President Musk will not be pleased . . .

So credit for Warp Speed, Economic Measures…..the first two being the points I made. Chat adds the early travel restrictions.

The negatives…lack of support for measures like masks. Sure, but has any study showed a compelling case for masks.. 

His rhetoric at the Covid briefings was too casual. But if that was wrong the media’s deliberate misrepresentation of remarks like the bleach thing accentuated any risk.

His early messaging about Covid is criticized. But this was the advice from the ‘expert’ you defend:

‘ Fauci said, "Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.’

The overall death rate in the US was higher than some other countries, but the implementation of policies varied widely among states and in a federation like the USA is controlled closer to the action.  Trump had limited influence on implementation, And demographics, climate and vaccine acceptance played a big role. 

On the vaccine Trump may have become less supportive in 2024, but in the 2021 he was an ardent proponent of the vaccine, which seems to have been the biggest factor in relative performance of States.

‘ People still skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine can be persuaded to get vaccinated after watching a public service-style announcement featuring former President Donald Trump and his family encouraging voters to get the shot, according to a new study that included researchers from Stanford University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina State University and the University of California, Berkeley.’

So on the whole I think he did an excellent job with the economy and the vaccine, shot himself in the foot at the briefings, but had plenty of company in the negative column, including St Fauci.

Chat adds the early travel restrictions.

Yes the early travel restriction did give America extra time, but his subsequent actions squandered it.

The negatives…lack of support for measures like masks. Sure, but has any study showed a compelling case for masks..

You never asked chat that question?

Several key studies have demonstrated that masks are effective at reducing the transmission of COVID-19, particularly by preventing the spread of respiratory droplets that can carry the virus. Below are notable research studies and reviews that provide evidence for the effectiveness of masks:

1. The Lancet Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2020)

• Study: A systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet in June 2020 analyzed 172 observational studies from 16 countries. This meta-analysis examined the role of physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection in preventing person-to-person transmission of COVID-19.
• Key Findings:
  • Mask use was associated with a 70% reduction in the risk of virus transmission.
  • Masks, particularly N95 respirators, were more effective at reducing the risk of infection compared to cloth and surgical masks, though all types of masks were beneficial in reducing transmission.
• Reference:
  Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., & Schünemann, H. J. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 395(10242), 1973-1987. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9.

2. CDC Study on Mask Mandates (2020)

• Study: A study published by the CDC in September 2020 investigated the impact of mask mandates in 15 U.S. states and Washington D.C. on the transmission of COVID-19.
• Key Findings:
  • The implementation of mask mandates was associated with a slower growth rate of COVID-19 cases.
  • States with mask mandates experienced a significant reduction in the daily growth rate of COVID-19 cases.
• Reference:
  Lyu, W., & Wehby, G. L. (2020). Community use of face masks and COVID-19: Evidence from a natural experiment of state mandates in the U.S. Health Affairs, 39(8), 1419-1425. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818.

3. JAMA Internal Medicine Study (2020)

• Study: A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in November 2020 examined the effectiveness of personal protective equipment (PPE), including face masks, among healthcare workers.
• Key Findings:
  • The study found that healthcare workers who used face masks and other PPE were significantly less likely to become infected with COVID-19 compared to those who did not use masks.
  • Mask use, especially in high-risk settings like hospitals, was a critical factor in reducing transmission.
• Reference:
  Livingston, E., & Desai, A. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 transmission and the role of face masks. JAMA Internal Medicine, 180(8), 1171–1172. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4246.

4. Hong Kong Study (2020)

• Study: A study published in The Lancet in August 2020 evaluated the impact of mask-wearing in Hong Kong, where mask-wearing was already a common practice due to previous respiratory outbreaks.
• Key Findings:
  • The study demonstrated that mask-wearing was significantly associated with reduced transmission in public spaces, particularly in indoor settings like public transportation and markets.
  • The results emphasized that masks were effective in reducing virus transmission, even in crowded environments.
• Reference:
  Leung, N. H. L., Chu, D. K. W., Shiu, E. Y. C., Chan, K. H., McDevitt, J. J., & Yung, M. M. L. (2020). Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Lancet, 395(10235), 1799–1807. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31013-9.

5. Meta-Analysis on Cloth Mask Efficacy (2020)

• Study: A meta-analysis published in The British Medical Journal (BMJ) in December 2020 examined the effectiveness of different types of face masks, including cloth masks, in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses.
• Key Findings:
  • Cloth masks were shown to be effective at reducing the spread of respiratory droplets, though not as effective as medical-grade masks such as N95 respirators.
  • The study highlighted the importance of wearing any type of mask to reduce viral transmission, particularly in public spaces.
• Reference:
  Jefferson, T., Del Mar, C., Dooley, L., Ferroni, E., Al-Ansary, L. A., & Bawazeer, G. (2020). Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: Systematic review. BMJ, 370, m3187. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3187.

6. Study on Community Mask Use in Japan (2020)

• Study: A study published in Science in August 2020 by researchers from Japan looked at the effects of mask use in preventing COVID-19 transmission in community settings.
• Key Findings:
  • The study found that mask-wearing effectively reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, especially in indoor environments where virus particles could accumulate.
• Reference:
  Uchida, Y., & Takahashi, R. (2020). Effectiveness of face masks in preventing respiratory transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Japan. Science, 369(6509), 293-295. DOI: 10.1126/science.abc3181.

7. CDC Report on Outbreaks in the U.S. (2020)

• Study: The CDC conducted an analysis of 124 COVID-19 outbreaks in the U.S. between April and September 2020 and found that mask-wearing was associated with a reduction in transmission, particularly in households and community settings.
• Key Findings:
  • When masks were used, outbreaks were less likely to occur, and the overall transmission rate decreased.
• Reference:
  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). COVID-19: Recommendations for Wearing Masks. CDC Guidance.

These studies provide a robust body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of mask-wearing in reducing the transmission of COVID-19, particularly in settings where physical distancing is difficult to maintain, such as indoors, crowded places, or healthcare environments. While the degree of effectiveness can vary depending on the type of mask, the general consensus is that masks are a key tool in controlling the spread of the virus.

And if that doesn't blow your mind wait till you ask chat how much Biden's America Rescue Plan Act contributed to the inflation of 2021, or even better why don't you ask it what caused global temperatures to rise in the early 20 century and ask it if half the global temperature rise since the industrial revolution and now occurred in the first part of the 20th century or ask if the rate of warming back in the early 20th century is the same as the present warming.

His rhetoric at the Covid briefings was too casual. But if that was wrong the media’s deliberate misrepresentation of remarks like the bleach thing accentuated any risk.

His early messaging about Covid is criticized. But this was the advice from the ‘expert’ you defend:

‘ Fauci said, "Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.’

Hmm when it comes to that quote you wouldn't be leaving out the part were Fauci said the virus was an evolving situation and would have to consistently assessed. He made those comments on 21st January 2020, the date of the first confirmed case of Covid in America. He made similar comments 5 days later but also qualified that statement by saying things could change.

