And that's where the con happens. They know that many people aren't experienced with academic papers or don't have the background to understand them so they insert their own conclusion, knowing their dupes will never know the difference.I think addict2sex is right that peer reviewed work is the best place to look. And it's the work that counts, not the citer of the work.
That being said, some sites will push out research but use inflammatory and misleading descriptions of the work hoping people won't read the actual article. ...
In this case, the actual study confirms what direct particle testing has shown, level 3 medical masks are almost as effective as N95s at blocking covid infection.
Then they throw in the fact that some masked people still got covid and pretend this means their useless, ignoring that none of the people in the study wore masks 24/7 and would have had regular contacts with family and other people outside the hospital. But that's scientific analysis and what fun is that?