I already did. Go re-read my posts. Address the rebuttals.
Feel free to not use ad hominems for an article that summarizes research from multiple groups that are not AAPS. Unlike one of your citations which uses research that has nothing to do with it's article, mine directly addresses the topics from each angle with research not done by AAPS.
Edit - For anyone confused about my position, everyone else is so far below reaching anything resembling close to credible rebuttals that's is a joke for me to even entertain a response. This is not an exaggeration. In the medical science world, quality of research is important. We are not even playing on the same playing field. The science is that strong in favor of my position.
Why do you think so many experts around the world, and so many CDC-equivalent organizations around the world are suggesting mask usage now? Do you think it is solely a form of health theater? Or that they are incompetent and mistaken in their reading of the scientific facts?
They aren't. They are still sending mixed messages on it. Many are still not sure. Robtard has the most conservative stance and you can't go wrong with it - do all the things. Sanitize, social distance, wear a mask, etc. One or more of those is definitely helpful with pure isolation being the most perfect solution (but just not possible).
Yes, it is health theater because people wanted the masks to be a political thing.
And to the second part, no, many researchers readily admit that the research they have is just not adequate. Even ones that have a clear bias, they readily admit in their research that the research is just not adequate enough.
No, you haven't. You spent several posts conversing with Pr. Please stop lying.
I've already shown that you're using outdated studies and the ones referenced in my links are all more relevant and more up to date and from far more credible sources.
I'll give you an example of your behaviour and we can all see how your claims on other people acting dishonestly stack up
So in one post you state this
Then one of your quotes from a study you used to back up your position says this
You also keep stating that RTC's are the only applicable appropriate studies. The issue with that is that the meta analysis shows RTCs show bias against the use masks and observational studies show bias FOR the use of masks.
But if you want to go down RTC only here's the latest as of 24 march 2020
DDM:
I'm going to take a stab and say that your argument is regarding the idea that the Trump Administration has not been lackluster in it's response concerning the pandemic but not a single thing you cited seems to demonstrate against that claim. Moving on to some of the others, such as:
Chloroquine showed efficacy in vitro but not in vivo. So, isolated impacts of specific medications on certain types of cells and/or organisms rather than impacts on actively infected individuals. There are recent studies that outline this and question the efficacy of Chloroquine as a treatment, like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7354053/
Additionally, the FDA stripped authorization concerning chloroquine on the following basis:
On from that,
I'm not sure where you're going with this. There's a variety of epidemological studies that support the usage of masks due to rate of infectivity, pre-mask and post-mask wearing. It's supported by the WHO and CDC, unless your position is that they're bullshitting? Here's an example:
This isn't wrong. However, the CDC is also an extension of the executive, since it's a fed agency, and a lot of states and local governments are reliant on the executive and federal level to coordinate and provide some context for their actions and policities. It's pointless implementing something if another state implements something else that has potentiality to counteract it and it's generally the federal government's position to ensure any form/type of response is funded and used efficiently.
To summarize, what exactly are you arguing for? What do you wish to convince another side of? The stipulations you've listed here to stop the pandemic or something else?
Good post, i too bought into the in vitro Chloroquine studies, but had second thoughts and am still on the fence over the in vivo work. Otherwise very solid mate.
It's amazing how the WHO manages to both have zero power to get China to do or admit to anything yet can, at the same time, set American policy with total authority.
__________________ Sweating on the streets of Woking
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
I know you're trolling as this is just your way of trolling. But, I'll take it seriously just in case anyone but you is interested in the actual science.
Yes I most certainly did rebut your argument - stop dodging. Additionally, it's random controlled trials, not random trials controlled.
The "Outdated Study" fallacy, huh? The burden is on you to prove that the studies are outdated or irrelevant.
All are 2009 and newer except a single reference to pooling data on the flu since 1946 and that's a reference by the CDC themselves.
Let's go down your study piece by piece (some studies they use are also used in the meta-analysis I cited which is kind of hilarious):
What this study is not: proof that the general public benefits from wearing masks.
Proof of what this study could mean but does not mean: respirators worn continuously during healthcare shifts may, not guarantee, offer some protection against COVID-19.
From the actual studies used in this metaanalysis:
Additionally, this did not specifically test for COVID-19 infections and is based on studies from 2012 and older. It specifically studies for viral respiratory infections which is the same thing my studies looked at. And they have similar conclusions.
Not relevant and primary variable is not present - non-mask group. It would be unethical to force HCW to not use masks as a control group. Showed significant good case for bacterial infection prevention, however:
However, another study they included did study no-mask vs. mask. And when they controlled for laboratory results (ILI), there was no difference. Meaning, the ILI symptoms being self-reported, demonstrating a lower rate of ILI symptoms, was placebo. Wearing a mask provides a placebo effect which I think explains most of the mask wearing benefits we see - all placebo:
But, probably the biggest finding in your meta-analysis is the most damning for face-mask use and hand-washing (silly sounding to me - hand washing seems legit especially with people constantly touching their face when wearing a mask but these are the results of the science). It was a large group and included rigorous follow-up and checks by HCWs, not just self-reporting. It also included actual lab-tested outcomes and it would most likely represent the real-world: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21651736/
Additionally, here are more studies and meta-anlalyses with RCT:
Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review”, Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658 https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...C6639CCC9D8BC05 None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence”, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...59.2011.00307.x “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 “We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”
Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:
Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”, JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...article/2749214 “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...1111/jebm.12381 “A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The
4 use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
My conclusion is, since N95s are made specifically to not be porous enough to allow a significant portion of URIs but only when used continuously and with rigor to compliance FOR HEALTHCARE WORKERS. This is also my position and I would never deny this. My position has always been about the public not being "highly trained HCWs using N95s in targeted settings, wearing them all day long without fail." That's just not possible. And in some instances, you increase your risk of infection.
So the only thing I'd have to do is find any credible result at all that supports HCQ+others in real-world patient outcomes, right? That would satisfy your interests in this topic and clarify my position as solid, correct?
I'm clarifying so I know which conditions you want me to meet to satisfy your curiosity/interests in this particular topic.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 15th, 2020 01:57 AM
i see what you did there. 
Truly it has reached ludicrous levels now.