This compares to Trump who for months and months and months declared on two dozen or so occasions that Covid was just going to go away or it was declining, even as case numbers were going up.

Its completely disingenuous to compare the two.

The overall death rate in the US was higher than some other countries, but the implementation of policies varied widely among states and in a federation like the USA is controlled closer to the action.  Trump had limited influence on implementation, And demographics, climate and vaccine acceptance played a big role.

Oh now Trump has limited influence in the country which he's the President, but when it comes to global issues like Ukraine, the man basically just has to show up and peace will be achieved. So are you saying Trump couldn't influence the governors of Red States if he called for tighter restrictions earlier?

On the vaccine Trump may have become less supportive in 2024, but in the 2021 he was an ardent proponent of the vaccine, which seems to have been the biggest factor in relative performance of States.

‘ People still skeptical of the COVID-19 vaccine can be persuaded to get vaccinated after watching a public service-style announcement featuring former President Donald Trump and his family encouraging voters to get the shot, according to a new study that included researchers from Stanford University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina State University and the University of California, Berkeley.’

Yes, Donald Trump’s actions and statements during his presidency did play a role in fostering vaccine skepticism among some Americans, particularly in certain political and social groups. His handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his rhetoric surrounding vaccines contributed to mixed perceptions of the vaccine, especially among his supporters. Below are some key factors that may have contributed to vaccine skepticism during and after his presidency:

1. Initial Downplaying of the Virus and Public Health Measures:

• Throughout much of 2020, Trump downplayed the severity of COVID-19, often referring to the virus as “just like the flu” or as something that would “disappear.” His minimization of the virus and inconsistent messaging about its seriousness created confusion and distrust in public health guidance, which may have contributed to a general skepticism about public health measures, including vaccines.
• His frequent promotion of unproven treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine, further undermined trust in the scientific community and health experts. This set a tone of doubt about the effectiveness of medical interventions, including the vaccine.

2. Political Polarization and the "Warp Speed" Vaccine Rollout:

• The development of COVID-19 vaccines under Operation Warp Speed (launched by Trump in 2020) was initially hailed as a success in terms of speed. However, Trump’s efforts to push for rapid vaccine development were politicized. Some of his supporters viewed the vaccine as a product of a government initiative that was tied to his administration, creating skepticism about its safety and efficacy, particularly among individuals who distrusted his leadership.
• Trump’s reluctance to encourage vaccination early on in his presidency contributed to skepticism within his political base. In some instances, he downplayed the urgency of vaccination, instead focusing on reopening the economy, which led to mixed messaging on the importance of getting vaccinated.

3. Mixed Messaging on Vaccination:

• Trump’s mixed messaging on vaccines continued after he left office. Although he publicly encouraged people to get vaccinated in 2021, many of his supporters, particularly within the Republican Party, remained skeptical. His early resistance to vaccination messaging, coupled with his insistence on "personal freedom" and opposition to vaccine mandates, further contributed to the political divide over vaccines.
• He publicly stated that he had been vaccinated but did not push aggressively for others to follow his lead, which may have contributed to the reluctance of his base to embrace vaccination. His comments occasionally downplayed the seriousness of vaccine mandates, further fueling the divide.

4. Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation:

• Trump’s rhetoric also created an environment in which misinformation and conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 vaccine flourished. During his presidency, he frequently promoted unverified claims and downplayed the importance of scientific consensus. This behavior laid the groundwork for the spread of conspiracy theories that were later applied to vaccines, such as the belief that vaccines were part of government control or that they were unsafe.
• His administration’s refusal to consistently align with public health experts, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, led some of his supporters to view public health advice as politically motivated, which in turn fueled vaccine hesitancy.

5. Impact on Trust in Health Experts:

• Trump’s frequent attacks on the CDC and other public health experts, such as Dr. Fauci, diminished trust in the health authorities who were promoting vaccination. By creating an atmosphere of distrust in the scientific community, Trump made it easier for vaccine skeptics to dismiss expert advice and public health campaigns.
• The politicization of the pandemic, with Trump framing it as a “deep state” plot or a political weapon against him, further amplified divisions between political parties over pandemic response, including vaccines. As a result, the vaccine became a symbol of partisan conflict rather than a straightforward public health solution.

6. Long-term Effects on Vaccine Hesitancy:

• Trump's rhetoric and actions have had long-lasting effects on vaccine uptake. A 2021 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that political affiliation played a significant role in vaccine hesitancy, with Republicans (particularly those who identified as Trump supporters) being less likely to get vaccinated. This was partly due to a general mistrust of government and public health messages, as well as skepticism about the vaccine's development and safety.
• A 2021 Gallup poll also showed that vaccine hesitancy was higher among people who supported Trump, as they were more likely to distrust both the vaccine and the motivations behind it.

Key Takeaways:

• Trump's Leadership and Rhetoric: His initial downplaying of the virus, inconsistent messaging, and politicization of public health responses likely played a role in fostering vaccine skepticism, particularly among his supporters.
• Operation Warp Speed: While the rapid vaccine development under Trump was seen as a success, its politicization led to skepticism about the vaccine, particularly among those who viewed the vaccine as a product of the Trump administration.
• Polarization and Misinformation: Trump’s approach to the pandemic contributed to a politically polarized environment that made the vaccine a partisan issue, fueling conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Overall, while Trump’s actions and messaging were not the sole cause of vaccine skepticism, his leadership played a significant role in shaping the climate of distrust around COVID-19 vaccines, particularly among those who were already skeptical of the government or public health authorities.

So on the whole I think he did an excellent job with the economy and the vaccine, shot himself in the foot at the briefings, but had plenty of company in the negative column, including St Fauci.

On the whole I think American would of been better served had pretty much any other recent President been running the show, and that includes that dope Bush Jnr. You would of got overall better results and poor old Fauci wouldn't be getting death threats from lunatics for simply doing his job.

Well didn’t you notice the studies were all early in Covid and many were associated with other measures like distancing, which will obviously help. Here the follow up from Chat with later dated studies .

………..

Yes, some studies and observations have suggested limited or context-dependent effectiveness of masks in certain situations, including studies conducted in Spain and other countries. These findings often highlight the complexity of isolating the effects of masks from other factors, such as compliance, type of mask, and additional public health measures. Here are some examples:

1. Study in Catalonia, Spain (2022)

• Research Context:
  • A study published in Environmental Research analyzed the impact of mask mandates in schools in Catalonia. It compared infection rates among children aged 5 (without mandates) and those aged 6 (with mandates) during the same period.
• Findings:
  • The study found no significant difference in infection rates between the two groups.
• Interpretation:
  • Researchers noted that other factors, such as ventilation, vaccination, and community transmission, could play a larger role in reducing infections in these settings. This study did not conclude that masks were entirely ineffective but questioned their incremental benefit in low-risk populations.

