Why did Fauci denounce Hydroxychloroquine?

[jc456]

then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece

In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?

Post #294

I don't say what you're claiming.

294

 

[colfax_m]

then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece

In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?

Post #294

I don't say what you're claiming.

294

In that post, I do not claim that peer review doesn't look at methodology.

You guys are confused.

 

[The Original Tree]

Because he is a scumbag Globalist-Chinese-Commie puppet like Biden.

Tree, tell me how you really feel!

He's Putin's Whittle Butt Plug, and Xi's Dingleberry cleaner.

And I am pretty sure he is a "Fluffer" for Ayatollah Assahollah.

 

[jc456]

Because he is a scumbag Globalist-Chinese-Commie puppet like Biden.

Tree, tell me how you really feel!

He's Putin's Whittle Butt Plug, and Xi's Dingleberry cleaner.

And I am pretty sure he is a "Fluffer" for Ayatollah Assahollah.

Yes!!!

 

[jc456]

In that post, I do not claim that peer review doesn't look at methodology.

You guys are confused

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

 

[colfax_m]

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

You all suffer from the same misinformation.

I was trying to explain that the studies they were quoting had weak evidence and that studies with much stronger methods were all negative. This poster kept bringing up peer review as if that mattered. It doesn't. Peer review doesn't make weak methods better. It just makes sure that the methods are followed as best as they can.

I tried explaining this but the other poster wouldn't listen. As I said in post 294, he kept talking about peer review. I'm talking about methodology. In no way does I say that peer review doesn't look at methodology. I was trying to explain that methodology is what determines the strength of a paper, not peer review.

None of you guys have the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

 

[EMH]

Did he hate Trump so much he wanted people to die? Is he just a cold blooded killer? Is he just an ignorant boob? Could he make more money by pushing something else? Personally, i think its all of the above but i want to hear from all of you.

If Hydroxychloroquine had been so effective, why did Trump still get Covid? Remember he went around claiming that he was immune because he was swallowing tons of that stuff?

And when Trump did get Covid, did he reject all other medications in favor of Hydroxychloroquine? Of course, not. That was the last we heard of that wonder drug.

So, the real question is why did Trump push Hydroxychloroquine? Did he want people to die? Is he just a cold-blooded killer or just an ignorant boob? Was Trump making money out of the drug or something else? Personally, I think it's all of the above but I want to hear from all of you.

There is a very big difference between "having Covid" like coughing and running a fever with cv19 in you, having Covid on you but you are immune (83% of humans are immune), being actually sick with something other than Covid, and just flat out being lied to.

These "tests" are fraud. Elon musk proved that. Those tests give whatever answer you want, like the voting machines....

Trump, in his 70s, never showed any symptoms, because the whole thing was a bullshit PR gotcha stunt by those who wanted him out.

 

[jc456]

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

You all suffer from the same misinformation.

I was trying to explain that the studies they were quoting had weak evidence and that studies with much stronger methods were all negative. This poster kept bringing up peer review as if that mattered. It doesn't. Peer review doesn't make weak methods better. It just makes sure that the methods are followed as best as they can.

I tried explaining this but the other poster wouldn't listen. As I said in post 294, he kept talking about peer review. I'm talking about methodology. In no way does I say that peer review doesn't look at methodology. I was trying to explain that methodology is what determines the strength of a paper, not peer review.

None of you guys have the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

OhhKay Francis. Maybe look in the mirror

 

[colfax_m]

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

You all suffer from the same misinformation.

I was trying to explain that the studies they were quoting had weak evidence and that studies with much stronger methods were all negative. This poster kept bringing up peer review as if that mattered. It doesn't. Peer review doesn't make weak methods better. It just makes sure that the methods are followed as best as they can.

I tried explaining this but the other poster wouldn't listen. As I said in post 294, he kept talking about peer review. I'm talking about methodology. In no way does I say that peer review doesn't look at methodology. I was trying to explain that methodology is what determines the strength of a paper, not peer review.

None of you guys have the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

OhhKay Francis. Maybe look in the mirror

Look in the mirror? Why?

 

[jc456]

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

You all suffer from the same misinformation.

I was trying to explain that the studies they were quoting had weak evidence and that studies with much stronger methods were all negative. This poster kept bringing up peer review as if that mattered. It doesn't. Peer review doesn't make weak methods better. It just makes sure that the methods are followed as best as they can.

I tried explaining this but the other poster wouldn't listen. As I said in post 294, he kept talking about peer review. I'm talking about methodology. In no way does I say that peer review doesn't look at methodology. I was trying to explain that methodology is what determines the strength of a paper, not peer review.

None of you guys have the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

OhhKay Francis. Maybe look in the mirror

Look in the mirror? Why?

You will see who’s confused

 

[colfax_m]

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

You all suffer from the same misinformation.

I was trying to explain that the studies they were quoting had weak evidence and that studies with much stronger methods were all negative. This poster kept bringing up peer review as if that mattered. It doesn't. Peer review doesn't make weak methods better. It just makes sure that the methods are followed as best as they can.

I tried explaining this but the other poster wouldn't listen. As I said in post 294, he kept talking about peer review. I'm talking about methodology. In no way does I say that peer review doesn't look at methodology. I was trying to explain that methodology is what determines the strength of a paper, not peer review.

