The Forbes assertions are trivially confirmed.

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 confused. Those are all different authors.

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.

> I'm confused. Those are all different authors.

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.

I read the Reuters fact-check article. In fact, there are no facts. It says that the publication has been retracted, but from what I can see, that's not true. CDC's current response on masks is positive, however their initial response was negative. Same for WHO. All in all, Reuters rely on a single source – Nature. Nature.com is indeed a legitimate source, however the article is massive, so I can't say for sure if relying on that single source is good enough to make a conclusion.

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...

> It says that the publication has been retracted, but from what I can see, that's not true.

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?

Nope. Reuters is still a great source of truth. In fact, Reuters is my favorite publication agency. But, it doesn't mean they are saint and won't ever bullshit.

> 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.