2. Denmark Study (2020)

• Research Context:
  • Published in Annals of Internal Medicine, this randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessed mask-wearing among 6,000 participants during a period of moderate COVID-19 transmission in Denmark.
• Findings:
  • The study found no statistically significant reduction in infection rates among mask-wearers compared to non-mask-wearers.
• Interpretation:
  • The study's authors cautioned against overinterpreting the results, emphasizing that the trial was conducted in a community setting where masks were not widely used, potentially reducing their effectiveness. They also noted that the study had limited statistical power to detect smaller effects.

3. Population-Level Studies with Mixed Results

• Spain National Analysis:

  • Some analyses of Spain's COVID-19 trends during periods of strict mask mandates suggested that infection rates continued to rise despite high compliance with mask-wearing.
  • Critics argue that masks alone cannot counteract high community transmission, particularly when other measures (e.g., social distancing) are relaxed or inconsistent.

• US States and Mask Mandates:

  • Observational studies in the U.S. showed mixed results when comparing states with and without mask mandates. Some studies suggested that mandates were associated with a reduction in case growth, while others indicated no significant difference.

4. Limitations Highlighted in Studies Questioning Effectiveness

• Improper Use:
  • Many studies note that real-world mask use often involves improper wearing, such as leaving the nose uncovered or using poorly fitted masks, which can reduce effectiveness.
• Type of Mask:
  • Cloth masks, often used in the early pandemic, provide significantly less protection than surgical or N95 masks. Studies showing limited effectiveness often involve cloth masks.
• Confounding Factors:
  • High transmission rates, inadequate ventilation, and inconsistent adherence to other public health measures can overshadow the benefits of masks in population-level studies.

Key Takeaways:

1. Masks Are Not a Silver Bullet:

   • Masks are most effective when combined with other measures, such as physical distancing, ventilation, and vaccination.

2. Mixed Evidence Does Not Mean Masks Are Ineffective:

   • Studies with mixed or negative findings often point to challenges in implementation or external factors rather than outright ineffectiveness of masks in reducing respiratory droplet transmission.

3. Context Matters:

   • The effectiveness of masks can vary based on the setting, population, mask type, and compliance levels.

While some studies raise valid questions about the real-world impact of masks under specific circumstances, the broader body of evidence supports their role as an important tool in mitigating COVID-19 spread when used correctly and consistently.

. ….

So masks work when combined with social distancing and vaccinations.  But social distancing and vaccinations work just by themselves.

If there was a definitive study that proved masks made a clear cut difference in protecting against Covid, don’t you think that would have been front page on all the world’s papers? And don’t you think if those early studies were definitive the later studies wouldn’t have been commissioned?

I repeat my original assertion there has been no definitive study that has proven that masks by themselves work.And the two largest specific studies which focused on masks and followed proper grouping,  Spain and Denmark, both find masks don’t work.

Cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze. If you don't have a tissue available, sneeze into your elbow. Particles from your sneeze can travel up to 26 feet. The droplets can linger in the air for up to 10 minutes.

See how far germs travel and how long they linger.

I believe in masks

"Well I primarily judged him on his Presidency because that's what's most relevant. I'm aware he was a business man long before he was President and that his record as a business man has been hit and miss, he's also had various legal issues over the years."

I agree and disagree ... and I am also not referring to what he did as a businessman, I am specifically referring to what he just did, for so many different people.... as a basic fellow human being.

I prefer to see what people are like outside of the spotlight ....... when the cameras and the public attention is not on you..... that, to me, is when you see the genuine real character of someone.

Maybe for one second, look into what Trump has done for individuals and communities, long before he became president, and even take the businessman aspect out of it, and just look at the man himself...... because it might surprise you.

"How can I look into something's he done off the books, wouldn't the whole point of doing something off the books be that no one finds out about it?"

Simple, if you really were interested in wanting to find out about someone, and not just what you see in front of the cameras or the mainsream media, you would look into them properly.... I don't think you have done that with Trump.... in fact many haven't.

By off the books, I mean it is still very much in the media, just not the mainstream media, because they don't want to portray that side of Trump, because it would probably have generated a lot more votes for him either in the first or second election, and he himself for some reason does not personally put this information out there himself, which in a way is quite surprising considering his immense ego and boastfull / arrogant attitiude at times.

"No I knew about his comments about makings difficult for the unvaccinated so they give up their ideological bullshit as he called it, but I'm simply ambivalent about it. I can understand people not wanting to be forced into getting a vaccine but I can also see the viewpoint that the unvaccinated were putting an unnecessary and greater strain on health services for their own selfish reasons. People talk about the situation as being a matter of free choice, but the choice of not get vaccinated was not a free lunch were the consequences only affected the non vaccinated. My ire would be directed towards the people who pushed misinformation about the vaccines and fueled vaccine skepticism."

I can't agree .... Fauci's intentions were extremely clear to me, and given that he was involved in the oversight, coordination, and scientific guidance on the vaccine, he should not be advising anyone on how best to coerce or manipulate the public or anyone else into taking the vaccine that he himself was involved with.

The pressure was on regarding the unvaccinated and the pressure they were putting on the healthcare systems around the world, but Fauci was disengenuous with the general public.

Fauci even adjusted his initial percentage on what he thought was needed for herd immunity, but not because the science or data had changed....because that I would have actually agreed with......no... he later admitted to adjusting his herd immunity percentage purely based off of the public's receptiveness to taking the vaccine, not what would scientifically work or be more beneficial in saving lives.... again.... more manipulation.

"LOL he goes on to claim we are one and the same"

If ever a poster could be so wrong, lol

Well didn’t you notice the studies were all early in Covid and many were associated with other measures like distancing, which will obviously help. Here the follow up from Chat with later dated studies .

Ah yes the Danish study which you brought up at the time. Well that isn't really any newer than the studies referred too in my post and as at the time you brought up the the Danish Study, the lead author of the paper on the study still recommended wearing face masks, while an accompanying  editorial by the editor in chief at the journal noted the study "does not disprove the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing"

As for the study in Catalonia.

Researchers specifically noted that there were limitations to their paper, which is a review of already-collected data rather than a randomised controlled trial, something considered “the gold standard for effectiveness research”.

It also applies to two specific age groups in Catalonia schools, rather than the wider population.

The researchers said they couldn’t take into account differences in students’ behaviour, the density of students in classrooms, or the classroom dynamics between those in preschool and primary school.

It is unclear whether such a study can be extended to show that masks in general “make no difference” particularly when the researchers say the school children involved may have worn masks incorrectly.

But lets come back to your point that all the studies I posted were done in the early stages of Covid. Okay lets get some studies that are even more up to date than the ones you linked too.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36865900/

https://www.idhjournal.com.au/article/S2468-0451(23)00010-X/fulltext#secsectitle0110

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36856551/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36944343/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36854572/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36829127/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368574497_Face_mask_use_to_prevent_COVID-19_in_clinical_practice_Using_an_review_of_reviews_to_improve_decision-making_and_transparency

Even your own chat gpt post noted caveats about the research you are referring.

