@DNSWilson yup https://t.co/czAjbGWS3C

@chantz_y https://t.co/czAjbGWS3C

@karen_kelowna @chantz_y https://t.co/czAjbGWS3C

@meleeasian @chantz_y @bcndp @adriandix https://t.co/czAjbGWS3C

@Loopytea1 @chantz_y https://t.co/czAjbGWS3C

@chantz_y @SteveUBC https://t.co/czAjbGWS3C

Steve, @steveubc please read below. Thanks. https://t.co/czAjbGWS3C

@0bj3ctivity @vlal42 Peer review of models DO NOT = RCTs. The RCTs clearly show masking has little impact in community spread. Please tell me your definition of "masks work" in % terms? https://t.co/uUKiQPTsOd https://t.co/CSGTNykcYQ

@fritsander Dure Cochrane reviews zijn dus niet meer nodig, we kunnen het ook gewoon vragen aan @BleekerRovers https://t.co/6KlYRHnWoy

@smalltownpeddoc I wouldn't trust any medical facility that required masks for a respiratory virus because they obviously don't practice evidence based medicine. Every RCT has found masks to have no effect. Here's a Cochrane systematic review. https://t.c

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @_S__L_: @veit_markus @BMG_Bund Und sich selbst natürlich auch nicht. https://t.co/2ot3wie9a6 https://t.co/L4fmsKg8aA #DieMaskeMussW…

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

@veit_markus @BMG_Bund Und sich selbst natürlich auch nicht. https://t.co/2ot3wie9a6 https://t.co/L4fmsKg8aA #DieMaskeMussWeg #Lauterbachluegt

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @AnteMedicus: Update -Solid Science AGAINST MASKS (2/3) 10)https://t.co/Bo4JyxaZYD 11)https://t.co/B2x8QqvBbd 12)https://t.co/SfWQAjAgLL…

@toriclarka11y @myrabatchelder Well, here's a meta-analysis published in Nov 2020 and specifically not including Covid-19 since the studies were both few and incomplete at that time. You will note there's nothing here that remotely supports your point. htt

@bi_peep @MMOrpgPrincess @jirkyrick @BlackKnight10k So do I: https://t.co/bL7xS4k2Zd

@MMOrpgPrincess @bi_peep @jirkyrick @BlackKnight10k "Evidence from 9 trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little/no difference to the outcome of illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

@Rainmaker1973 Cool experiment. Looks a little ridiculous to do science while not following science. Science (every single controlled trial) says masks have no effect on a respiratory virus. https://t.co/jXQCFjmc2t

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

@keetmuise "There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants)" https:/

RT @_S__L_: @UllmannMdB @fdpbt https://t.co/L4fmsKxJ28 Eine Studie hat gezeigt, dass hohe Maskenkompliance mit HÖHERER Mortalität und Morb…

@doc_gero Not to mention every controlled trial says they do nothing you a respiratory virus. https://t.co/jXQCFjmc2t

@ChuckWurster https://t.co/S52uHSOXj8

@MackayIM It was! The #science failed to show a benefit! It was so compelling they wrote an opinion on-piece editorial arguing against the data to try and justify politicians’ policies. 🤡 https://t.co/h8qJUQFN35

@DrPieterPeach @MackayIM You mean “its “? Got any data proving that? Like, say, a #CochraneReview ? https://t.co/h8qJUQFN35

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

@Jyzee2 @NiusMarco @nicolasberrod https://t.co/8nv0xjw0sA

@derspiegel Eine Hand wäscht die andere. (Gegen respiratorische Viren hat sich dieses Prinzip - evidenzbasiert - ebenfalls wesentlich besser etabliert als Kaffeefilter vor dem Gesicht: https://t.co/L4fmsKg8aA.) #DieMaskeIstKeinMildesMittel #GesetzDerSch

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

@mRJrB9wA6FIjEsy @w077dMRJJndV0BC @fornax_cluster @kuratamagohan 2020/4/7 RCT15件分析 https://t.co/Qita04p6ve 2020/5/10 RCT10件分析 https://t.co/1dBIJXcJlu 2020/11/18 新コロRCT https://t.co/CXoDwOMp0d 2020/11/20 コクランレビュー https://t.co/MQjYQcrTJK 2/3

@EpochMaking_Pii @0qu_j 2020/4/7 RCT15件分析 https://t.co/Qita046Xh6 2020/5/10 RCT10件分析 https://t.co/1dBIJXtMnu 2020/11/18 新コロRCT https://t.co/CXoDwP3s2d 2020/11/20 コクランレビュー https://t.co/MQjYQcIWLK 2/3

