Taxus Baccata

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

COVID-19 B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fashion B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Viruses B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 October 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yiyi Dai (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TFMonk19970531 (article contribs).

The paragraph "Efficacy studies for COVID-19" has a reference to a study that has been proven to be a complete fraud:

"A WHO-funded systematic review by Chu et al. (27 June 2020) published in The Lancet found that the usage of face mask could result in a large risk reduction of infection with epidemic-causative betacoronaviruses"

The WHO -funded Lancet study (Chu et al) is a fraud. The Lancet editorial board is aware of it, and are doing it over. All the references to the article should be removed. The errors in it have been shown for example in this article:

http://www.economicsfaq.com/retract-the-lancets-and-who-funded-published-study-on-mask-wearing-criticism-of-physical-distancing-face-masks-and-eye-protection-to-prevent-person-to-person-transmissi/

Also, the reference to the German city Jena should be removed - the model "study" that said Jena benefited from masks also told that multiple neighbouring cities and areas (Main-Kinzig-Kreis-area and cities Eisenach - Suhl - Weimar) actually suffered from face masks (this information can be read in the original pre peer review version, or in the "additional information" section of the final model / "study")

The most current, systematic meta-analyses of RCT's have showed that masks currently used do not work:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/pdf/CDSR/CD006207/CD006207_standard.pdf

Even the arguments about "but why then surgeons use them" have been squashed, a meta-analysis found that surgeon mask use has increased infections:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539019/