So masks work when combined with social distancing and vaccinations.  But social distancing and vaccinations work just by themselves.

Moving the goal posts. The fact that social distancing and vaccinations work by themselves doesn't mean masks aren't useful or effective.

If there was a definitive study that proved masks made a clear cut difference in protecting against Covid, don’t you think that would have been front page on all the world’s papers? And don’t you think if those early studies were definitive the later studies wouldn’t have been commissioned?

No I don't think it would of made the front page on the newspapers because unless you have literally found the cure to cancer, medical studies don't tend to make front pages on many newspapers. And the fact that was multiple studies later on is simply the standard scientific process. Different countries have different research bodies, they don't all just rely on one or two studies and call it a day. No study can cover ever scenario or edge case, that's why multiple studies are done.

I repeat my original assertion there has been no definitive study that has proven that masks by themselves work.And the two largest specific studies which focused on masks and followed proper grouping,  Spain and Denmark, both find masks don’t work.

You are simply and demonstrably wrong. Both the researchers behind the Spanish and Danish research specifically said their research was not to be taken as proof that masks were ineffective and not needed. And when you say proper grouping, I distinctively remember when you brought up the Danish study back during COVID you on multiple occasions talked about it using the Gold standard of being a randomized controlled group, well the Spanish study didn't. And guess what they were not the largest studies either.

Studies conducted in Bangladesh have been pivotal in understanding the effectiveness of mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research in Bangladesh, particularly a large-scale randomized controlled trial, has provided insights into how masks can reduce the transmission of the virus.

One prominent study, known as the "Bangladesh Mask Study," was led by researchers from various institutions and published in 2020. It involved more than 300,000 participants across rural and urban areas. The key findings of the study included:

1. Effectiveness of Masks: The study demonstrated that mask-wearing could significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19. It showed that surgical masks and cloth masks, when used properly, provided considerable protection, particularly in densely populated areas.

2. Behavioral Impact: The research found that people who were encouraged to wear masks had a higher adherence to mask-wearing in their daily routines, contributing to a reduction in COVID-19 transmission.

3. Community-level Benefits: The study suggested that promoting widespread mask usage in the community, including public health campaigns, could have a substantial impact on controlling the spread of COVID-19.

 Oh look it meets your gold standard of randomized controlled trial.

And finally the piéce de résistance (I think I got the spelling right lol)

A review conducted by the Journal.ie found that when it searched for studies (in March 2023) with the terms "Covid" "Masks" "Effectiveness" on PubMed found that in the 50 most recent medical studies not a single one of them concluded masks were ineffective.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28%28face+mask%29+OR+%28face+masks%29%29+AND+%28effectiveness%29+AND+%28%28SARS-CoV-2%29+OR+%28COVID%29%29&filter=years.2023-2023&sort=date&size=50

So at this point its about as conclusive as it can get. Masks are useful in combating the spread of Covid 19.

Liberals are the people who freed the slaves and gave the people the freedom to elect their own government...Trad seems to support monarchies and dictators...wonder how he would like living in Russia, China, Iran or Nork...

So many things much wrong in this comment. It shows that white people are the ones erasing the history of Europe. Slavery was banned in most of Europe before the rise of liberalism. Liberalism grew hand in hand with slavery, the war of indiependence was capitizalized by using human beings as assets. No capital, no war. Liberals keep inverting, a government is a means to an end, not an end in itself. People used to assess the merits of a government through its achievements. Not on fancied drivel. If liberals had been interested in ending slavery, the first bill passed by the US government after  the war of independence would have end to slavery. Instread of that, the US government passed bill after bill to strengthen slavery as an institution. No president in the US was ever elected to put an end to slavery, presidents were elected to strengthen the slavery institution. In liberal minds, liberalism is the best thing as it allowed slavery contrary to other regimes that forbad it. Dictature that prevents slavery: bad; liberalism that allows slavery: good. That is the liberal way, and proudly supported by voters. If voters vote it, it can not be bad.

Hilarious.

So because the researchers doing the Spanish and Danish studies said it shouldn’t be concluded that masks don’t work, negates the fact that their studies clearly show masks don’t work. Of course they said that, they knew they were going to get withering criticism and it was a small concession.

All these studies have one great difficulty, it’s not like taking a pill. It’s also  a behavioral change that almost certainly effects the participants entire behavior around protection. Which -might make the kids study in Spain the most valid.

But the Bangladesh study you are so pleased with…if correct, reported a reduction of 11% wearing surgical masks. It’s not saying masks provide significant protection as you claim, it’s marginal protection and almost no protection for cloth masks. It’s statistically significant according to the study….which means that some effect can be detected, not that the effect is substantial. You never knew that distinction ?

But was even  that 11% a reliable number? It seems not here are some of the criticisms that have been made:

….

Critiques

1. Marginal Effect Size:

   • Critics pointed out that the reductions in symptomatic seroprevalence (especially for cloth masks) were modest.
   • The results were statistically significant but may not be as impactful in practical terms.

2. Study Context:

   • Conducted in rural Bangladesh, where population density, healthcare access, and mask compliance might differ significantly from urban or high-income settings.
   • Critics argue that results may not generalize to all populations.

3. Compliance Issues:

   • Mask-wearing compliance varied, with interventions including incentives and education.
   • Some argue the study measured the impact of the entire intervention package (not just masks themselves).

4. Seroprevalence Measurement:

   • The primary outcome was symptomatic seroprevalence, which relies on people reporting symptoms and subsequent antibody testing.
   • Asymptomatic cases and other biases in self-reporting might have influenced results.

5. Cloth Masks:

   • The study showed limited efficacy for cloth masks, which raised questions about their promotion in similar contexts

……………………

So under a non urban  transmission setting ….using surgical masks marginally reduces transmission by 11% and cloth masks hardly at all. But there are all sorts of reasons the results were not entirely reliable and probably biased in favor of masks. If these people sensed the study was designed to show masks worked and they had to self report symptoms, the chances of them holding back had to be real. And they knew because apparently there were economic incentives to  participate.

………

For all the insistence that people should wear masks, there is no study that conclusively proves they have a significant effect.. And the community knows the study that shows they are significantly effective will make the career of the researchers. There is every incentive to prove they work. Which makes it noteworthy that flawed studies like Bangladesh showing minimal results are still the gold standard for those pushing mask use.

So because the researchers doing the Spanish and Danish studies said it shouldn’t be concluded that masks don’t work, negates the fact that their studies clearly show masks don’t work. Of course they said that, they knew they were going to get withering criticism and it was a small concession.

