@erinforslc ⭐️Denmark RCT study (highest caliber of research) on mask universal masking for Covid, “Recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendatio
@CNEWS Sauf a être anti science aucun médecin dira qu'il faut porter le masque. https://t.co/qqCHwcUPs5
RT @FreeMIN24465256: @Pr_ChabriereE Une autre étude plus simple a comprendre : https://t.co/reVXgqvmNh
RT @FreeMIN24465256: @Pr_ChabriereE Une autre étude plus simple a comprendre : https://t.co/reVXgqvmNh
RT @FreeMIN24465256: Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Rés…
RT @A1an_M: Certainly the science about masks hadn't changed at this time. Indeed a study done in Denmark in Apr/May 2020 but whose publica…
RT @FreeMIN24465256: Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Rés…
@reasonandlogic8 @MarkWar16520311 Are you sure about that? Study no1 is https://t.co/uimakhsMeb No 2 https://t.co/aYg8lmzzV8 No3 https://t.co/NZDKKMFWaT Etc etc, not tabloid journalism at all.
@DoctorDelhomme @SinedWarrior Parce que les masques ne sont pas porté h 24 en population générale mais par des pro formé a cet effet! Et si même en milieu pro les masques étaient déjà contesté ! Les études lors du covid existent aussi mais sont pas relayé
RT @FreeMIN24465256: Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Rés…
RT @FreeMIN24465256: @Pr_ChabriereE Une autre étude plus simple a comprendre : https://t.co/reVXgqvmNh
RT @FreeMIN24465256: Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Rés…
RT @FreeMIN24465256: Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Rés…
RT @FreeMIN24465256: Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Rés…
@Pr_ChabriereE Une autre étude plus simple a comprendre : https://t.co/reVXgqvmNh
Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Résultats: 1,8% de gens personnes pourtant le masque ont été infectées contre 2.1% des personnes ne le portant pas. Donc une différence de 3
Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Résultats: 1,8% de gens personnes pourtant le masque ont été infectées contre 2.1% des personnes ne le portant pas. Donc une différence de 3
Rappel scientifique sur le port du masque. Une étude a été faite pour le virus du COVID (https://t.co/Jlk2kuUdlA) Résultats: 1,8% de gens personnes pourtant le masque ont été infecté contre 2.1% des personnes ne le portant pas donc une différence de 3 per
RT @A1an_M: Certainly the science about masks hadn't changed at this time. Indeed a study done in Denmark in Apr/May 2020 but whose publica…
@OccamsPhi @PhilHollowayEsq Except following the science yields the precise opposite conclusion. 6,000 people were in a mask study. 50% wore masks, 50% didn’t, randomly assigned. After 1 month the results showed no statistically significant difference in C
@MattLyo38437007 @erinforslc I’ve got tons of studies, including RCTs all showing mask made absolute zero diff. See all my other comments. All the studies showing masking lower spread say “low confidence interval” haha Denmark: https://t.co/IOlTMNlWOy
@erinforslc ⭐️Denmark RCT study (highest caliber of research) on mask universal masking for Covid, “Recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendatio
@nelsonvillegas @McMinutemanUT @erinforslc Denmark RCT study (highest caliber of research) on mask universal masking for Covid, “Recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compar
@matatabidayon @shippo22nikukyu @denpamonkey39ra たった5%の着用率で結論出してるという研究の不備が指摘されて笑われた結果をいまだにドヤ顔で出してくる。これだから反マスクは学習能力がないと言われる。https://t.co/SMjJZ6kWZz
@matatabidayon いまだにそのレベルなのが反マスクの限界。 https://t.co/v1zUDxRxNg
@masknerd https://t.co/PMUAC2GSoa DANMASK19 Not statistically significant
RT @jonathanalbaba: /14 Remember when i said masks didn't work. They don't Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public H…
@bvw_redux @veryvirology What on earth are you talking about? Masks don't do anything. 6,000 people were in a trial for this. 50% wore masks, 50% didn’t, randomly assigned. After 1 month the results showed no statistically significant difference in COVID
@HeinzWexel @Dt_Aerzteblatt Wenn das nicht sarkastisch gemeint war, sollten Sie Ihre Lektüre wechseln, zB: https://t.co/YbitluM1fY https://t.co/YtfktcxQJe https://t.co/EOT9Zx0j1x https://t.co/phFDltIewq https://t.co/PpuNyuDtvO https://t.co/AvnjkT9tqJ
@saburota_tamaki @NUMERAL_UP @nonmomi デンマークのマスク着用者におけるSARS-CoV-2感染を防ぐための他の公衆衛生対策にマスク推奨を追加することの有効性 https://t.co/BzZk5fiJXi
@WjIcgEo5Ixi9wjV デンマークのマスク着用者におけるSARS-CoV-2感染を防ぐための他の公衆衛生対策にマスク推奨を追加することの有効性 https://t.co/BzZk5fiJXi
@uglypesci https://t.co/Iun10wZ3sW I guess we’ll see what happens. I’ll even screenshot the most important part for you, since you probably won’t be able to parse it yourself.
