| > The "scientific consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe. Yes, and then somebody found a better model (that's also still wrong) yet explained more and we used it.
So my question, what's your better model you base your assumptions on?
Any scientific paper is wrong, you can find problems with any of them. Just, critique is easy and often doesn't lead anywhere. my point: The scientific consensus right now is wearing masks help. This is supported by physics (particle simulations), medicine (respiratory disease and their transmission .. and a lot of other fields. You say there's little data ... come on than make this
> well-controlled experiment overturning consensus thinking you can be famous! https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/10/22/national/scienc... Check the video, people are trying what would be an experimental setup you would accept? That is also ethically OK. We have both controlled experiments that have reduced validity in the real world because of the artificial conditions and we have some more messy real world evidence. Seems OK to me. The people I see on the other side don't offer an alternative model. Also a lot of the criticism comes from people who don't seem to have virology /immunology etc background. > Usually, it takes 2 -5 years to get a nature paper ready (at least for the labs I know). Yes, my point was these papers are rushed. It can be bias, it can be also that reviewers have their expertise that tells them the paper fits the evidence. Change happens over models/explanations. I don't see any new ones from the "Masks don't work" folks. Just criticism (that's easy ... I'm happy to point out all the flaws in any paper you present me. If you want to kill a paper in peer review it's super easy ...) For policy decisions shouldn't you use the current scientific consesus,however flawed it is? Is there a better solution? Otherwise you are just relying on your gut feeling. Good luck. |
your controlled experiment with Sars-COV-2 particles :)