No the studies did not conclude that, otherwise the researchers would have said that they did. Of course they added that disclaimer, they knew people like yourself would cherry pick it to push a political agenda. But you always have an unproveable conspiracy to fall back on when you don't have the data on your side.

All these studies have one great difficulty, it’s not like taking a pill. It’s also  a behavioral change that almost certainly effects the participants entire behavior around protection. Which -might make the kids study in Spain the most valid.

Are you really going argue that 3-5 year olds and 6-11 year olds are the group that's going best know how to use a face mask and compile with guidelines as well as an adult.

But the Bangladesh study you are so pleased with…if correct, reported a reduction of 11% wearing surgical masks. It’s not saying masks provide significant protection as you claim, it’s marginal protection and almost no protection for cloth masks. It’s statistically significant according to the study….which means that some effect can be detected, not that the effect is substantial. You never knew that distinction?

Are you mental, when we're talking about the Covid 19 pandemic, infections were literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of people per day in some regions of the world. An 11% reduction is f**king massive when you're talking about those numbers. That could be the difference between a country medical health care system just about managing or completely collapsing and on a global level it could translate to tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives that could potentially have been saved.

So under a non urban  transmission setting ….using surgical masks marginally reduces transmission by 11% and cloth masks hardly at all. But there are all sorts of reasons the results were not entirely reliable and probably biased in favor of masks. If these people sensed the study was designed to show masks worked and they had to self report symptoms, the chances of them holding back had to be real. And they knew because apparently there were economic incentives to  participate.

………

For all the insistence that people should wear masks, there is no study that conclusively proves they have a significant effect.. And the community knows the study that shows they are significantly effective will make the career of the researchers. There is every incentive to prove they work. Which makes it noteworthy that flawed studies like Bangladesh showing minimal results are still the gold standard for those pushing mask use.

Your best card was a study done in 2020 with dubious protocols, financial inducements and self reporting of symptoms. That study came up with cloth masks showing little  benefits and surgical masks showing an 11% benefit. The issue with 11% is that it is so close to the non masked population result that slight protocol errors could negate the benefit. And Chat mentioned a few, the most damning of which was the effect of other variables like distancing, which concerned critics.

So by now one would have thought a confirming study would have been available.

I could pick apart your petty criticisms one by one…for example the point about the children is they won’t be motivated to game the trial and give researchers the results they want , not that they would handle masks better. As usual you leap to conclusions and no argument is going to penetrate your bias. You are ideologically locked in.

Feel free to provide better evidence if you can find it.

‘Farcical man’ ….oh dear, are we reduced to name calling. The Danish and Spanish studies  show no evidence of masks helping. That’s the data….the commentary is the positioning. I believe the data. And if masks were a potent factor, regardless of any flaws in the studies you would never get a zero result with competent researchers. You would never get a zero result for social distancing .

Your best case shows an 11% improvement ….that’s low enough that the conclusion would hinge on how you pose the research question and even that had flaws. Every other study I have seen with positive reports comes with ‘low confidence in the data’ or without clear elimination of other factors like social distancing in the results.

‘Farcical man’…..hahaha…..the no mas moment when you had to resort to name calling.

I'll tell you one reason why masks would be ineffective from my observation of the public: people not wearing them correctly. The percentage of people wearing masks so that they either didn't cover their noses, or hung so loose around their noses that whatever wanted to get out will get out, was far too high. Not to mention the type of masks - many people over here used buffs, which was pointless. Also people took their masks off all the time. Only the most paranoid kept them on wherever they went. Vapor don't just disappear the moment you put on a mask when you see someone get close. Whatever you breathed out or sneezed or coughed out is still hanging there and still getting spread around. That's why the 6 feet "distancing" was a nonsense.

Yes you’re right effectiveness is a function of mask capability and  how they are used. The net of that is extent of protection. Use is complicated by many factors, for example eating. Particles trapped on masks can also be dislodged. Eg by coughing. 

Measuring all this is complicated, because wearing a mask in a test can lead to changes in behavior.

So proper design of experiments would require completely randomized sampling and mask assignment and protocols to ensure the test isn’t inducing behavioral changes. No test has done that, some haven’t even adjusted for the COVID vaccine. And those  that have,  allowed self reporting on mask use….ie people that wore masks and those that didn’t wear masks formed the sampling groups. Those who wear masks may be inherently more cautious…making the test invalid.

Testing one factor in a battery of factors, when the test induces behavioral changes that could effect results and there are supposedly immediate health risks for half those sampled….is very difficult. 

‘Farcical man’ ….oh dear, are we reduced to name calling.

Turn of phrase, like don't have a cow man.  But oh dear you knew that.

The Danish and Spanish studies  show no evidence of masks helping. That’s the data….the commentary is the positioning.

Its data that you're misrepresenting. The commentary is necessary to stop misrepresentation.

I believe the data. And if masks were a potent factor, regardless of any flaws in the studies you would never get a zero result with competent researchers. You would never get a zero result for social distancing .

Your best case shows an 11% improvement ….that’s low enough that the conclusion would hinge on how you pose the research question and even that had flaws. Every other study I have seen with positive reports comes with ‘low confidence in the data’ or without clear elimination of other factors like social distancing in the results.

You believe only the data that you interpret as matching your political views and dismiss the overwhelming preponderance of data that doesn't. Completely dishonest as always.

‘Farcical man’…..hahaha…..the no mas moment when you had to resort to name calling.

LOL man, (oh no I've just name called you LOL man, I'm so mean!) the absolutely desperate attempt at distraction from how badly you have lost this argument. It's as predictable as it is comical. 

Getting Moffie to admit he made a dick of himself is not possible. I've tried.

Acolytes remain acolytes….the style changes. It’s now passive aggressive, straying into aggressive  when you have no more excuses. Four centuries ago people like you would have been  burning people at the stake. The ‘belief’ is simply replaced by ‘the science’, thank heaven for the independent thinkers we have, damn few left.

No study has been done that would  meet any proper PhD design  of experiments criteria. But never mind,  you have the support of a person who has no post graduate education, no quantitative literacy and thinks time stamps change when posts are edited.

I generously repeat my offer….feel free to come back when you have a proper study supporting your case.

Acolytes remain acolytes….the style changes.  It’s now passive aggressive, straying into aggressive  when you have no more excuses. Four centuries ago people like you would have been  burning people at the stake. The ‘belief’ is simply replaced by ‘the science’,

Do you even hear yourself. So apparently  a person who in the course of a debate on an internet forum links to over a dozen studies that support his argument is now the modern day Inquisitor.  Yeah that makes total sense. 

And oh look how predictable, he's trotting out the "science is the new religion" argument, something you do every time the science is not on your side.

thank heaven for the independent thinkers we have, damn few left.

The delusion is hilarious. You're repacking being wrong, as free thinking! You're the exact opposite of a free thinker. We all know its ideology and ego with you.

