Forwarded from Alec Zeck
Doubling down on disturbing propaganda and social conditioning, this is what Parler’s Wikipedia page currently says, & it’s locked for editing.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6817
Large Danish RCT of masks vs no masks for prevention of COVID19 infection FAILED, rather predictably (given influenza RCTs) with a non-significant & clinically IRRELEVANT “0.3%” absolute “risk reduction”. P VALUE OF 0.38 = no statistical significance in reducing spread.
The journal still concedes to pharma language trying to confer some benefit, but the data very clearly shows otherwise.
Large Danish RCT of masks vs no masks for prevention of COVID19 infection FAILED, rather predictably (given influenza RCTs) with a non-significant & clinically IRRELEVANT “0.3%” absolute “risk reduction”. P VALUE OF 0.38 = no statistical significance in reducing spread.
The journal still concedes to pharma language trying to confer some benefit, but the data very clearly shows otherwise.
Annals of Internal Medicine
Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers:…
Background: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective…
Additional note: the study had a significant number of measures for adverse events:
bacteria, psychological, full healthcare, sick leave, infection in the household, other hospital diagnostics, etc.
None of these are included in the study. Why? Why did they deliberately leave this information out? I think I know why...
bacteria, psychological, full healthcare, sick leave, infection in the household, other hospital diagnostics, etc.
None of these are included in the study. Why? Why did they deliberately leave this information out? I think I know why...