Past RCTs have had mixed evidence about masking, but there isn't a great deal of evidence either way. And if you exclude all observational evidence because of 'confounding' then you really don't know much about observational research
How about this - the least impressive form of argument is false intellectualism, and retreating behind nonsensical statements simply because you dislike the tone of your opponent. I did not make an argument from authority, I simply found your point obvious
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Lol mate, the point is that saying "you need to consider confounding" to an epidemiologist is a bit like saying "you should consider algebra" to a mathematician, or "physics is important" to an engineer
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