No st udy has been done that would  meet any proper PhD design  of experiments criteria. But never mind,  you have the support of a person who has no post graduate education, no quantitative literacy and thinks time stamps change when posts are edited.

Well actually I have the support of virtually every major medical organization on the planet. But apparently Moz is smarter than all of them.

I generously repeat my offer….feel free to come back when you have a proper study supporting your case.

Conclusion:

Participants in the CDC study voluntarily wore masks and were not assigned to specific mask types or maskless conditions. While this approach provides insights into real-world behavior, it also introduces potential biases that limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the causal effectiveness of masks. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), where participants are assigned mask types or maskless conditions, provide more robust evidence but are challenging to conduct in large populations.

….

There, no need to resort to childish insults. It’s just how ‘The Science’ works. I know this will be new to you. But it’s an opportunity for you to learn something. What’s your education anyway Anger…do you have some college?

Participants in the CDC study voluntarily wore masks and were not assigned to specific mask types or maskless conditions. While this approach provides insights into real-world behavior, it also introduces potential biases that limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the causal effectiveness of masks.

In the medical and science world all studies have potential biases or limitations or caveats, or whatever you want to call them, key word being potential, that include the studies you claim support your argument. Some more than others, but that doesn't necessarily make them invalid. Its also the reason why the same subject can be researched over and over again.

There, no need to resort to childish insults. It’s just how ‘The Science’ works. I know this will be new to you

LOL, you claim to know how "The Science" works, after your constant misrepresentations of it. You have the balls of a brass monkey.

But it’s an opportunity for you to learn something.

I guess I'll learning from you is how far some will dig themselves a hole defending the undefendable.

What’s your education anyway Anger…do you have some college?

I do. Do you have some humility...just asking for a friend.

You aren’t quite getting it….most medical studies are definitive. You take a pill or have a procedure and results can be measured regardless of anything the participant does. In this case you wear a mask, but you also go on living….going to restaurants, avoiding people that are ill….social distancing. The person wearing a mask is much more likely to do those things carefully. So you can’t allow mask participants to form a group without bias

Of course studies have potential biases, but having non random samples is particularly problematic where the distinguishing characteristic, in this case wearing a mask, may say something about the general behavior of the individual. Is wearing a mask more likely to indicate an individual who is more risk averse and thefore less susceptible to be infected for other reasons eg distancing? You betcha.

So allowing mask wearers to form one group and tracking them against non mask wearers is a pretty serious flaw.

Once again, the gold standard or perhaps the only acceptable standard because of the behavioral component in this case is randomized selection of the samples.  ChatGTP scans the whole field when it answers, so I asked if there were any studies following random sampling protocols  and here is the answer:

Are there mask studies with truly random samples?

1. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs):

• There have been a few RCTs investigating mask effectiveness, such as the DANMASK-19 study. This study randomized participants to either wear masks or not and measured outcomes like SARS-CoV-2 infection rates. However, even these studies may not achieve perfect randomness due to factors like self-selection into the trial or adherence variability.
• Other RCTs, such as studies on mask use in healthcare settings, provide controlled environments but may not generalize to the broader public.

…………

And as you may recall the Danish study shows the protective difference between mask wearers and those not wearing a mask was insignificant.

……..

Guess what that means, it means there are no studies out there that reliably prove masks provide significant protection, which was my original statement. I’m not saying they couldn’t provide some protection under extremely severe , basically unachievable protocols. I’m saying it hasn’t been proven.

So there you have it, if your friend wants to be educated as well he need only ask,

Several studies have used Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to assess the effectiveness of face masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission. RCTs are considered the gold standard for evaluating the causal impact of interventions. Here are some prominent studies that used RCTs to evaluate the effectiveness of masks:

1. DANMASK-19 (Denmark, 2020)

• Study Design: The DANMASK-19 study was a large, randomized trial conducted in Denmark to evaluate whether wearing a surgical mask in public settings reduced the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 infection.
• Findings: The study found no statistically significant difference in the rate of COVID-19 infections between those who wore masks and those who did not (around 2% in both groups). However, it did acknowledge that the study did not measure asymptomatic or undiagnosed infections, and compliance with mask-wearing was not strictly monitored.
• Limitations: One limitation was that the study did not account for high-risk exposure settings or fully control for behaviors outside of mask-wearing, like social distancing.

2. COVID-19 Prevention Network (COVPN) Study (U.S., 2020)

• Study Design: The COVPN study was an RCT that aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of face masks in preventing COVID-19 transmission in a controlled, community-based setting. Participants were randomly assigned to wear masks (including cloth or surgical masks) or to a control group with no mask recommendation.
• Findings: This study showed that masks, particularly surgical and N95 masks, were effective in reducing the transmission of COVID-19, though results varied depending on mask type and adherence.
• Limitations: While this study was robust, it faced challenges in measuring the exact adherence to mask-wearing and accounting for all variables related to virus spread, such as social distancing and the use of other preventive measures.

3. Bangladesh Mask Study (2020-2021)

• Study Design: A large-scale RCT conducted in Bangladesh examined the effect of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 in rural communities. The study randomized over 300,000 people to either a mask-wearing group or a control group without mask mandates.
• Findings: The results indicated that mask-wearing significantly reduced the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 infections in the general population, with larger effects in communities where masks were worn more consistently.
• Limitations: The study was conducted in rural settings where exposure risks may differ from urban areas, and adherence to mask-wearing was self-reported, which may have led to some inaccuracies.

4. The New York City Mask Study (2020)

• Study Design: This was a smaller-scale RCT conducted in New York City to evaluate the effectiveness of face masks in preventing COVID-19 transmission among high-risk individuals, including healthcare workers.
• Findings: The study demonstrated that the use of masks, especially surgical and N95 masks, reduced the rate of transmission in healthcare settings and among people in close contact with known cases.
• Limitations: The study's smaller scale and focus on high-risk groups made it less applicable to the general population.

5. Efficacy of Cloth and Surgical Masks Study (2020)

• Study Design: A randomized study in Japan examined the efficacy of cloth and surgical masks for reducing viral spread in households. Participants were randomized to use either cloth or surgical masks, and researchers tracked infection rates within families.
• Findings: The study found that surgical masks were more effective than cloth masks in preventing transmission of COVID-19 within households.
• Limitations: While this study was valuable, it focused mainly on household transmission, which may not reflect broader community transmission dynamics.

6. PROTECT Study (Italy, 2020)

• Study Design: This was another RCT evaluating mask use and social distancing in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in Italy, particularly in high-risk environments like public transportation.
• Findings: The study found that mask use, combined with social distancing, significantly reduced the spread of COVID-19 in public spaces.
• Limitations: As with many RCTs, the study's real-world applicability could be limited by varying adherence levels and potential underreporting of compliance.

