[W:4,590] Study Finds Face Masks Didn’t Slow Spread Of Covid-19

[Fledermaus]

Maybe if you, Fledermaus, Quag, snakestretcher and others who are confused about reality stopped post misinformation about CoVID-19 we'd have fewer deaths with COVID-19?

What disinformation have I posted that would lead to someone suffering from COVID?

Quote me.

 

[RealityChecker]

What disinformation have I posted that would lead to someone suffering from COVID?

Quote me.

You are claiming flimsy cloth face masks protect people from being infected with the Wuhan virus. They are almost certainly nearly or completely useless for that purpose. However, many older at risk people think wearing a face mask makes it safe for them to go to public places. We know millions of Americans have gone to public places wearing flimsy cloth face masks and become sick with CoVID-19 as a result of this false belief they are going to be protected by a largely useless face mask.

 

[Fledermaus]

You are claiming flimsy cloth face masks protect people from being infected with the Wuhan virus. They are almost certainly nearly or completely useless for that purpose. However, many older at risk people think wearing a face mask makes it safe for them to go to public places. We know millions of Americans have gone to public places wearing flimsy cloth face masks and become sick with CoVID-19 as a result of this false belief they are going to be protected by a largely useless face mask.

EVIDENCE SHOWS even flimsy masks help stop the spread from wearer to others around the wearer.

THAT is what the mask mandates are intended to address.

You continue to both ignore the intent behind the masks and the studies showing efficacy.

 

[RealityChecker]

EVIDENCE SHOWS even flimsy masks help stop the spread from wearer to others around the wearer.

Claiming the very weak evidence that at best suggests cloth masks might slightly slow the spread of the Wuhan virus shows anything is a stretch. There are in fact no quality RCT proving that any of the cloth face masks the public is wearing actually prevent the spread of the Wuhan virus or other respiratory viruses spread in the same or similar fashion as the Wuhan virus. Indeed, the only quality RCT on paper surgical masks did not come close to proving a statistically significant reduction in the contagion from the Wuhan corona virus. (Danish study). It did show a very minor 10% lower infection rate in the mask wearing group compared to the controls. So even the paper surgical masks seem very ineffective. Even so for several months now whenever I go to an MD's office or clinic wearing a flimsy cloth face mask they provide me with a paper surgical mask to wear instead. Seems MDs around here have no confidence at all in these flimsy cloth face masks. Why do you suppose that is?

THAT is what the mask mandates are intended to address.
You continue to both ignore the intent behind the masks and the studies showing efficacy.

The government mask mandates may be INTENDED to reduce the contagion of the Wuhan virus but as they say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Fledermaus]

Claiming the very weak evidence that at best suggests cloth masks might slightly slow the spread of the Wuhan virus shows anything is a stretch. There are in fact no quality RCT proving that any of the cloth face masks the public is wearing actually prevent the spread of the Wuhan virus or other respiratory viruses spread in the same or similar fashion as the Wuhan virus. Indeed, the only quality RCT on paper surgical masks did not come close to proving a statistically significant reduction in the contagion from the Wuhan corona virus. (Danish study). It did show a very minor 10% lower infection rate in the mask wearing group compared to the controls. So even the paper surgical masks seem very ineffective. Even so for several months now whenever I go to an MD's office or clinic wearing a flimsy cloth face mask they provide me with a paper surgical mask to wear instead. Seems MDs around here have no confidence at all in these flimsy cloth face masks. Why do you suppose that is?

The government mask mandates may be INTENDED to reduce the contagion of the Wuhan virus but as they say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Nothing changes the fact that EVIDENCE SHOWS even flimsy masks help stop the spread from wearer to others around the wearer.

Nothing changes the fact THAT is what the mask mandates are intended to address.

My logical conclusion is that you continue to both ignore the intent behind the masks and the studies showing efficacy.

 

[RealityChecker]

Nothing changes the fact that EVIDENCE SHOWS even flimsy masks help stop the spread from wearer to others around the wearer.

I have not seen any credible evidence that flimsy cloth masks help stop the spread of the Wuhan virus from an infected wearer to others. I do not believe it exists but if it exists as you claim then please post a link to it so I can evaluate it. Thanks.

Nothing changes the fact THAT is what the mask mandates are intended to address.

