3 ms·

Vox? I would recommend seeking elsewhere for truth. For example, after parsing through the ad hominem attacks and nonsense in that article, their main point is

Vox? I would recommend seeking elsewhere for truth. For example, after parsing through the ad hominem attacks and nonsense in that article, their main point is that the Bangladesh study found masks to be effective. Except that study is junk and all the reported effects were found to be a result of researcher bias [1]. Vox also misrepresents the Danish study, which is probably the best study to date we have on masking effectiveness. > Progress isn't a straight line. Yes, but truth is most likely to be found in whatever facts are orthogonal to vox' narrative. [1] https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-022-06704-z https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
specialist 3y ago
> parsing through the ad hominem attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > "Re-analysis on the statistical sampling biases of a mask promotion trial in Bangladesh: a statistical replication" I'm not remotely qualified to have an opinion. That said... The open (public) process as well as the critics sharing their source code is just awesome. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-022-06704-z/peer-review https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13... https://github.com/mchikina/maskRCTnote https://github.com/mchikina/maskRCTnote I share the reviewer's hope that authors of the original study will respond.