7. Universal Masking Study (California, 2020)

• Objective: To assess the effect of universal mask-wearing in reducing COVID-19 transmission in various settings.
• Method: This RCT compared areas with and without mask mandates in California to determine if universal masking led to a reduction in COVID-19 cases.
• Findings: Areas with a mask mandate showed lower transmission rates compared to areas without a mandate.
• Link: Universal Masking Study

Summary of Key Findings from RCTs:

• Masks, especially high-quality ones like N95s, have been shown to reduce COVID-19 transmission in community and healthcare settings.
• There is some variation in effectiveness depending on the mask type (N95/surgical vs. cloth), how well masks fit, and the level of compliance.
• The Bangladesh study is one of the most cited and provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of mask-wearing in the general population.

Conclusion:

While RCTs on mask efficacy generally support the idea that masks help reduce the transmission of COVID-19, the exact magnitude of their effectiveness varies depending on the context (e.g., mask type, environment, adherence). The Bangladesh study stands out as one of the largest and most comprehensive RCTs to date, showing clear evidence of mask effectiveness in reducing virus transmission. However, other studies, such as DANMASK-19, showed more limited results, highlighting the challenges in measuring real-world mask effectiveness across diverse populations and settings.

Guess what that means, it means there are no studies out there that reliably prove masks provide significant protection, which was my original statement. I’m not saying they couldn’t provide some protection under extremely severe , basically unachievable protocols. I’m saying it hasn’t been proven.

So there you have it, if your friend wants to be educated as well he need only ask,

What the preponderance of data and studies show, is that masks are effective in protecting Covid 19. Its why the world foremost medical organizations had all endorsed the use of face masks as a measure to combat Covid 19.

Significant protection?. So you get to define what is and isn't significant. Even a relatively low reduction rate of say 11% as seen in the Bangladesh study, could on a global scale translate into hundreds of millions of less Covid cases over time, and millions of cases of lives saved or seriousness illness prevented.

So there you have it, if your friend wants to be educated as well he need only ask,

We can use you as a case study of what happens when ingrained political ideology meets hard data.

Interesting fact - Next time you shake someone's hand, take a look at how long it takes for them to touch their face. In most cases, within 20 seconds the person whose hand you shook will touch their face in some way. 

This is getting embarrassing. Are you truly this thick? These are not proper randomized studies. Take the Bangladesh study….villages were divided into groups wearing masks and those not wearing masks. Just becoming part of a team was going to affect behavior. Here again is Chat:

In rural settings like those in the Bangladesh mask study, the behavioral effect of wanting to please researchers or community leaders (often called the "social desirability bias") is a valid concern and likely not fully eliminated. This bias can be particularly pronounced in close-knit rural communities where social norms and external influences can strongly shape behavior. 

……

There are no properly randomized studies showing masks work. I repeat if there was a definitive study it would be all over the news.

Interesting factoid Plum….I’ll check it out. Remember when Fauci said this:

‘ I don't think we should ever shake hands ever again, to be honest with you," Fauci, a key member of the White House task force, said during a Wall Street Journal podcast. "Not only would it be good to prevent coronavirus disease -- it probably would decrease instances of influenza dramatically in this country."

…..

Of course like many of his warnings this has been forgotten…Covid was his chance to change the world, but it turns out the world didn’t want to be changed.

"Of course like many of his warnings this has been forgotten…Covid was his chance to change the world, but it turns out the world didn’t want to be changed."

Thank God for resistance to change...sometimes it's a good thing...

This is getting embarrassing.

How long are you going to try to brazen you way out of this. Its remarkable the lengths some people will go to save face.

Are you truly this thick.

These are not proper randomized studies.

Are you calling ChatGPT thick?

Take the Bangladesh study….villages were divided into groups wearing masks and those not wearing masks. Just becoming part of a team was going to affect behavior. Here again is Chat:In rural settings like those in the Bangladesh mask study, the behavioral effect of wanting to please researchers or community leaders (often called the "social desirability bias") is a valid concern and likely not fully eliminated. This bias can be particularly pronounced in close-knit rural communities where social norms and external influences can strongly shape behavior.

You can fixate on the potential biases potentially affecting the outcome of the Bangladesh study all you want, while ignoring the limitations and potential biases of the DANMASK study of which they are several according to chat.

The DANMASK-19 study was a randomized controlled trial conducted to assess the effectiveness of face masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in a community setting. While it provided valuable data, there are several limitations to the study:

1. Population and Setting:

   • The study was conducted primarily in Denmark, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other countries or regions with different public health contexts, demographics, or COVID-19 variants.

2. Self-Reported Mask Usage:

   • The study relied on self-reporting of mask usage by participants, which may not accurately reflect actual adherence to mask-wearing guidelines. This can introduce bias, as people may over-report their compliance.

3. Sample Size and Power:

   • The sample size was relatively modest, which could reduce the statistical power of the study to detect small but potentially important effects.

4. Control Group:

   • Participants in the control group were not required to wear masks, but they could still have engaged in other preventive measures like hand hygiene and social distancing, which could confound the results.

5. Compliance with Other Preventive Measures:

   • The study did not fully control for other variables such as social distancing, ventilation, or the use of other personal protective equipment, which might have impacted the overall effectiveness of masks in reducing transmission.

6. COVID-19 Variants:

   • The study was conducted during a period when COVID-19 variants with varying transmissibility were circulating. The results may have been different depending on which variants were prevalent at the time of the study.

7. Outcome Measure:

   • The primary outcome of the study was symptomatic COVID-19, which may not capture all cases of infection, especially those that are asymptomatic or mild. This could underestimate the effect of mask usage in preventing all types of infections.

8. External Factors:

   • The study was conducted during a specific time frame, and external factors (such as public health interventions, changes in government policies, or behavioral changes) could have influenced the outcomes in ways not fully captured by the study design.

Despite these limitations, the DANMASK-19 study contributed to the broader understanding of mask efficacy during the pandemic, but its results should be interpreted in light of these constraints.

.......

But the fact is that Bangladesh study conclusions are backed up/supported by over a dozen other studies. The sheer weight of evidence is undeniable, face masks are useful in combating Covid 19.

There are no properly randomized studies showing masks work. I repeat if there was a definitive study it would be all over the news.

I repeat virtually every major international and national medical body on the planet takes the position that face masks are effective at reducing Covid infection, a position that's backed by an overwhelming preponderance of data from various studies into the matter. That's a fact.

Chat had caveats for all the studies, which proves my point. As for your constant use of the medical establishment  as a reason to believe, I believe properly conducted, randomized studies. here are two among many instances where poor research led the medical establishment to erroneous conclusions, one of which had damaging effects that are still playing out.

‘ War on dietary fat

In a recent about-face on fat, the US dietary guidelines advisory committeehas removed its previous recommendations against fat and cholesterol consumption in its most recent report.

The medical establishment had for decades advised against the consumption of fat and cholesterol, which in turn led to a higher consumption of carbohydrates and sugars. Studies show this change in dietary habits had a strong correlation to soaring rates of diabetes, obesity and heart disease.