@patrushkaz The evidence was never strong but different factors - including caution - come into play. I don’t criticise anyone who wants to wear one, I just don’t see the rationale now in clinical areas https://t.co/MGqUvUWTWU

@RoseHappy4Ever The evidence was never strong https://t.co/QKNvsQjl3i

@disntr @Rhology @MarneyWhitePhD You're acting like the amount of followers equate to the veracity of a claim. https://t.co/DHQvOUV1Hv https://t.co/MQTG47Oyhh https://t.co/AIQpeBZrly

#unmasked

@w077dMRJJndV0BC @You3_JP @kuratamagohan 2020/4/7 RCT15件分析 https://t.co/Qita04p6ve 2020/5/10 RCT10件分析 https://t.co/1dBIJXcJlu 2020/11/18 新コロRCT https://t.co/CXoDwOMp0d 2020/11/20 コクランレビュー https://t.co/MQjYQcrTJK 2/3

@Karl_Lauterbach 1.) Masken in Innenräumen haben noch nie etwas gebracht (im Freien natürlich auch nicht). https://t.co/L4fmsKgG08 2.) Oh, dann ist ja Ihr neuer BA.5-Varianten-Impfstoff, der noch nicht einmal am Menschen getestet wurde, schon wieder veral

RT @AnteMedicus: Update -Solid Science AGAINST MASKS (2/3) 10)https://t.co/Bo4JyxaZYD 11)https://t.co/B2x8QqvBbd 12)https://t.co/SfWQAjAgLL…

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

RT @DrJBhattacharya: @sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "Th…

I was wondering what Cochrane had to say about The Science™️

@sarahbeth345 If @instagram was consistent, it would apply a "misinformation" label. The Cochrane meta-analysis: "There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influ

People already know: “There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a #mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask” Study article: https://t.co/6NVzdNB4Qn < Look at the

@terikeri1 @ZieglerNattacat @Nishi8777 @fwx20 @teamtk @hmakihara 2020/4/7 RCT15件分析 https://t.co/Qita04p6ve 2020/5/10 RCT10件分析 https://t.co/1dBIJXcJlu 2020/11/18 新コロRCT https://t.co/CXoDwOMp0d 2020/11/20 コクランレビュー https://t.co/MQjYQcrTJK 2/3

@advocate_tee @CDCgov They explicitly lied to us. It’s overwhelming. “There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a #mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed #influenza compared to not wearing a mask” https:/

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

RT @KanAugust: 4/ エビデンスに基づく医療において国際的に最高水準であると認められているコクランレビューによる 67のランダム化比較実験（RCT）を元にした分析でも 「予防に効果があると言えない」 が結論です。 https://t.co/VjB6mrD…

@AndriesB9 @drbonkershenry @DaveWEberwein @sd63schools @Protect_BC @SafeSchoolsBC Here’s some science! @DesmoulinsMarat https://t.co/8rFJCwa9qj

@TorstenExo @MarcoBuschmann Aber das interessiert die meisten leider Politiker nicht… Metaanalyse (med. und FFP2-Masken unwirksam bei respiratorischen Viren): https://t.co/L4fmsKg8aA RCT (chirurgische Masken unwirksam bei SARS-CoV-2): https://t.co/2ot3wi

@alvaroghandi Da igual. No hay evidencia de eficacia de las mascarillas. Tom Jefferson y compañía (Cochrane Library): "No existe seguridad acerca de si el uso de mascarillas médicas o quirúrgicas o N95/P2 ayuda a frenar la propagación de los virus respi

@DunKrugerEffect @KnowMor01934723 @Ray_J__ @VincentRK https://t.co/3s0IgVWzcj

@Heicapa1 @ClayRegazzon @HolgerHamburgo @FrankoniaOliver @FrankfurtZack (1) https://t.co/4y11iVyXjE (2) https://t.co/2ot3wieGZE https://t.co/gtpFNKYQ6e (3) https://t.co/XLbauYzzTx https://t.co/tTmbeJurNP

@Heicapa1 @ClayRegazzon @HolgerHamburgo @FrankoniaOliver @FrankfurtZack Diese weiteren Untersuchungen, insb. RCTs und wenn genügend RCTs vorliegen eine Metaanalyse dieser RCTs, führen zu Evidenz, „Beweisen“. Diese Evidenz des höchsten Evidenzgrades hatte i

@ONO_12345 つづき 2020/5/10 RCT10件分析 https://t.co/1dBIJXcJlu 2020/11/18 新コロRCT https://t.co/CXoDwOMp0d 2020/11/20 RCT67件分析 https://t.co/MQjYQcrTJK つづく