Dear @Medscape
Your hit piece on RCT by @zchagla et al. includes quotes
But you fail to mention that the expert has had research funded by 3M
Isn't that relevant?
Last I checked 3M benefits from the n95 masking for life delusion
Also bad article
#vp_2" target="_blank" rel="noopener" onclick="event.stopPropagation()">medscape.com
Your hit piece on RCT by @zchagla et al. includes quotes
But you fail to mention that the expert has had research funded by 3M
Isn't that relevant?
Last I checked 3M benefits from the n95 masking for life delusion
Also bad article
#vp_2" target="_blank" rel="noopener" onclick="event.stopPropagation()">medscape.com
Here is where the conflict should have been noted
Elsewhere you did note the 3M funding (for a different research group you quoted)
Also is it hard to find experts who are not taking money from 3M?
I would imagine there are many of them
Also is it hard to find experts who are not taking money from 3M?
I would imagine there are many of them
Is it illegal to present both sides of the argument?
The strongest argument the study is good is that it is an actual RCT
The NI margin doesn't matter much now that MOST HEALTH CARE WORKERS HAVE HAD COVID;
Most of us will accept that margin, happily!
The strongest argument the study is good is that it is an actual RCT
The NI margin doesn't matter much now that MOST HEALTH CARE WORKERS HAVE HAD COVID;
Most of us will accept that margin, happily!
If the thanks you get for running an actually RCT while the 'expert' doctors draw conclusions from garbage obs studies is a hit piece in @Medscape that is a pretty powerful disincentive for knowledge generation
I would be embarrassed to print such a one sided hit piece.
I would be embarrassed to print such a one sided hit piece.
Loading suggestions...