My logical conclusion is that you continue to both ignore the intent behind the masks and the studies showing efficacy.

I do not care about the intent of mask mandates but whether or not there is credible scientific evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt they actually work. Post links to the credible scientific evidence you believe proves the flimsy cloth face masks actually work and I will not ignore it. Indeed, if it is a well designed RCT I will change my opinion.

 

[Fledermaus]

I have not seen any credible evidence that flimsy cloth masks help stop the spread of the Wuhan virus from an infected wearer to others. I do not believe it exists but if it exists as you claim then please post a link to it so I can evaluate it. Thanks.

Credible evidence has been given and ignored.

I do not care about the intent of mask mandates

Obviously. That is one reason you fail to understand.

but whether or not there is credible scientific evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt they actually work.

And we come back to the whole gist of the issue.

No one is going to waste the time and money and exposing people to danger in order to prove to someone (who is ignoring everything else presented) that masks help prevent the transfer from infected to uninfected.

Post links to the credible scientific evidence you believe proves the flimsy cloth face masks actually work and I will not ignore it. Indeed, if it is a well designed RCT I will change my opinion.

Braaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwk


Polly wants an RCT!


Polly wants an RCT!

 

[RealityChecker]

Credible evidence has been given and ignored.

There was no credible evidence posted for me to ignore.

Obviously. That is one reason you fail to understand.

So what do you think impacts your body weight whet you eat or what you intended to eat? If you tell the cop who pulled you over you did not intend to break the law does that mean you do not deserve the ticket? Public policy has to be judged based on what it accomplished or failed to accomplish. Do we care whether or not Biden intended to leave all those Americans, billions of dollars worth of military equipment, and to murder those innocent kids with a drone attack? Or should his actions be judged by the results?

And we come back to the whole gist of the issue.

No one is going to waste the time and money and exposing people to danger in order to prove to someone (who is ignoring everything else presented) that masks help prevent the transfer from infected to uninfected.

And yet the FDA requires drug companies to spend billions of dollars to determine the safety and efficacy of new drugs before they can be sold to the public. Should we just assume the drugs are safe and effective because we know the drug companies did not intend to put ineffective and/or dangerous drugs on the market?

Braaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwk


Polly wants an RCT!


Polly wants an RCT!

View attachment 67357140

Only a bird brain would judge results based on intent rather than credible scientific evidence.

 

[Fledermaus]

There was no credible evidence posted for me to ignore.

That is a bald faced lie.

The rest ignored because I am dealing with someone who lies regularly.

So what do you think impacts your body weight whet you eat or what you intended to eat? If you tell the cop who pulled you over you did not intend to break the law does that mean you do not deserve the ticket? Public policy has to be judged based on what it accomplished or failed to accomplish. Do we care whether or not Biden intended to leave all those Americans, billions of dollars worth of military equipment, and to murder those innocent kids with a drone attack? Or should his actions be judged by the results?

And yet the FDA requires drug companies to spend billions of dollars to determine the safety and efficacy of new drugs before they can be sold to the public. Should we just assume the drugs are safe and effective because we know the drug companies did not intend to put ineffective and/or dangerous drugs on the market?

Only a bird brain would judge results based on intent rather than credible scientific evidence.

 

[jaeger19]

What disinformation have I posted that would lead to someone suffering from COVID?

Quote me.

Masks are ineffective at slowing the spread of the "wuhan virus".
Natural immunity is better than vaccination immunity.
Those are two biggies right there.

 

[Fledermaus]

Masks are ineffective at slowing the spread of the "wuhan virus".
Natural immunity is better than vaccination immunity.
Those are two biggies right there.

I am hoping that was sarcasm.


The challenge was to quote me.

I never said either.

 

[jaeger19]

I am hoping that was sarcasm.


The challenge was to quote me.

I never said either.

Oh my bad.
I thought realitychecker was asking what he said that could get someone infected with covid.
It never occurred to me that it was you asking such a question. ..
I have been gone for a few days and now reality Checker is accusing you of spreading disinformation????
Wow.. just wow.
Apparently it's an alternate reality he is checking..

 

[jaeger19]

Without quality research including RCT there is not sufficient evidence to claim flimsy cloth and paper face masks have any real impact of the risk of catching SARS-CoV2. Anyone claiming there is proof they are effective is not a credible research analyst.

