Enjoying a drop of red.
Anti everything, responsible for nothing. That seems to be how it works I have found.
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
A quick scan shows they vaguely looked at population size but ignored population density, it even admits that the more populous countries had a better outcome from masks but then ignores it by saying that by excluding the most populous countries they get back to masks not helping.Maybe it is, Gilbert, but as you refused to even acknowledge - never mind respond to - the wealth of mask studies I shared with you on this thread I won't be reading it.
See how that works?
As stated by SM you refuse to read ours, I've read most of yours.A quick scan?
Give us some links, GG!
Ok, here you are. Peer reviewed.
No! Not like that!! We’ll just disagree with anything and point at a convenient paragraph!
And so it goes on!
I think I may have mentioned it here, but I listened to a "Science Vs" podcast about ivermectin recently and it was quite eye-opening seeing how flimsy the evidence for it actually is.Thoughts and prayers, fancy some ivermectin?
Well thats technically correct, they could also have considered those that died in the great plague!In the influential study from Egypt that first saw interest in it explode, it was discovered that a number of the patients involved (who were listed in the "died without taking ivermectin" data) were already dead before the trial had started!