[timr]

> In the article you linked, he's citing his own study on cloth masks.

This is a blog post summarizing his review of every study on masks ever conducted. So yes, he's citing that. You should read it.

I linked to it because most people won't have time to read 30,000 words on masks, and want the TL;DR.

Everything else you've said is an ad hominem.

[Klinky]

His review is targeting the weakest mask type while cherry picking and downplaying even from studies showing benefits of masking, such as the Bangladesh study others have cited, to paint the picture he wants to paint.

[timr]

Read past the title. It covers all masks, not just cloth facemasks.

[Klinky]

I have. I've skimmed through the PDF, and it seems he wants to highlight the "ineffectiveness" of cloth masks, and downplay benefit from other types. It is also odd to put "cloth masks" in the title, if that is not the main focus of the review.

[timr]

I can't speak to the framing of the paper or the title. Maybe that's where he felt the evidence was least solid (which I understand; there is almost no evidence supporting cloth masks).

Regardless, the paper covers pretty much ~all of the prior literature for masks and respiratory illness.