People too lazy or intellectually challenged to read a comment before responding to it should not be taken seriously.

You are full of bull. ANYONE claiming that good scientific that shows masks significantly work as source control does not exist..has no business claiming they understand research. Much less claiming that they are a credible research analyst.
Especially anyone claiming that ONLY RCT are credible research.
Cripes..why do you think other research designs even exist if only rct design is credible.

 

[RealityChecker]

You are full of bull. ANYONE claiming that good scientific that shows masks significantly work as source control does not exist..has no business claiming they understand research. Much less claiming that they are a credible research analyst.
Especially anyone claiming that ONLY RCT are credible research.
Cripes..why do you think other research designs even exist if only rct design is credible.

More ad hominem insults and straw man falsehoods. Sad. When one has to lie about what someone stated it hurts one's credibility. I never said "ONLY RCT are credible research" did I? What I said is that RCT are the best type of scientific study to establish causality. Why? Other types of studies have confounding variables that make it more difficult to establish causality.

When you personally insult people and then lie about what they stated you typically the one losing the debate.

 

[Fledermaus]

More ad hominem insults and straw man falsehoods. Sad. When one has to lie about what someone stated it hurts one's credibility. I never said "ONLY RCT are credible research" did I? What I said is that RCT are the best type of scientific study to establish causality. Why? Other types of studies have confounding variables that make it more difficult to establish causality.

When you personally insult people and then lie about what they stated you typically the one losing the debate.

Your words: "Without quality research including RCT there is not sufficient evidence to claim flimsy cloth and paper face masks have any real impact of the risk of catching SARS-CoV2."

No one needs an RCT to prove masks help prevent the spread of COVID.

 

[RealityChecker]

Your words: "Without quality research including RCT there is not sufficient evidence to claim flimsy cloth and paper face masks have any real impact of the risk of catching SARS-CoV2."

No one needs an RCT to prove masks help prevent the spread of COVID.

Well observational data on flimsy cloth face mask for preventing the spread of the Wuhan virus have not established causality. The only real RCT on paper surgical face masks suggests they do little or nothing to prevent one from catching the Wuhan virus. So it is clear that without a quality RCT that demonstrates such flimsy face masks can significantly reduce the risk of catching the Wuhan virus and/or spreading it to others if one is infected any claim that such face masks are efficacious should be viewed as questionable at best. If the claim that these cloth face masks have been proven to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19 was put on the bag or box they were contained such a label would likely result in criminal charges being brought against the company making that claim.

 

[Fledermaus]

Well observational data on flimsy cloth face mask for preventing the spread of the Wuhan virus have not established causality. The only real RCT on paper surgical face masks suggests they do little or nothing to prevent one from catching the Wuhan virus. So it is clear that without a quality RCT that demonstrates such flimsy face masks can significantly reduce the risk of catching the Wuhan virus and/or spreading it to others if one is infected any claim that such face masks are efficacious should be viewed as questionable at best. If the claim that these cloth face masks have been proven to reduce the risk of catching COVID-19 was put on the bag or box they were contained such a label would likely result in criminal charges being brought against the company making that claim.

You keep the written diarrhea going while ignoring everything presented to you.

No one needs an RCT to prove that which is known to be true.

 

[jaeger19]

More ad hominem insults and straw man falsehoods. Sad. When one has to lie about what someone stated it hurts one's credibility. I never said "ONLY RCT are credible research" did I? What I said is that RCT are the best type of scientific study to establish causality. Why? Other types of studies have confounding variables that make it more difficult to establish causality.

When you personally insult people and then lie about what they stated you typically the one losing the debate.

Naw..just facts.
So sad you have to lie. Of course you said that ONLY RCT's are credible.. because thats what you keep claiming.
You keep claiming that there is no credible research showing masks are effective for source control. There is. Its been shown to you. Great observational studies. peer reviewed with large N's. So don;t be lying and saying.. "I never said only RCT are credible".. because thats the exact claim you are making when you dismiss observational studies and say "there are no credible....."

You don't even understand what it means that "confounding variables make it more difficult to establish causality".
YOU think that it means that if you did an observational study.. the confounding variables would make it likely to show that masks WERE effective".

And thats just not the case. The reason that variables make it difficult to establish causality.. is that confounding variables make it LESS LIKELY to find a significant difference between groups.

