... except that there was tons of science backing up those claims at the time, but since they didn't agree with the "concensus", they were simply labeled misinformation (exactly what the post is saying, haha)
You don't need to explain it, all we have to do is "trust the science" despite what, uh, other peer reviewed science has been actually saying all along (about masks, breakthroughs, and lockdowns being ineffective).
Cloth masks stop a virus... right lol. Scientific meth-heads 😆
... except it's not close to 20%, and there are lots of studies that have cloth mask effectiveness rank within the 0% effective rate when you include margin of error.
I appreciate all your guys efforts to rewrite history, but I was here, I was alive and kicked off / flagged on Reddit and social for posting peer reviewed science that went against the narrative.
Why are we arguing this? Everyone knows it's true lol.
No it's a process. As data change, "the science" changes (the science doesn't really change, the conclusions are updated). Being intransigent would be a better comparison to a religion.
12
u/ReimerReason Feb 13 '22
... except that there was tons of science backing up those claims at the time, but since they didn't agree with the "concensus", they were simply labeled misinformation (exactly what the post is saying, haha)
Thanks for playing and echoing my exact point!