@anticoronabrain @hondarekus87922 @DeLaRue_Nyanko インパクトファクター168.9点のThe Lancetは流石に無視しませんよね? 他にも沢山ありますよ? https://t.co/lU5apxMGjw https://t.co/ImdZkFMw98 https://t.co/c8XivKmKlL https://t.co/AH4lV3J88p
@yue4545 @doparatata @Ikui_Ryoichi 例えばこれ ランダム化比較試験の論文だからエビデンスレベルが高いという点は理解できるけど、統計学的有意差のない本論文を絶対に正しいというようなニュアンスでそれを根拠に言う人がいてそれは流石に違うんじゃないかなと https://t.co/bHCufP0PWB
@Nattjager @NoOligarchy @caronazo Ble surr med link til Danmask studien. Her er den: https://t.co/7uV1tHI7SF
@postpostpostr I specifically remember discussion of this paper. https://t.co/XN3Yzw4ZKF
@JjinUk64 @spanishpete7 @toadmeister Here's an example, here he writes a predetermined headline for the Spectator, that was CHANGED after it was ridiculed. So, badly quoted by so many Full Fact did a piece.https://t.co/cOeE1y13PI it took 30 secs to see th
@crabb_vicki @vaccinescience Or is this worthy of comment? 3. Bundgaard & Bundgaard, 2021 https://t.co/Jn9U7TvzLa Danmask RCT: confidence intervals were compatible with a 23% increase in infection for wearers.
RT @thebushmaster: @9NEWS Ahh yes, the actor. We should listen to him, and not... science Or, you could look at this study they shows us a…
おそらくここで出てくるデンマークの研究はこちらのことですが https://t.co/DsXJZke2GX 「マスクに効果なし」 という結論ではありませんよ。 読まれましたか?
RT @yfuruse: @774nyannyan デンマークの研究はn数も少なく?な感じ ・ユニバーサルマスクではなく、コミュニティの中で「外出時にマスクをした人としない人」の比較 で有意差はないと言っているだけ。 何度も書いているが、新型コロナ対象だと、ウイルス吐出者もマス…
@774nyannyan デンマークの研究はn数も少なく?な感じ ・ユニバーサルマスクではなく、コミュニティの中で「外出時にマスクをした人としない人」の比較 で有意差はないと言っているだけ。 何度も書いているが、新型コロナ対象だと、ウイルス吐出者もマスクをしないと感染は抑えられない。 https://t.co/XKZpzdPbkR
RT @MakingC19Waves: デンマークでの6千ランダム比較試験 (RCT)でマスク着用者と非着用者はコロナ感染率に有意差がなかったです。https://t.co/2clHX8qt8i https://t.co/IhFQr65fZf
RT @ScotHWCoalition: @CM_7505
@CM_7505
@EvonneTCurran @microlabdoc @ScotHWCoalition @covidinquirysco @SalWitcher @DRTomlinsonEP @SafeDavid3 @trishgreenhalgh @IndependentSage @IanDuddyUK ➡️➡️➡️ More studies on transmission and masks: https://t.co/YbitluM1fY https://t.co/YtfktcxQJe https://t.co
@02OCT1835 @LakesFirearmsTr @jberkley17 @FenixAmmunition @WalshFreedom For example, this: https://t.co/gI7i6pc18I is one of the CDC analyzed studies from Denmark which, in its conclusion, stated "No significant reduction in transmission," yet it has to pre
@cnote2957 @FenixAmmunition You literally can. https://t.co/1jXl1Ieu1I
@ktw825878087856 @Novembe78894667 ですね。 反マスクさんがマスクに有意差無しと引用する論文*1も、 結論部に「感染率穏やかでソーシャルディスタンスありの場合」と注意あるのに見ないフリですからね… 人口密度高い日本では結果も異なりますよね。 *1 https://t.co/CqTEw1hhlZ
@bmahonthatsit @SarahGeving1 @ZachariaKing28 @VigilantFox @RobertKennedyJr "Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection." https://t.co/AIhxqHg1SO
@arsene_sam98 @FSazanavets @kevinnbass I've been reading threads and articles for 3 years now. I've got a bunch in my notes, I could link, like this one: https://t.co/hbHKiUz8IT Historical and current studies from around the world. The problem is they pret
RT @osamu_iga: 「デンマークのRCT実験がマスクの効果を否定した」はデマ。「着用者の感染」は0.3%減(有意差無し)だが、マスクの効果が最も期待できる「着用者から他への感染」は実験で設計されていない。これは過去の他のRCT実験でも同じ。この実験でマスクの効果を否定…
@AlixBrizet @FSazanavets https://t.co/smlZedHGVc no they don't , even by their own fraudulent definition of a virus
RT @osamu_iga: 「デンマークのRCT実験がマスクの効果を否定した」はデマ。「着用者の感染」は0.3%減(有意差無し)だが、マスクの効果が最も期待できる「着用者から他への感染」は実験で設計されていない。これは過去の他のRCT実験でも同じ。この実験でマスクの効果を否定…