Get it? So the variables make it LESS likely to show significance.. which means with an observational study.. you are LESS likely to find a significant difference.

Which means.. THAT IF AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY FINDS THAT MASKS WORK.. ITS EXTREMELY POWERFUL...its means its great evidence. Because it means despite all the intervening variables of mask wearing... like wearing the mask incorrectly. One layer face coverings versus surgical masks... masks being worn when they have become wet, someone lying about wearing masks when they aren;t actually etc.. despite all those variables.. which would DECREASE the likelihood of finding a significant difference between two groups? They did find a significant difference between those that reported wearing masks and those that did not. And that gives GREAT EVIDENCE.. that masks work as source control.

Cripes man.. just stop.. you have no idea what you are talking about!!!!.

By the way.. you don't even understand that you can account for intervening and variables within observational studies by doing certain statistical analysis.

 

[jaeger19]

Claiming the very weak evidence that at best suggests cloth masks might slightly slow the spread of the Wuhan virus shows anything is a stretch. There are in fact no quality RCT proving that any of the cloth face masks the public is wearing actually prevent the spread of the Wuhan virus or other respiratory viruses spread in the same or similar fashion as the Wuhan virus. Indeed, the only quality RCT on paper surgical masks did not come close to proving a statistically significant reduction in the contagion from the Wuhan corona virus. (Danish study). It did show a very minor 10% lower infection rate in the mask wearing group compared to the controls. So even the paper surgical masks seem very ineffective. Even so for several months now whenever I go to an MD's office or clinic wearing a flimsy cloth face mask they provide me with a paper surgical mask to wear instead. Seems MDs around here have no confidence at all in these flimsy cloth face masks. Why do you suppose that is?

The government mask mandates may be INTENDED to reduce the contagion of the Wuhan virus but as they say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Okay.. lets see your research chops.

Please explain.. how these studies can show that masks work to slow the spread of infection... when according to you, they can't establish that.
Tell us what variables.. would make these studies show that masks work.. when they actually don't.
Lets have a discussion of what variables would be involved. and what can be done in an observational study to account for these variables.

Lets see if you have the chops...

 

[RealityChecker]

Naw..just facts.
So sad you have to lie. Of course you said that ONLY RCT's are credible.. because thats what you keep claiming.
You keep claiming that there is no credible research showing masks are effective for source control. There is. Its been shown to you. Great observational studies. peer reviewed with large N's. So don;t be lying and saying.. "I never said only RCT are credible".. because thats the exact claim you are making when you dismiss observational studies and say "there are no credible....."

I never said only RCTs can establish a causal relationship. There are no RCT on tobacco smoking causing more lung CA, COPD, and heart disease but there is more than sufficient evidence to convince me smoking promotes all these ills. When you know what the confounding variables are and can get a reasonable estimate of their impact you can adjust for them. But with new drugs and medical equipment you really need well designed and carefully controlled RCT before promoting them as safe and effective.

I think we can agree that it is certain that not all face masks provide exactly the same level of protection. So any observational study that looks at reports from people as to whether or not they wear face masks do not gather data on the type of masks being worn. Don't you think it would be useful to do a RCT on different types of face masks to determine which ones are effective and which ones do little or nothing to protect the wearer from being infected with the Wuhan virus? Would that be unethical?

You don't even understand what it means that "confounding variables make it more difficult to establish causality".
YOU think that it means that if you did an observational study.. the confounding variables would make it likely to show that masks WERE effective".

Good thing you became an MD rather than tried to make a living as a mind reader or psychic, because you are terrible at it. Telling people they believe things they do not and then attacking them based on false assumptions makes you look like a jerk who is more interested in saving face than having a civil debate.

And thats just not the case. The reason that variables make it difficult to establish causality.. is that confounding variables make it LESS LIKELY to find a significant difference between groups.

Get it? So the variables make it LESS likely to show significance.. which means with an observational study.. you are LESS likely to find a significant difference.

That is often the case, but confounding variables can actually also create statistically significant correlations that are not credible evidence of causality. There were many observational studies finding that people who had higher levels of beta-carotene in their blood had a reduced risk of many ills including lung cancer. When they finally did a RCT giving people a placebo or a a beta-carotene supplement they found beta-carotene supplements increased blood beta-carotene levels but not only did not prevent lung CA but actually caused more lung CA in smokers. You may be a good clinician but it appears to me you would have been nearly as bad at designing and conducting research as you would have been trying to make a living as a psychic or mind reader.