Signalling a continuing paradigm shift, a recent report by the National Obesity Forum (NOF) and Public Health Collaborative (PHC) titled "Eat Fat, Cut The Carbs and Avoid Snacking To Reverse Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes" called for an overhaul of existing guidelines, according to Reuters. The NOF and PHC also stated "eating fat does not make you fat". 

Such drastic changes in dietary recommendations have led to generations turning to fad diets and skewing nutritional intake resulting in not just cardiological problems but also metabolic concerns’

And 

‘ Flossing

A new report officially knocked flossing off its pedestal; a practice universally taught alongside brushing. 

The American Dental Association (ADA) has been promoting floss since 1908, however, it has recently emerged there was never any scientific basis for the recommendation.

The ADA accepts studies conducted by the floss industry, which represents a conflict of interest.

For years the ADA was adamant flossing prevents the build-up of plaque, gingivitis and tooth decay.

In an analysis of 25 studies on floss, the AP found most of the studies, which the ADA cited as a basis for their claims, used unreliable methods; carried a "moderate to large potential for bias"; and sometimes tested few participants. One study tested 25 people after only a single use of floss. Some studies lasted a mere two weeks, not a sufficient duration for a cavity or gum disease to develop.’

…..

The ADA methods carried moderate to large potential for bias…..so do these mask studies.

……..

So there you have two examples of why research has to be properly conducted. The mask studies are particularly challenging and at this point are unreliable. I know you are begging me to end the debate, all it needs is for you to admit there is no study which reliably proves the effect of masks. Hell even those supporting masks report  widely varying effects…they are totally inconsistent, just another indication that this remains an unknown . Your serve.

Chat had caveats for all the studies, which proves my point. As for your constant use of the medical establishment  as a reason to believe, I believe properly conducted, randomized studies. here are two among many instances where poor research led the medical establishment to erroneous conclusions, one of which had damaging effects that are still playing out.

In any field of research, particular one has vast as medicine of course there will be mistakes from time to time but pointing that out doesn't just invalidate studies with conclusions you don't like. You can cherry pick the times the experts got it wrong while ignoring the far numerous occasions were they got it right, but essentially you're just making a argument that expertise can be ignored, something which can be applied to any field of expertise. But I suppose why change a habit when that's what right wing America has been doing for years.

Aside from that the two cases you pointed our here are two different health bodies in American looking at two separate health care issues, where as with masks and Covid 19, every health body in every country on the planet looked into the issue and concluded using face masks is an effective tool in combating Covid 19. Are you really going try to argue they are all wrong?

So there you have two examples of why research has to be properly conducted

They were properly conducted. Just because you don't like their conclusions does not make them invalid.

The mask studies are particularly challenging and at this point are unreliable.

I'm sure each study has challenges but when you have so many studies that come to the same conclusion it builds up an extremely strong case. The worlds health organizations have deemed them reliable enough to take a position on the issue.

I know you are begging me to end the debate, all it needs is for you to admit there is no study which reliably proves the effect of masks.

LOL the self projection.

Hell even those supporting masks report  widely varying effects…they are totally inconsistent, just another indication that this remains an unknown

Widely varying effects...totally inconsistent. You know you just saying words doesn't make them so.

Your serve.

You lost the game 3 sets to zero as soon as I linked to all those studies. Everything since has been face saving.

You lost the game 3 sets to zero as soon as I linked to all those studies. Everything since has been a vain attempt at face saving.

Fixed.

As for the rest it’s just repetition of your basic position….I believe everything the medical fraternity produces and they have many studies that show masks work. No I don’t know the first thing about the studies, no I never realized samples should be random. I reject any study which contradicts masks. Anybody who questions the gospel is a heretic.

LOL, I can just sense the anger and desperation behind your posts at this point.

Apparently taking a position on a topic that's backed up the evidence/research is mere belief, on the same level of credibility as believing in the tooth fairy.

While I'm not in the medical research profession and don't proclaim to be an expert on the matter, I was actually aware of the benefits of random controlled trails being considered the gold standard. That does not mean studies that do not use random controlled trails can just be instantly dismissed.

I'm not the one rejecting around 17 different studies each showing the benefits of wearing face masks in combating Covid 19 several of which used RCT. You're the one holding up the DANMASK-19 study have it was the gospel and the one truth when even the researcher behind said the study have said

"Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect."

Additionally

The leader researcher in an interview with Forbes also stated.

"Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” he said,“because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease."

And in the accompanying editorial in the journal the study was published stated the

"does not disprove the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing"

If you have anything more intelligent to offer please do. If not let’s just accept I believe in numbers and proof, you believe in the word from above. Two generations ago you would have been a religious fanatic.

You accept nothing but your belief in your own infallibility. Two generations ago you would of been known as an obnoxiously smug, pompous bellend and two generations later nothing would of changed.

Lots of blather with from the time stamp moron and the uneducated  Irish woke man. But again, let’s look at those two quotes. In the first quote the researcher simply says the study doesn’t evaluate the effectiveness of masks where social distancing was not present. Translation, if social distancing is present masks provide no benefit, but perhaps they might if there was no social distancing and other measures.

Useful because that’s exactly what other studies don’t exclude…the benefit of social distancing which shows up in flawed sample selection in every other study.

And then the research leader says it doesn’t disprove the benefits of widespread mask wearing. Of course it doesn’t, the study investigated the benefit to the mask wearer…not the benefit of community protection from general mask wearing. The benefit to the mask wearer in this properly randomized sample study was zero….no ambiguity there.

Feel a bit more educated now, it took you how many days to figure that out. Come now you can’t have an Irish degree, their schools are better than that.

Lots of blather with from the time stamp moron and the uneducated  Irish woke man.

LOL so citing medical studies is woke now?

In the first quote the researcher simply says the study doesn’t evaluate the effectiveness of masks where social distancing was not present. Translation, if social distancing is present masks provide no benefit, but perhaps they might if there was no social distancing and other measures.

Amazing how you only focus on a select part of that quote. I wonder why.

Useful because that’s exactly what other studies don’t exclude…the benefit of social distancing which shows up in flawed sample selection in every other study.

Useful because you think its an issue you can use to discredit every other study when the truth is you have no idea if the presence of social distancing would change the outcome of the studies significantly enough for them to have to come to a different conclusion, all the while as you ignore the potential issues with the DANMASK study.

And then the research leader says it doesn’t disprove the benefits of widespread mask wearing. Of course it doesn’t, the study investigated the benefit to the mask wearer…not the benefit of community protection from general mask wearing. The benefit to the mask wearer in this properly randomized sample study was zero….no ambiguity there.

Yes the journal editor in chief had to add the comment to stop people like you misrepresenting the study.

Feel a bit more educated now, it took you how many days to figure that out. Come now you can’t have an Irish degree, their schools are better than that.

Gotta love these pitiful attempts at trolling.

bumpitty bump

The Eternal thread.