(The same result has been found in every review on the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioooi (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your source criticizing the Lancet article by Cho is a blog by an unreliable source. Cho specifically discusses bias and limitations in his article. The article on surgeons and facemasks is about wound site infections and specifically concludes "The use of facemasks by scrubbed staff during implant surgery should be mandatory to prevent infection". And the worst the Cochrane review says about masks in its conclusion is that "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks" because of poor quality studies. So no, I don't think removing the information from this article is appropriate. MartinezMD (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the blog is an unreliable source, message the Lancet editorial board about if they are redoing the whole Lancet article. Because they are, because there is such wide-spread data errors in the study. I myself have found a long list a major errors in the study when I went through it & and its source studies. The referenced "source" studies # 34, 44, 45, 49, 64, 66, 70, 72 were completely misrepresented / had major data errors in the Lancet review, and multiple others had smaller errors. The Lancet study is nothing but a fraud based on bad observational studies, omitting every single quality RCT in history. Ioooi (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your source that they're redoing the article? You haven't included that. MartinezMD (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I myself found a large portion of the mistakes, and contacted the Lancet editorial board to correct them. They told that they are redoing it in their email.Ioooi (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:NOR apply here. MartinezMD (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the claims about the Chu et al. (2020) study's representation of the results of the Scales et al. (2003) study as set forth by http://www.economicsfaq.com/retract-the-lancets-and-who-funded-published-study-on-mask-wearing-criticism-of-physical-distancing-face-masks-and-eye-protection-to-prevent-person-to-person-transmissi/#. According to Chu et al. (2020), Scales et al. (2003) favors the use of face masks. The truth is, in fact, the opposite. There's absolutely no doubt that the Chu et al. (2020) study is flawed to at least some degree, and it should be removed immediately as a source. WP:V and WP:NOR certainly don't apply. If a source is wrong, it should be removed. There's no requirement that some external trustworthy source explicitly call out that Chu et al. (2020) is flawed before it can be removed from here. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple major "errors" in there. Only 7/23 of the studies with non-zero infected data had their data correctly in the Lancet-"study". Referenced studies #34, 44, 45, 49, 64, 66, 70, 72 had major frauds in the data. This study is nothing but a complete fraud. For example: Ref number #70 from the study ^[1] Lancet / Chu et al has data: "Events, face mask (n/N) 1/1286 Events, no face mask (n/N) 119/4036" It is a complete, utter lie. The original study says: ”About 78.3% (94/120) of the infected cases wore surgical masks” They had taken the data from "Level 2" protection category, NOT from mask category: "Level 2 protection: disposable hat, medical protective mask (N95 or higher standard), goggles (anti-fog) or protective mask (anti-fog), medical protective clothing or white coats covered by medical protective clothing, disposable gloves and disposable shoe covers" I can provide you with the other "data errors" as well, but posting them will take significant space, due to the fact you have to actually read & quote the original studies to see the errors. Ioooi (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get a reliable source, WP:MEDRS. WP:V and WP:NOR were in regards to Ioooi saying he was emailing Lancet. MartinezMD (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe me, contact one of the authors, Holger Schunemann. He's the one who responded to me. Ioooi (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "reliable source"? If someone publishes an article in The Lancet stating that 394839 * 394829 = 38, and a Wikipedia article cites it, then, according to policy, it can't be deleted until someone "reliable" states that the result is wrong? It couldn't be more obvious: Table 2 in Scales et al. (2003) [1] clearly states "No. healthcare workers with exposure: Entry into room: 31", "No. (%) exposed healthcare workers with SARS: Entry into room: 6 (19)", "No. healthcare workers with exposure: Always wore at least: Any mask (N-95 or surgical mask): 13", "No. (%) exposed healthcare workers with SARS: Always wore at least: Any mask (N-95 or surgical mask): 3 (23)". Figure 4 in Chu et al. (2020) [2], however, states "Events, face mask (n/N): 3/16", "Events, no face mask (n/N): 4/15" for the Scales et al. (2003) study. These are clearly not the same figures. It shouldn't be necessary to have a reliable source confirm that 13 is not 16 and that 3 + 4 is not 6 etc. Or to have a reliable source confirm that we're indeed reading what we're reading. So it must be something else that you're after. What is it? 5.186.122.187 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scales report is difficult to terse out. 6 people had recognized patient exposure but 7 got SARS. So he may be factoring in the 7th person, I don't know. And yes, when a reliable source publishes something, it'll take a reliable source to refute it. Don't like it? Take up an rfc. MartinezMD (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@5.186.122.187: What do you mean, "reliable source"? This is defined clearly in WP:MEDRS. Specifically, this is a secondary source (a review of primary studies), meaning it is given greater weight specifically because it avoids your hypothetical example of one author publishing a bogus result. In this case, it's a review of "172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings". Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's very easy to terse out. And yes, he's including the 7th person that the original study did not include because it was NOT a documented case of SARS, merely a suspected one. Very conveniently, the 7th person was one of the non-mask wearers. Alas, I did the math and even with that 7th person included, the result would have still been in favor of not wearing a mask. Probably why they had to change the denominator from 13 to 16 as well - because THEN the numbers will favor wearing a mask. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly don't like that results that even someone from grad school can conclude are wrong get used on Wikipedia. Before COVID, deduction - which in this case would amount to a = 13 and b = 16 => a ≠ b - was considered a most reliable source of knowledge. Now, apparently, it has to yield for Chu et al. Sad in my opinion, because it will only hurt Wikipedia's credibility. But fine, you'll get your rfc. Here it is [3]. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It avoids nothing if it's the secondary source that is flawed. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to remove the Chu et al. study - and I understand that you don't - may I suggest that it be included in the article that the Chu et al. study misrepresents the Scales et al. study? Then our readers can decide for themselves if they trust the original data more than the flawed copy that Chu et al. presents. Or is that impossible because Chu et al. - being a meta-analysis - is more credible than Scales et al., and we hence must understand that Chu et al. knows better the correct data for the Scales et al. study than Scales et al. themselves do? 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Chu et al is flawed, Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting generally high quality sources such as the Lancet. It's our job to accurately reflect what these sources say, not to perform citizen science to critique them ourselves. So we either need to wait for the Lancet to retract or publish a revision to the study, or for another high-quality source (see requirements in WP:MEDRS) to come to a different conclusion. If you find such a study, link it here so it can be evaluated. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do all the other studies reviewed have an error? Because I don't see how a potential single error invalidates the review, especially when Scales's own conclusion is "Use of gowns, gloves, and masks as barriers appears to reduce the risk for SARS transmission in most but not all situations." Chu might have made a mistake on the denominator of a single study, but how does this invalidate the entire review? MartinezMD (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a "single error", only 7/23 of the studies with non-zero infected cases had their data correct in the Lancet meta-analysis. References #34, 44, 45, 49, 64, 66, 70, 72 have such marjor "errors" that they can not be anything but frauds commited on purpose. For example: Ref number #70 from the study ^[2] Lancet / Chu et al has data: "Events, face mask (n/N) 1/1286 Events, no face mask (n/N) 119/4036" It is a complete, utter lie. The original study says: ”About 78.3% (94/120) of the infected cases wore surgical masks” They had taken the data from "Level 2" protection category, NOT from mask category: "Level 2 protection: disposable hat, medical protective mask (N95 or higher standard), goggles (anti-fog) or protective mask (anti-fog), medical protective clothing or white coats covered by medical protective clothing, disposable gloves and disposable shoe covers" Ioooi (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I respectfully dissent. A policy that, in principle, allows an article stating that 13 = 16 simply because that's what credible The Lancet says, is not compatible with an encyclopedia. Which means that either Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, or you are misrepresenting the policy. I cannot refer you to any credible study concluding that facemasks with a high certainty do not work, nor can I refer you to any credible study concluding that with a high certainty they do work, because I've found no such study, and I doubt one even exists. (2) I have no idea. But the blog post has been correct so far. Looking at Table 3 in the Heinzerling et al. (2020) study [4], we see that 0/3 health care workers who wore facemasks during non aerosol-generating procedures tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (after having developed symptoms, since the table states "COVID-19" and not "SARS-CoV-2"; the correctness of this interpretation is confirmed elsewhere in the article). In Figure 4 in Chu et al. (2020) [5], these numbers have become 0/31. Does this mean that the conclusion of Chu et al. is wrong? Maybe. Or maybe not. But it does mean that Chu et al. should not be relied upon and should not be used as a source. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A policy that, in principle, allows an article stating that 13 = 16 simply because that's what credible The Lancet says, is not compatible with an encyclopedia." This presumes that:

• the Lancet study is invalid
• the study isn't a meta-analysis of other primary studies coming to the same conclusion
• the study is at odds with the mainstream consensus
• encyclopedias are meant to overrule credible science when the writers disagree

None of these appear to be the case here, and even if you removed the Lancet study we're still left with the CDC conclusions that broadly match the Lancet's (community masking for source control works, even if individual masking for self-protection is of limited benefit). And the primary attempt to cast doubt on the study is coming from... an economics blog post (which has an arguably sketchy history of COVID takes, which seem to be POV-pushing). I think the simpler suggestion is that the unreliable source economicsfaq blog is the one claiming 13=16, and trying to cast doubt on a MEDRS meta analysis in a reliable source. It's going to take a better source (or for the credentialed professional reviewers at the Lancet to reach the same conclusion as 'Andrew from economicsfaq') to upend consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source control does not seem to work, if you check out actual studies on it. RCT-meta-analysis with "source control"-subgroup analysis ^[3] found that masks used as "source control" increased infections. (Fig 3C, page ~29) The CDC statements are not based on actual studies, but on flawed, biased retrospective stories on mask users, without any actual pre-planned trials, randomization or control groups. Even the best reductivistic "particle counter" -lab tests have shown that masks increase particle production, if you move even slightly. And the studies on surgeons show surgeon's masks have increased infections ^[4] These results would be absolutely impossible if masks actually worked as "source control" Ioooi (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'The CDC's interpretation of 45 source studies is wrong' is quite the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the article's stating that facemasks work. I have a problem with the article's using that particular source, simply because it's flawed. The conclusion of Chu et al. may be right, or it may be wrong, but the premises are incorrect, and that's the problem. I can verify that it misrepresents at least two studies, and so can you; I've made that very easy for you. I don't care about the blog's take on COVID-19. Chu et al. misrepresents at least two studies, and that's a fact, whether it's pointed out by a COVID-skeptical blog or not. But I think that we now finally understand where our opinions differ: I don't want a Wikipedia article citing a source, be it credible or not, reaching its conclusion, be it correct or not, by means of invalid premises or invalid deduction. In other words, I reject "The night's white horse is black => Facemasks work" no matter who states it and no matter whether facemasks work or not. You don't. That must be the conclusion we're left to draw. I simply don't believe it's in Wikipedia's best interest to use the kind of source that Chu et al. is. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more accurate to rephrase the original complaint from "it is a proven fraud" to "it is not reliable"? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no proof that it's a fraud, but it does misrepresent data, so if that's what you mean, I'd say yes. However, if you by reliable mean "published in The Lancet", I'd have to choose between an unsupported claim and a wrong one, and I prefer neither. 5.186.126.1 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if we are too stupid to compare two tables and conclude that the numbers differ, aren't we too stupid as well to even paraphrase the article here on Wikipedia? I mean, in order to paraphrase something, you need to understand what it means, right? But we're not clever enough to do that; it's all pure citizen science. And no, the "no original research" argument is not valid here. That policy applies to the content of the article. It does not apply to the process of deciding what sources not to use. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not reading well. I specifically replied to this, and repeated it. "I myself found a large portion of the mistakes, and contacted the Lancet editorial board to correct them. They told that they are redoing it in their email.Ioooi" Look above. The contact to the editorial board is OR and an email lacks Verifiability. MartinezMD (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's original research. Which is why it should not be included in the article. And removing Chu et al. as a source won't cause it to be. So what's your point? 5.186.122.187 (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ioooi: you are now beating a dead horse. You might want to step away from the WP:STICK now. -- The Anome (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Ioooi, but you're right. It seems that the matter is political; had the source stated that facemasks don't work, it'd probably have been removed. 5.186.122.187 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. If any significant number of WP:MEDRS said that masks don't work, we would absolutely include it in the article, according to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy (although please carefully read the WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE subsections for more detail on the nuances of this policy). However, the absence of such sources speaks a great deal about the efficacy of masks. You are welcome to find sources to that effect, if you can, and they will be considered for inclusion according to Wikipedia's policies. -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What is a "significant number"? Please let me know in advance so I can be sure that if I find N sources, you won't simply say that "significant number" means N+1. (2) Why are the sources added by Ioooi not being considered? Are they deemed unreliable? Don't they meet the "significant number" criterion? (3) Even if I find such sources, will that lead to the Chu et al. study no longer being used as a source? You might recall that I wrote that I'd no problem with the article's stating that facemasks work. The problem was, and is, that a study that misrepresents data is used as a source. 5.186.126.1 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the absence of such sources speaks a great deal about the efficacy of masks" On the 7th of March I already added an extra paragraph here with sources clearly stating that masks do not work in preventing respiratory infections. Check out the actual studies on masks, and you will come to the same conclusion. The whole mask propaganda is based on fraudulent studies (Lancet / Chu et al), and a finnish one, which switched to "masks don't work" after correcting only ONE of their data errors: "Meta-analysis across all studies with risk ratios found no association with number of infections (RR=0.957 [0.810−1.131" ^[5] (There are still multiple data errors in the most recent update (16.4.2021, v3), but correcting the rest only make the results even worse for masks.) And how do I know this? Because I found the biggest mistake that switched the results, and I have actually gone through the original studies behind the RCT-meta-analysis. For example, the Aiello 2010 and Aiello 2012 data are still wrong. Ioooi (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter "5.2 Public use of face masks" links to this article here, it also mentions there are false claims spread that the usage of masks causes adverse health-related issues such as low blood oxygen levels,[258] high blood carbon dioxide levels,[259] and a weakened immune system[260] , so shouldn't we put a link back and also mention this in this article here? Cheers, SvenAERTS (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing the masks correctly causes a clear, demonstrable drop in blood oxygen levels, ventilation etc: check out Fig.2 ^[1] It is only with masks not worn properly that do not cause these effects. (That study had the masks securely tightened to the face, no leakage around the mask)Ioooi (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a scientific fact that masks cause low blood oxygen levels. The studies saying something else used subjects who did not wear the masks properly, fitting them tight to the face. Every single study that has studied masks used properly have stated that masks cause a clear drop in oxygen levels. Ioooi (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a reason why WP:MEDRS says we use secondary sources. Your linked primary study of 12 people (at max-exertion exercise, it should be noted, not standard activity levels) had one finding, a larger study of 30 people found the opposite, "gas exchange is not significantly affected by the use of surgical mask, even in subjects with severe lung impairment". Please do not attempt to spread misinformation, or portray a single contradicted study out of context as 'scientific fact'. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else find these sections totally unreadable? The CDC section, for example, jumps from April 2020 to June 2020 to May 2021 to November 2020 to April 2020 to July 2020, with no discernible thread to follow. It reads like a schizophrenic jumble of public health vignettes rather than a coherent narrative. I tried to organize them linearly, but was reverted and told I wasn't allowed to do that because I haven't edited the article before (which is false). Anyone else totally bewildered by these incomprehensibly messy sections? Einsof (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Cold Season (talk · contribs) was wrong to restore the organization by topic. The chronological organization is clearer, although it's not perfect — the third-party comments about the guidance should be separated to a new sub-sub-subsection. But for now, I have restored the ordering. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the norm for wearing masks taken advantage of by protestors in Hong Kong who wanted to hide their identities? --Error (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Do you have a reliable source? MartinezMD (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it from Surgical mask. --Error (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNE 0064-1:2020 defines "Non-reusable hygienic masks." which are not surgical masks UNE-EN14683:2019+AC:2019 but also are not mere cloth masks. Where are they covered in this article? --Error (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medical sources need to be secondary studies. See WP:MEDRS. Primary studies MartinezMD (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]