Edit: also, quoting Reuters is fine. However, quoting Forbes is not. Forbes is a trash publication, getting published there costs a few hundred bucks.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15325026/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18434036/
Studies demonstrating mask efficacy are just as easily Googleable.
You might not want to be throwing around "trash publication" slams here, given your cite.
I'm saying "trash publication" because I had experience working with Forbes. Once again, one can publish at Forbes whatever the hell they want. It costs a few hundred bucks.
From the "Medical Hypotheses" journal the Forbes article is criticizing for poor editorial control, and citing those as examples. At least read the claim you're attempting to debunk.
> Once again, one can publish at Forbes whatever the hell they want. It costs a few hundred bucks.
Apparently that's also true for the "Medical Hypotheses" journal.
Edit: also, _nobody_ gives a crap about masks in Florida. However, death rates are the same as in California: https://apnews.com/article/public-health-health-florida-coro...
I'm sorry, you'll base your beliefs on an article in "Medical Hypotheses", but conclude that Reuters is making up an Elsevier spokesperson?
I thought "quoting Reuters is fine"; now they're fake news?
> I'm sorry, you'll base your beliefs on an article in "Medical Hypotheses".
I haven't made any conclusions yet. I'm still analyzing. Both you and Reuters try to belittle the significance of an entity based on its name or the titles of their publications. While it's possible that the publication is pure crap, "belittling" is one of those crappy techniques one can rely on to defend their arguments.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-stanford-masks/fac...
The author lied about his affiliation with Stanford, and the paper was retracted.
> Jonathan Davis, a spokesperson for Elsevier, told Reuters via email that Medical Hypotheses has since retracted the article after concluding it was misleading due to “a broader review of existing scientific evidence” showing that masks “are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission” and said that the article contained several misquotes and unverified data. Davis said that the author himself had submitted the affiliation with Stanford Medicine.
> As reported here by Forbes, Medical Hypotheses has previously published articles such as “Is there an association between the use of heeled footwear and schizophrenia” (here) and “Ejaculation as a potential treatment of nasal congestion in mature males” (here).
There's a reason it's titled "Medical Hypotheses".