A total of 6 studies were included, involving 4 countries, after a total of 5,178 eligible articles were searched in databases and references.
They literally typed some shit into the journal search database that had that many articles. They didn’t study all of those articles. Their study is founded exclusively from 6 studies. The Cochrane review’s approach is far more comprehensive and goes into considerably more depth in many more studies.
So, maybe you didn’t read the articles? Or maybe you don’t understand population level, public health study methods.
Fair point, I did misread that. But it seems you’re acting in bad faith with just one source again. Any search amongst published articles provide evidence for the efficacy and cost effectiveness of masks as a adjunct preventative measure. It seems rather like cherry picking to trust the one place that goes against the grain, no?
The responded article says this:
They literally typed some shit into the journal search database that had that many articles. They didn’t study all of those articles. Their study is founded exclusively from 6 studies. The Cochrane review’s approach is far more comprehensive and goes into considerably more depth in many more studies.
So, maybe you didn’t read the articles? Or maybe you don’t understand population level, public health study methods.
Fair point, I did misread that. But it seems you’re acting in bad faith with just one source again. Any search amongst published articles provide evidence for the efficacy and cost effectiveness of masks as a adjunct preventative measure. It seems rather like cherry picking to trust the one place that goes against the grain, no?