RT @osamu_iga: 「デンマークのRCT実験がマスクの効果を否定した」はデマ。「着用者の感染」は0.3%減(有意差無し)だが、マスクの効果が最も期待できる「着用者から他への感染」は実験で設計されていない。これは過去の他のRCT実験でも同じ。この実験でマスクの効果を否定…
RT @osamu_iga: 「デンマークのRCT実験がマスクの効果を否定した」はデマ。「着用者の感染」は0.3%減(有意差無し)だが、マスクの効果が最も期待できる「着用者から他への感染」は実験で設計されていない。これは過去の他のRCT実験でも同じ。この実験でマスクの効果を否定…
@ktw825878087856 @Novembe78894667 ですね…蒸れが少々不快な程度です。唾飛ばないだけでも効果ありそうなものですが。 2月の厚労省の知見 https://t.co/eNl9uAnQoF 反マスクさんは主にこの論文を盾にしがち。前提として感染率緩やか、密でない場所、マスク使用率少ない場所、と前提あるのにね。 (✽´ཫ`✽) https://t.co/AH4lV3J88p
RT @osamu_iga: 「デンマークのRCT実験がマスクの効果を否定した」はデマ。「着用者の感染」は0.3%減(有意差無し)だが、マスクの効果が最も期待できる「着用者から他への感染」は実験で設計されていない。これは過去の他のRCT実験でも同じ。この実験でマスクの効果を否定…
@theheraldsun They obviously didn't get the memo from science. https://t.co/abqkNxl2QV
RT @thebushmaster: @9NEWS Ahh yes, the actor. We should listen to him, and not... science Or, you could look at this study they shows us a…
RT @thebushmaster: @9NEWS Ahh yes, the actor. We should listen to him, and not... science Or, you could look at this study they shows us a…
@squirrelpalooza @empathy1st1 DEPENDS WHAT DATA YOU CHERRY PICK. Masks have never been effective against respiratory viruses. I am happy to hang out with anyone, including those recently infected with Covid. https://t.co/ceYtjbamgV https://t.co/RNX9KS8UOv
@CAM1nc @Angel8492280684 @TPV_John Actually, he knows a lot more than you. 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 di
デンマーク マスク効果でない典型事例。 デンマークで、マスク規制しても、効果が出る地域では無いという結論のデータ。 (マスク規制は守られない人々?) https://t.co/0xfRC1PqfP
https://t.co/8l1NnUO4BH The Much anticipated Danish Mask study showed statistically… no real difference. “4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%)”
RT @DanielHayes31: Danish mask study that JAMA, NEJM & Lancet REFUSED to publish was just published in Annals of Internal Medicine. In the…
Danish mask study that JAMA, NEJM & Lancet REFUSED to publish was just published in Annals of Internal Medicine. In the largest randomized controlled trial to date w/ 6,024 subjects, medical masks were NOT effective protection against infection. https
@jaderesearch The article links to scientific journals or the actual scientific studies. What type of medicine do you practice and which study do you object to? https://t.co/6tACW6Ttqa https://t.co/X2b4xaMnjw
@FredSimonTLM @KimRigden I would recommend @KimRigden read the scientific study done by Denmark's equivalent to the CDC. https://t.co/3YuftJwFIc
@BinsQuan @AlboMP @DefenceAust Covidiot. https://t.co/19miodsIIV
@WeeHughie1973 @dyna_tasha @limpmodemark @KristenMeghan @BrandonStraka Annals of Internal Medicine: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more tha
@briancheeek @sylwie_sch 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 https://t.co/iRQmJNcv99 https://t.co/lEKhbjiJsO
@FactsATruth Yes they were opposed because of science proved they don't work,which is why they've NEVER been used for viruses, let alone a coronaviruses. https://t.co/oF55kKKiTq https://t.co/DxrDJ8DLNO https://t.co/RPy7ekzHBB https://t.co/7I4FsXOfzl ht
@tunackr2020 @JimGleeson @gorskon Let me know when you advance to studies on SARS-CoV-2, instead of influenza. https://t.co/y7Ghuc6nSb https://t.co/J9jhnKkSEU https://t.co/xevowck5X7