@metal-brain saidOne man's say-so is never counted as conclusive in scientific research. That's why articles are peer reviewed and studies are duplicated.
Jerome Adams once said don't wear a mask and gave specific reasons why wearing masks do more harm than good.
Here is an excerpt from the link below:
“It's important to understand that we are looking at the data every single day and we make the best recommendations to the American people we can based on what we know,” Adams said on Tuesday.
“What the World Health ...[text shortened]... you are doing?
Show me the data that changed. Prove they were telling the truth the second time.
Now, referring to one of the items you quoted:
“On an individual level, there was a study in 2015 looking at medical students and medical students wearing surgical masks touch their face on average 23 times,” Adams explained. “We know a major way that you can get respiratory diseases like coronavirus is by touching a surface and then touching your face so wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease.”
DUH! No one recommends wearing a mask improperly. And no one said wearing a mask alone would stop the spread of COVID.
"medical students wearing surgical masks touch their face on average 23 times,” Adams explained." 23 times per day, hour, minute, semester?? Whoa, nelly! Let's get some real data here before leaping to the conclusion that masks don't work.
10 May 21
1 edit
@moonbus saidAdams also said this:
One man's say-so is never counted as conclusive in scientific research. That's why articles are peer reviewed and studies are duplicated.
Now, referring to one of the items you quoted:
“On an individual level, there was a study in 2015 looking at medical students and medical students wearing surgical masks touch their face on average 23 times,” Adams explained. “We kn ...[text shortened]... ? Whoa, nelly! Let's get some real data here before leaping to the conclusion that masks don't work.
"Adams went on to say that wearing a face mask “can also give you a false sense of security." He added that "you see many of these pictures with people out and about closer than six feet to each other, but still wearing a mask.”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
Where is the peer reviewed study you claim exists? I gave you the first peer reviewed study. Give me yours.
10 May 21
Not only did he reverse his previous recommendations on face masks when he previously stated healthy people should not wear them, he is now saying that the “science” behind wearing face masks to reduce exposure to the COVID virus makes them more effective than a COVID vaccine.
https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/cdc-director-redfield-lies-to-congress-about-masks-loses-all-credibility/
I'll bet almost anything Redfield made this up and there is not any scientific study to back up his claim. If Redfield lied why should anyone take the word of Adams or Fauci?
Where are the studies to back up their made up bull crap?
The gullible take the word of admitted liars, not me.
13 May 21
1 edit
@moonbus saidA thoughtful post. If you look at the history of science, the backlashes are frequent.
I think one of the reasons why a certain segment of the population has lost faith in science is that scientific truth is always revisable in light of better evidence and new hypotheses. This requires re-thinking, and that is hard work. A certain segment of the population wants pat answers which don't change; they get fatigued easily when new data suggests something has to be ...[text shortened]... t immutable gospel -- the best available evidence can be countermanded next week by better evidence.
What are the solutions to this? How does science (as a methodology) regain the trust of the public?
13 May 21
@wildgrass said"What are the solutions to this? How does science (as a methodology) regain the trust of the public?"
A thoughtful post. If you look at the history of science, the backlashes are frequent.
What are the solutions to this? How does science (as a methodology) regain the trust of the public?
By removing all conflicts of interest!
I repeat: By removing ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST!
Unfortunately our medical science is almost entirely owned or influenced by huge for-profit corporations whose main purpose is to make PROFIT. That is also why we have a wealth inequality of a million to one and getting worse every year.
14 May 21
@bunnyknight saidI am not sure what you refer to as a 'conflict of interest'? Are you considering an employer to be a conflict?
"What are the solutions to this? How does science (as a methodology) regain the trust of the public?"
By removing all conflicts of interest!
I repeat: By removing ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST!
Unfortunately our medical science is almost entirely owned or influenced by huge for-profit corporations whose main purpose is to make PROFIT. That is also why we have a wealth inequality of a million to one and getting worse every year.
Most scientific research is funded by competitive peer-reviewed government grants.
14 May 21
@wildgrass saidLike the gain of function research?
I am not sure what you refer to as a 'conflict of interest'? Are you considering an employer to be a conflict?
Most scientific research is funded by competitive peer-reviewed government grants.
Fauci CAUGHT HIDING Key Facts From Senate On Lab Leak Hypothesis
15 May 21
@wildgrass saidThe entire medical system from the FDA to the hospitals is one giant monopoly and a conflict of interest. Doctors don't even have the freedom to prescribe a safe, cheap and effective cure if it's not approved by the corporate bureaucrats. Honest politicians, for example, are blocked from even passing a simple soda tax. The FDA works for the industry, not the people, which explains why for decades they've claimed food has nothing to do with diseases, and after 70 years still freely allows the sale and advertising of modified, carcinogenic and immuno-depressing foods which are guaranteed to destroy your health. They consider unprocessed food, vitamins and minerals to be quackery, while promoting thousands of expensive, toxic drugs which only maintain your addiction and cure nothing.
I am not sure what you refer to as a 'conflict of interest'? Are you considering an employer to be a conflict?
Most scientific research is funded by competitive peer-reviewed government grants.
Meanwhile, doctors, nurses and scientists simply play by the established rules because a person will do anything to keep their paycheck coming.
But the big irony is this: even if you are the one making millions from this enterprise, you or your loved ones will become its victims sooner or later.
16 May 21
@bunnyknight saidThe entire medical system is a conflict of interest? That's hooey. What in the world are you talking about?
The entire medical system from the FDA to the hospitals is one giant monopoly and a conflict of interest. Doctors don't even have the freedom to prescribe a safe, cheap and effective cure if it's not approved by the corporate bureaucrats. Honest politicians, for example, are blocked from even passing a simple soda tax. The FDA works for the industry, not the people, w ...[text shortened]... aking millions from this enterprise, you or your loved ones will become its victims sooner or later.
The entire real estate industry is a conflict of interest.
The entire government is a conflict of interest.
The entire human race is a conflict of interest.
Am I doing this right?
19 May 21
@sonhouse saidThank you.
@Metal-Brain
SO glad you were the expert who gave out that information.