Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"You all suffer from the same misinformation.Rule of thumb, when everyone says it, it says it
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.
Mainly, because it does, Clown.Can you explain why you think that post says what you think?Dumbassfax is trying to spin his way out of that post.Which, colfax_m , you said didn’t in post 294Nobody said they were the same thing, Clown.You guys are delusional.Sure thing, Clown.This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.Here is your quote, Clown.In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece
You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.
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.
We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.
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.See.I don't say what you're claiming.Post #294In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece
Do you understand how peer review works?2. Since you admit peer review looks at methodology, I will ask you again to show us the studies out of the 219 referenced where the peer review cited "weak evidence". So far you have failed miserably
If that’s the case, you should be able to easily explain it.Mainly, because it does, Clown.Can you explain why you think that post says what you think?Dumbassfax is trying to spin his way out of that post.Which, colfax_m , you said didn’t in post 294Nobody said they were the same thing, Clown.You guys are delusional.Sure thing, Clown.This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.Here is your quote, Clown.In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece
You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.
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.
We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.
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.
Yes. Unlike you., Clown.Do you understand how peer review works?2. Since you admit peer review looks at methodology, I will ask you again to show us the studies out of the 219 referenced where the peer review cited "weak evidence". So far you have failed miserably
Just did, Clown.If that’s the case, you should be able to easily explain it.Mainly, because it does, Clown.Can you explain why you think that post says what you think?Dumbassfax is trying to spin his way out of that post.Which, colfax_m , you said didn’t in post 294Nobody said they were the same thing, Clown.You guys are delusional.Sure thing, Clown.This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.Here is your quote, Clown.In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece
You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.
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.
We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.
Are you really this dumb or are you playing one on this site? Of all equivocations I have heard, this one takes the cake.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?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.
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.
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.
And why do you think that there’s a way to “cite” a peer review making any claim?Yes. Unlike you., Clown.Do you understand how peer review works?2. Since you admit peer review looks at methodology, I will ask you again to show us the studies out of the 219 referenced where the peer review cited "weak evidence". So far you have failed miserably
Fucking hilarious how you edited this out of my post.........I wonder why.....
1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"
“Because it does” isn’t an explanation. It’s an assertion unsupported by any argument.Just did, Clown.If that’s the case, you should be able to easily explain it.Mainly, because it does, Clown.Can you explain why you think that post says what you think?Dumbassfax is trying to spin his way out of that post.Which, colfax_m , you said didn’t in post 294Nobody said they were the same thing, Clown.You guys are delusional.Sure thing, Clown.This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.Here is your quote, Clown.In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece
You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.
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.
We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.
And why do you think that there’s a way to “cite” a peer review making any claim?Yes. Unlike you., Clown.Do you understand how peer review works?2. Since you admit peer review looks at methodology, I will ask you again to show us the studies out of the 219 referenced where the peer review cited "weak evidence". So far you have failed miserably
Fucking hilarious how you edited this out of my post.........I wonder why.....
1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"
1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"And why do you think that there’s a way to “cite” a peer review making any claim?Yes. Unlike you., Clown.Do you understand how peer review works?2. Since you admit peer review looks at methodology, I will ask you again to show us the studies out of the 219 referenced where the peer review cited "weak evidence". So far you have failed miserably
Fucking hilarious how you edited this out of my post.........I wonder why.....
1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"
Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.“Because it does” isn’t an explanation. It’s an assertion unsupported by any argument.Just did, Clown.If that’s the case, you should be able to easily explain it.Mainly, because it does, Clown.Can you explain why you think that post says what you think?Dumbassfax is trying to spin his way out of that post.Which, colfax_m , you said didn’t in post 294Nobody said they were the same thing, Clown.You guys are delusional.Sure thing, Clown.This quote doesn't say what you claim it says.Here is your quote, Clown.In what post do you think I claimed that peer review doesn't look at methodology?then you know you stated Peer review doesn't look at methodology in the quoted piece
You're talking about peer reviewed. I'm talking about study methodology.
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.
We correctly pointed out that peer review looks at the methodology.
Because it doesn’t. There I’ve just made the identically strong argument.
My bad. Should have known I was replying to a total kook. I will know to avoid you next time.Are you really this dumb or are you playing one on this site? Of all equivocations I have heard, this one takes the cake.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?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.
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.
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.
Translation - the test is unquestioned truth (even as Elon musk tested himself four times the same day, two said he had covid, two didn't, and he never developed symptoms) and you must parrot it or I'll call you names....
Trump was an unimaginable moron about Covid. That is what enabled your side to engage in massive absentee ballot fraud.....
So put your mask on, because you are not Chinese,and fuhrer fauXI told you to wear one (even as his own emails now document he told the Chinese the masks were useless)....
And why do you think there’s a way to “cite” a peer review?1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"And why do you think that there’s a way to “cite” a peer review making any claim?Yes. Unlike you., Clown.Do you understand how peer review works?2. Since you admit peer review looks at methodology, I will ask you again to show us the studies out of the 219 referenced where the peer review cited "weak evidence". So far you have failed miserably
Fucking hilarious how you edited this out of my post.........I wonder why.....
1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"
It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.
Until you can address your claim of "weak evidence" in the 219 studies cited, you are a Clown.And why do you think there’s a way to “cite” a peer review?1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"And why do you think that there’s a way to “cite” a peer review making any claim?Yes. Unlike you., Clown.Do you understand how peer review works?2. Since you admit peer review looks at methodology, I will ask you again to show us the studies out of the 219 referenced where the peer review cited "weak evidence". So far you have failed miserably
Fucking hilarious how you edited this out of my post.........I wonder why.....
1. You have yet to offer anything.............ANYTHING..........to back up your claim of "weak evidence"
Go on. Tell me. Supposedly you know how peer review works.
Unfortunately for you, every rational person who has read your post says you are full of shit, Clown.It doesn’t and there’s no way a rational person would claim that.Unfortunately for you, we have your original post that backs me up.
Which is why you won’t explain why you believe it does.