Which means.. THAT IF AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY FINDS THAT MASKS WORK.. ITS EXTREMELY POWERFUL...its means its great evidence. Because it means despite all the intervening variables of mask wearing... like wearing the mask incorrectly. One layer face coverings versus surgical masks... masks being worn when they have become wet, someone lying about wearing masks when they aren;t actually etc.. despite all those variables.. which would DECREASE the likelihood of finding a significant difference between two groups? They did find a significant difference between those that reported wearing masks and those that did not. And that gives GREAT EVIDENCE.. that masks work as source control.

Cripes man.. just stop.. you have no idea what you are talking about!!!!.

By the way.. you don't even understand that you can account for intervening and variables within observational studies by doing certain statistical analysis.

More proof your psychic powers are as limited as your capacity to critically evaluate scientific research. But I already rebutted these points above so no need to expose your research chops any further.

 

[Fledermaus]

I never said only RCTs can establish a causal relationship. There are no RCT on tobacco smoking causing more lung CA, COPD, and heart disease but there is more than sufficient evidence to convince me smoking promotes all these ills. When you know what the confounding variables are and can get a reasonable estimate of their impact you can adjust for them. But with new drugs and medical equipment you really need well designed and carefully controlled RCT before promoting them as safe and effective.

I think we can agree that it is certain that not all face masks provide exactly the same level of protection. So any observational study that looks at reports from people as to whether or not they wear face masks do not gather data on the type of masks being worn. Don't you think it would be useful to do a RCT on different types of face masks to determine which ones are effective and which ones do little or nothing to protect the wearer from being infected with the Wuhan virus? Would that be unethical?

Good thing you became an MD rather than tried to make a living as a mind reader or psychic, because you are terrible at it. Telling people they believe things they do not and then attacking them based on false assumptions makes you look like a jerk who is more interested in saving face than having a civil debate.

That is often the case, but confounding variables can actually also create statistically significant correlations that are not credible evidence of causality. There were many observational studies finding that people who had higher levels of beta-carotene in their blood had a reduced risk of many ills including lung cancer. When they finally did a RCT giving people a placebo or a a beta-carotene supplement they found beta-carotene supplements increased blood beta-carotene levels but not only did not prevent lung CA but actually caused more lung CA in smokers. You may be a good clinician but it appears to me you would have been nearly as bad at designing and conducting research as you would have been trying to make a living as a psychic or mind reader.

More proof your psychic powers are as limited as your capacity to critically evaluate scientific research. But I already rebutted these points above so no need to expose your research chops any further.

The thread started out with a lie and you are determined to keep the lie alive.

The question is WHY?

 

[jaeger19]

I never said only RCTs can establish a causal relationship. There are no RCT on tobacco smoking causing more lung CA, COPD, and heart disease but there is more than sufficient evidence to convince me smoking promotes all these ills.

What?.. but but but there hasn;t been an RCT where they forced one group to smoke cigarettes for 30 years and prevented another group from smoking cigarettes for 40 years...
They used OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES.. which according to you.. are unable to find any causal relationship.

THAT is your argument when it comes to the masks and covid studies. Your statement has always been.. "there have been no RCT's".. and thus in your words. "no credible research". because no RCT's.
The only real difference here Realitychecker here is... you BELIEVE.. that smoking causes lung cancer.. (cause I really doubt you have read any of the actual research).
And you don;t "believe".. that masks work for source control..
It has nothing to do with research.. or research methodology.. thats just your excuse to try and justify your erroneous belief.

When you know what the confounding variables are and can get a reasonable estimate of their impact you can adjust for them. But with new drugs and medical equipment you really need well designed and carefully controlled RCT before promoting them as safe and effective.

Actually no. When possible.. they use RCT's.. AND use observational studies.... (because an RCT doesn;t include enough variables.. How do you know if a medication is safe to take with other medication.. unless you have an observational study where you have a general population.. which has all sorts of medications.. and see if there are any reactions. You cannot have an RCT on each and every medication to see if there is a reaction. )
When an RCT is not logistically or ethically possible.. you use an observational study.

