2 ms·
Actually the authors interpretation is very different if you read the very next sectio (“Conclusions”): > “Conclusions and Relevance MMWR publications pertain
by efitz 2y ago
Actually the authors interpretation is very different if you read the very next sectio (“Conclusions”):
> “Conclusions and Relevance MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness over 75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions drawn were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”
I watch Dr Prasad on YouTube and he is pretty interesting IMO. He’s an oncologist but spends a lot of time analyzing medical studies.
- standardUser 2y agoWith language like that, there's no way to not see this as a hit piece.
- admissionsguy 2y agoYea, a hit piece on bad science
- majormajor 2y agoYes, I noted that the authors are largely focused on study quality vs actual conclusions about which sorts of masks are what level of effective. And critiquing sloppy science is very necessary. But it's being extended by many to be "masks not useful, full stop" despite largely being about "most studies suck." And the phrasings chosen by the authors make it look like that mis-read/extension is an effect they desire.