955
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Piers@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago
[-] apotheotic@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago

I'm losing my mind that this person is constantly going

"COCHRANE IS TRUSTWORTHY. THEY SAY MASK BAD"

And then you point out that cochrane did not say that, and have emphasised the opposite. And they ignore this as if its fake news 😂

[-] Piers@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago

To be fair to them. It's not long since I pointed that out. They seemingly haven't seen my comments at all yet. Maybe they'll read them, read the statement, review their understanding of the paper and express that their perspective has changed. It's too soon to say that definitely wont happen! (So let's enjoy imagining it will while we can.)

[-] apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago

Yknow what, that's fair

[-] Chipthemonk@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.

So, did they change it? (Spoiler alert, No, they didn’t)

[-] Chipthemonk@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

You people seriously just don’t get it. One editor in chief wrote this piece. It’s not all of Cochrane. Cochrane is a journal. You clearly don’t understand academic processes. The article was peer reviewed by a panel of experts and written by numerous other experts. The author you are bringing up is solely one person that has an opinion on the matter due to the political ramifications of the article’s findings.

It’s annoying having to explain academic processes to the general public who don’t have a clue.

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
955 points (93.2% liked)

World News

39355 readers
377 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS