Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Novo Resources Corp T.NVO

Alternate Symbol(s):  NSRPF

Novo Resources Corp. is a gold explorer focused on discovering gold projects. The Company is engaged primarily in the business of evaluating, acquiring, exploring, and developing natural resource properties with a focus on gold. It has a land package covering approximately 5,500 square kilometers in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, along with the 22 square kilometer Belltopper project in the Bendigo Tectonic Zone of Victoria, Australia. Its key project area is the Egina Gold Camp, where De Grey Mining is farming-in to form a JV at the Becher Project and surrounding tenements through exploration. The Company is also advancing gold exploration at Nunyerry North. It focuses on undertaking early-stage exploration across its Pilbara tenement portfolio. It has also formed a lithium joint venture with SQM Australia Pty Ltd (SQM) in the Pilbara, which provides shareholder exposure to battery metals. Its Belltopper Gold Project comprises the adjacent Malmsbury and Queens projects.


TSX:NVO - Post by User

Comment by waitingstillon Dec 31, 2020 3:24pm
113 Views
Post# 32205139

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:MORIARTY = VERY ENTERTAINING !

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:MORIARTY = VERY ENTERTAINING !Well Ike, 30% is a fantasy for sure. 

Here is a well balanced report on the most relevant clinical study literature and I will provide one relevant quote:

In 2010, at the end of the last influenza pandemic, there were six published randomised controlled trials with 4,147 participants focusing on the benefits of different types of masks. 2 Two were done in healthcare workers and four in family or student clusters.  The face mask trials for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported poor compliance, rarely reported harms and revealed the pressing need for future trials.

Despite the clear requirement to carry out further large, pragmatic trials a decade later, only six had been published: five in healthcare workers and one in pilgrims. 3 This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers. 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

Here is a recent French study that concludes:
In various senstivity analyses, we did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks.

It is in researchgate so you might have to google the title to read it whole.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49631854_Surgical_Mask_to_Prevent_Influenza_Transmission_in_Households_A_Cluster_Randomized_Trial

How about this review in 2010 that concludes:

 In conclusion there remains a substantial gap in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce transmission of influenza virus infection. While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions [7], there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings. There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection. 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05


The flu study I mentioned is here:
"Both intervention groups compared to the control showed cumulative reductions in rates of influenza overthe study period, although results did not reach statistical significance."

They go on to state that masks should be worn even though their study showed no significant difference. Figure that.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221796236_Facemasks_Hand_Hygiene_and_Influenza_among_Young_Adults_A_Randomized_Intervention_Trial



Another similar study in 2010 showed essentially the same results with this conclusion:

Face mask use alone showed a similar reduction in ILI compared with the control group, but adjusted estimates were not statistically significant.

They also go on to claim that masks should be worn despite not proving it in their study.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20088690/


Do you want more? There are plenty. But I think it is as I wrote before. There is no CONCLUSIVE SCIENCE that masks are effective. It is pure speculation with much evidence suggesting otherwise. But it makes sense that you don't want someone spitting/talking into your mouth or nose (or vice versa), so, if in close quarters, consider it. But as a RULE? What bothers me most is people claiming "the science has said it is true". 


 

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>