update (no change): https:/…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
@PrasadKasibhat1 @adsquires @kprather88 Also from the Danish RCT (supplement): "46% of participants wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended, and 7% not as recommended." https://t.co/YkzFRTwe3n
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
@pandemic_pundit @GidMK Mask RCTs are also based on self-reported survey data. The subjects were not under camera observation to measure actual mask wearing. So the mask RCTs aren't studies either, right? Or did the rules change? Example: https://t.co/L
RT @takua_scientist: 「マスクの効果にRCTで有意差が出なかった」論文を教えていただきました。 読んでみたところ、「1人だけマスクしても十分に防げない」という趣旨でした。 「有意差無し」という言葉にミスリードされることなく、解像度高く読むことが大切。 ht…
@oohara_hachidai @Nishi8777 RCTでマスク着用、未着用で感染率に有意差なしと結果が出ています ↓この時期にマスク着用群が外してサッカー観戦などすることはあり得ないです https://t.co/wdimTdCOIi
@c_plushie @DrJBhattacharya @AshBloomfield @jacindaardern Yeah, we knew at the start they didn't work... (They told the truth at first.) https://t.co/91P9SrzHTE
RT @DevourerOmen: Why aren't people gathering in boatloads to severely sue the controlled institutions that are still pushing such nonsense…
RT @DevourerOmen: Why aren't people gathering in boatloads to severely sue the controlled institutions that are still pushing such nonsense…
We should have torches in our hands!
RT @DevourerOmen: Why aren't people gathering in boatloads to severely sue the controlled institutions that are still pushing such nonsense…
Why aren't people gathering in boatloads to severely sue the controlled institutions that are still pushing such nonsense? Hard facts don't care about the personal biases of absurd tyrants and their deceptive rhetoric. https://t.co/0mDYFMrUdA https://t.co
@syoless @PedroRonchi2 Desculpe. Subestimei. https://t.co/Hd6RH2TGbH
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @KanAugust: 5/ コロナ(COVID19)に関しても去年デンマークで大きなテストが行われましたが、 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/WHEU4BFJAn https://t.co/hENjjAwnKC
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 https://t.co/PIPKMHj8bh
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
RT @filipe_rafaeli: Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não us…
Estudo randomizado das máscaras. Aqui o mais importante. 3.030 com máscaras. 2.994 sem. Usuários: 1.8% COVID. Não usuários 2.1%. Ou seja, porra nenhuma. Na alegoria, tinham randomizados "bem positivos". Entendeu como te tratou como trouxa? https://t
The other study followed 5000 patients in Denmark, which suggested that masks had some protective impact, but the study was too small to reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% https://t.co/GsMlyngypG
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @PediHospitalMD: @CydM @PeterHotez What about the Danish RCT https://t.co/wJerlwsxaN , and the nuanced analysis by mask type and age in…
@tomaspueyo Where did you get the 18% from? https://t.co/rKErKqcMoc
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @Vicke_2011: 反マスク派がマスクに効果がない根拠としていたので、 論文"Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-…
@tomaspueyo I seriously accept the possibility, b/c every discipline has its own jargon, that I'm misreading what I've highlighted here, but I read this to say the Danish study (whether or not well designed and/or executed) was focused on _the recommending
Ou seja, neste estudo randomizado, o chamado "padrão ouro", o melhor para comparação, que representa um nível de evidência maior, não fez diferença entre quem usou e quem não usou as máscaras. https://t.co/Ajyaxpvl8z
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
@CydM @PeterHotez What about the Danish RCT https://t.co/wJerlwsxaN , and the nuanced analysis by mask type and age in the Bangladesh RCTs ? Also misinformation?
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @Aftynmaureeen2: Masks don't work but O2 does. Set your lungs free and take off the mask.
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @TravisNelitons: @jonlevyBU Please stop clowning, clown.
RT @trishgreenhalgh: 37.RCTs Let’s look at the other large community-based RCT of masks in covid-19. The *big Danish mask trial* became one…
RT @themarketswork: Odd how every major study - including ones that set out to prove masks worked - came to the conclusion that masks do NO…