None of you guys have the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

OhhKay Francis. Maybe look in the mirror

Look in the mirror? Why?

You will see who’s confused

About what?

 

[jc456]

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

You all suffer from the same misinformation.

I was trying to explain that the studies they were quoting had weak evidence and that studies with much stronger methods were all negative. This poster kept bringing up peer review as if that mattered. It doesn't. Peer review doesn't make weak methods better. It just makes sure that the methods are followed as best as they can.

I tried explaining this but the other poster wouldn't listen. As I said in post 294, he kept talking about peer review. I'm talking about methodology. In no way does I say that peer review doesn't look at methodology. I was trying to explain that methodology is what determines the strength of a paper, not peer review.

None of you guys have the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

OhhKay Francis. Maybe look in the mirror

Look in the mirror? Why?

You will see who’s confused

About what?

294

 

[colfax_m]

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

You all suffer from the same misinformation.

I was trying to explain that the studies they were quoting had weak evidence and that studies with much stronger methods were all negative. This poster kept bringing up peer review as if that mattered. It doesn't. Peer review doesn't make weak methods better. It just makes sure that the methods are followed as best as they can.

I tried explaining this but the other poster wouldn't listen. As I said in post 294, he kept talking about peer review. I'm talking about methodology. In no way does I say that peer review doesn't look at methodology. I was trying to explain that methodology is what determines the strength of a paper, not peer review.

None of you guys have the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

OhhKay Francis. Maybe look in the mirror

Look in the mirror? Why?

You will see who’s confused

About what?

294

Can you explain what about 294 leads you to believe what you believe?

 

[Crepitus]

Hey dumbass!!!

Nobody is saying it was!!

I don't expect you to listen.

BWAHAHAHAHA

You fucktard CCP still think you can lie this away?

MSN

Xi's man, bought and paid for Quid Pro, has that Nazi fuckwad fraud Bacerra (zero medical or scientific training, experience, or education) trying to run another coverup, but the dump of the Mengele emails make putting the toothpaste back into the tube impossible.

Your country developed and released a biological weapon that killed millions around the world. Whether you intentionally released it or it was an escape is still unknown. We know that our country, with Dr. Mengele and the NIH up to their necks, funded and supported your efforts.

You read msn?

 

[Magnus]

Did he hate Trump so much he wanted people to die? Is he just a cold blooded killer? Is he just an ignorant boob? Could he make more money by pushing something else? Personally, i think its all of the above but i want to hear from all of you.

If Hydroxychloroquine had been so effective, why did Trump still get Covid? Remember he went around claiming that he was immune because he was swallowing tons of that stuff?

And when Trump did get Covid, did he reject all other medications in favor of Hydroxychloroquine? Of course, not. That was the last we heard of that wonder drug.

So, the real question is why did Trump push Hydroxychloroquine? Did he want people to die? Is he just a cold-blooded killer or just an ignorant boob? Was Trump making money out of the drug or something else? Personally, I think it's all of the above but I want to hear from all of you.

There is a very big difference between "having Covid" like coughing and running a fever with cv19 in you, having Covid on you but you are immune (83% of humans are immune), being actually sick with something other than Covid, and just flat out being lied to.

These "tests" are fraud. Elon musk proved that. Those tests give whatever answer you want, like the voting machines....

Trump, in his 70s, never showed any symptoms, because the whole thing was a bullshit PR gotcha stunt by those who wanted him out.

Are you really this dumb or are you playing one on this site? Of all equivocations I have heard, this one takes the cake.

Rump never had Covid? The guy was taken (barely walking) to the hospital. Had to stay there for a few days while the docs treated him (all drugs except Hydrochloroquine). Heck, even Rump had to admit that he had Covid and yet...you don't believe he got it?

Gad. You guys really are morons. No wonder people call you trumptards.

 

[Nostra]

then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece

In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?

Here is your quote, Clown.

You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.

This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.

Sure thing, Clown.

You guys are delusional.

Peer review and study methodology are not the same topic. You didn't want to acknowledge that.

You only see what you want to see. Sad.

Nobody said they were the same thing, Clown.

We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.

Which, colfax_m , you said didn’t in post 294

Dumbassfax is trying to spin his way out of that post.

 

[Nostra]

then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece

In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?

Post #294

I don't say what you're claiming.

See.

 

[Nostra]

In that post, I do not claim that peer review doesn't look at methodology.

You guys are confused

Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it

Don't look at what he actually said.....................look at what he is trying to tell you he said after getting caught in a lie.

 

[colfax_m]

then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece

In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?

Here is your quote, Clown.

You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.

This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.

Sure thing, Clown.

You guys are delusional.

Peer review and study methodology are not the same topic. You didn't want to acknowledge that.

You only see what you want to see. Sad.

Nobody said they were the same thing, Clown.

We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.

Which, colfax_m , you said didn’t in post 294

Dumbassfax is trying to spin his way out of that post.

Can you explain why you think that post says what you think?

 

[colfax_m]

then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece

In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?

Post #294

I don't say what you're claiming.

See.

I honestly don’t see how you guys can reach that conclusion based on that post. It doesn’t come close to saying what you’re saying it does.