I tried to address your claims but only got through a few before seeing they were either cherrypicked or outright scientifially wrong.
> Yes I'm patronizing because you have a problem with reading.
You're patronizing because you arrogantly think it's impossible that you're wrong.
1> Influenza not COVID 19 (different, no aerosol transmission )
Are you saying Influenza doesn't have aerosol transmission?
2>Faceplam: The authors were in the nature article I posted
I don't know what you mean by this. I didn't see the authors in the first article you posted.
> This was discussed. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-
Good counterpoint. And interesting. However, community compliance is a huge part of mask effectivness, no?
> 3. The authors say themselves that most people wear not wearing the masks ... "his trial was unable to provide conclusive evidence ... most likely due to poor adherence to protocol.
Community compliance is a huge part of mask effectivness at the community level, no?
>Says what I claim: "The evidence regarding the effectiveness of medical face masks for the prevention of COVID-19 in the community is compatible with a small to moderate protective effect"
Quit cherry picking, the next sentence after the one you posted:
"""Most, but not all, studies show a favourable effect for medical face masks for protecting against COVID-19.
However, this effect was not statistically significant in several studies, and the quality of the evidence was
assessed as low in several studies, so the results should be interpreted with caution."""
> Kary Mullis did not make the test for COVID-19 ...
PCR tests are all the same test just with a different amplified region of DNA.
Drosten may have posted the region of DNA but Kary Mullis invented the test.
Are you familiar with how PCR tests work?
Mask effectiveness is not conclusive.
I really hope you get some help with your ego and obsessive tendencies and amphetamine abuse. Good Luck to you as well.