I think we can agree that it is certain that not all face masks provide exactly the same level of protection. So any observational study that looks at reports from people as to whether or not they wear face masks do not gather data on the type of masks being worn.

Exactly.. and YET.. they still find that there is a significant effect on source control.

Don't you think it would be useful to do a RCT on different types of face masks to determine which ones are effective and which ones do little or nothing to protect the wearer from being infected with the Wuhan virus?

Okay.. at this point.. you need to stop lying. I mean something is really really really wrong with you because you continue to talk about masks "protecting the wearer".. and yet.. THATS NOT WHAT THE STUDIES ARE LOOKING AT.
Its not about protecting the wearer.. its about masks as source control.. in other words.. someone being sick.. and wearing a masks.. reducing the chance they spread it to other people.
YOU have had this explained so many times to you.. yet you continue to persist.. honestly.. the only conclusion I can come to.. is that EITHER.. you are deliberately trying to deceive people.

OR you intellectually cannot understand what source control is.

 

[jaeger19]

Would that be unethical?

Good thing you became an MD rather than tried to make a living as a mind reader or psychic, because you are terrible at it. Telling people they believe things they do not and then attacking them based on false assumptions makes you look like a jerk who is more interested in saving face than having a civil debate.

Yada yada yada.

That is often the case, but confounding variables can actually also create statistically significant correlations that are not credible evidence of causality.
There were many observational studies finding that people who had higher levels of beta-carotene in their blood had a reduced risk of many ills including lung cancer.

Nice.. but we are not talking about lung cancer.. or beta carotene. We are talking about masks and covid. So lets hear the intervening variables that are likely to show mask work when they don;t

When they finally did a RCT giving people a placebo or a a beta-carotene supplement they found beta-carotene supplements increased blood beta-carotene levels but not only did not prevent lung CA but actually caused more lung CA in smokers. You may be a good clinician but it appears to me you would have been nearly as bad at designing and conducting research as you would have been trying to make a living as a psychic or mind reader.

Thats funny... you are the fellow that wants to have an RCT that purposely allows infected people to infect others. oh wait.. only in a poor country.
So stop your bull. You are just being silly.

 

[RealityChecker]

Yada yada yada.

One of your more cogent retorts.

Nice.. but we are not talking about lung cancer.. or beta carotene. We are talking about masks and covid. So lets hear the intervening variables that are likely to show mask work when they don;t

Well as the number of cases increases you see more mask mandates and more people wearing masks. Often peak mask wearing in a community coincides with the peak wave of COVID-19 cases. So if one looks at whether mask mandates are often followed by a declining number of new cases it would be easy to get the impression that the increased wearing of face masks is what caused the decline. The problem is we see similar declines in places that mandate masks wearing and do not mandate it.

Thats funny... you are the fellow that wants to have an RCT that purposely allows infected people to infect others. oh wait.. only in a poor country.
So stop your bull. You are just being silly.

And you are the guy that would have said it is unethical to do a RCT of beta-carotene supplements to determine whether or not the observational data, which mostly showed higher beta carotene intake and/or higher levels of beta-carotene in the blood was associated with less cancer and improved health. Of course, the result would have been more people taking beta-carotene supplements and more lung cancer instead of less. Stop your bull and stop being so naïve.

BTW- Wasn't that mask education you liked done in a poor country? Was it unethical because all those people in the control villages were not told the value of face masks?

 

[Fledermaus]

One of your more cogent retorts.

Well as the number of cases increases you see more mask mandates and more people wearing masks. Often peak mask wearing in a community coincides with the peak wave of COVID-19 cases. So if one looks at whether mask mandates are often followed by a declining number of new cases it would be easy to get the impression that the increased wearing of face masks is what caused the decline. The problem is we see similar declines in places that mandate masks wearing and do not mandate it.

And you are the guy that would have said it is unethical to do a RCT of beta-carotene supplements to determine whether or not the observational data, which mostly showed higher beta carotene intake and/or higher levels of beta-carotene in the blood was associated with less cancer and improved health. Of course, the result would have been more people taking beta-carotene supplements and more lung cancer instead of less. Stop your bull and stop being so naïve.

BTW- Wasn't that mask education you liked done in a poor country? Was it unethical because all those people in the control villages were not told the value of face masks?

What disinformation have I posted that would lead to someone suffering from COVID?

Quote me.