Read on Twitter
1 I just want to highlight how citations can be fudged. For those who don't know.
This article ...
This article ...
2 ... says that masks were proven not to work in 1918.
3 ... and cites to
4 Pulling Belkin we see the comment, so a-ok so far.
BUT ...
BUT ...
5 ... here's the footnote ...
6 Got that one.
7 Kellogg studied mask use in 1918. In California they mandated masks. They did NOT see improvement, and Kellogg actually explains why (protip: it is NOT the mask).
Kellogg and public health officials were actually in FAVOUR of masks working, because it fit with droplets.
Kellogg and public health officials were actually in FAVOUR of masks working, because it fit with droplets.
8 As he states, they were trying to explain why masks DIDN'T work, because they thought physically they should.
9 Kellogg actually noted that it wasn't the masks that didn't work, but might have been because of other issues.
1. Improperly made masks.
2. Improperly worn masks.
3. People would wear them when they could get in trouble but not otherwise.
1. Improperly made masks.
2. Improperly worn masks.
3. People would wear them when they could get in trouble but not otherwise.
10 Kellogg et al didn't want masks to forever be tarnished, because they thought they DID work.
11 Kellogg ran controlled tests.
12 Masks DID work. They didn't get above 50% INCOMING filtration, but they worked.
Kellogg concluded they worked, but not enough to make them mandatory, just encouraged.
Kellogg concluded they worked, but not enough to make them mandatory, just encouraged.
13 (cont'd)
14 Remember where we started: those first two authors cited this study for the fact that masks DID NOT work at all (no effect on epi curve)
So, a lesson to check your citations.
So, a lesson to check your citations.
15 That first article was against masks, so its author should have checked Belkin and the cite through to Kellogg, because that was a main supporting point to the first article.
I believe style guide says properly that should have cited to Kellogg.
I believe style guide says properly that should have cited to Kellogg.
16 I've previously pointed out where this has been used as a trick to hide a citation that otherwise would have been to ? ... an unpublished email.
Bad scene. https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1291835389318176768
Bad scene. https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1291835389318176768
And reference over to another thread re citations ... https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1303428134038102017
Another example of why you have to check citations: https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1316381178979659777
Another example: https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1316785501853151232
Two posts back I linked to a post starting "let's call a spade a spade" but really, jump here, because the thread got disconnected. https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1316441594552291329
