|
|
|
|
|
|
by otterley
2048 days ago
|
|
|
Of course it's allowed. But you should come armed with epidemiological data that contradicts the evidence and studies already out there. That's the language that epidemiologists speak. And extraordinary claims that contradict both the data and common sense require extraordinary evidence. Merely questioning it without a plausible explanation that is consistent with the existing data is a distraction. Why should anyone listen to you if that's all you've got? |
|
|
Interesting that you should say that. The Danish RCT for masks as PPE was just published this week, and showed no statistical effect of masks on protection against SARS-CoV2:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Despite this study being high quality, the only randomized controlled trial of masks and SARS-CoV2, and of pressing public interest, it was rejected by no fewer than three major scientific journals before publication. That's...unusual, to say the least:
https://www.berlingske.dk/videnskab/professor-stort-dansk-ma...
As a scientist, it has been dismaying to me how willing the scientific community has been to engage in censorship of unpopular opinions in 2020. Even the highest quality evidence is being actively suppressed, if it doesn't fit the "consensus viewpoint".
"And extraordinary claims that contradict both the data and common sense require extraordinary evidence."
In the case of medical interventions, the historical convention is that you do nothing if you cannot prove effectiveness. Said differently: claiming that an intervention works is an extraordinary claim. Assuming that it does not work is, quite literally, the null hypothesis.