Originally posted by mikewhitney
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Trump claims to be taking Hydroxochloroquine
Collapse
X
-
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostThe hack of the DNC server had to be someone physically on location. Graham is misinformed. The media still hypes it up as Russian infiltration. Go figure.
Well. The results are still true. We will have more deaths due to shutdown than to the virus. We cannot survive well as a nation going into a depression. But the governors are willing to take this risk.
Comment
-
well THIS is a hoot...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...oxychloroquine
At a press conference on Wednesday, the WHO announced it would resume its global trial of hydroxychloroquine, after its data safety monitoring committee found there was no increased risk of death for Covid patients taking it.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
The medical journal Lancet has now fully retracted their prior claimed “scientific study” against the use of Hodroxychloroquine. The Lancet study was quickly and purposefully used by all major media outlets to attack President Trump for his advocacy of the drug as an effective treatment for the COVID-19 virus.
It now appears the purpose of the fraudulent “scientific study”, conducted by a sketchy outfit called Surgisphere – who mysteriously appeared only after President Trump advocated for the treatment, was to weaponize medicine for political purposes.
After they were exposed for their role in pushing manipulated data, Lancet has now fully retracted their study in an attempt to retain credibility.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ical-purposes/Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThe medical journal Lancet has now fully retracted their prior claimed “scientific study” against the use of Hodroxychloroquine. The Lancet study was quickly and purposefully used by all major media outlets to attack President Trump for his advocacy of the drug as an effective treatment for the COVID-19 virus.
It now appears the purpose of the fraudulent “scientific study”, conducted by a sketchy outfit called Surgisphere – who mysteriously appeared only after President Trump advocated for the treatment, was to weaponize medicine for political purposes.
After they were exposed for their role in pushing manipulated data, Lancet has now fully retracted their study in an attempt to retain credibility.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ical-purposes/
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostHow much would you pay me to show you untainted studies which also showed H to be ineffective?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostAnd yet they still had to propagate some fake study anyway, to make it official I guess? There's now no reason whatsoever for me not question those other studies as either bias or just outright bogus as well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostI sounds like you don't understand how research is published.
It would be helpful to know what people are selected to review proposed papers ... and to know what ownership and sponsorship exists for specific journals. We cannot simply assume that the publishing of a study means that that study is great stuff. Nor does it help simply to say that a journal has a great reputation -- unless it is known what that reputation is based upon realistic and verifiable evidence. It is easy for things to be corrupted in this world.Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-08-2020, 01:18 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostThe thing I saw not too long ago was that fifty percent of the science research papers were not repeatable.
The other thing was about medical doctors being asked to be represented as the main researcher on a research paper that was already written. There also has been selection of research only of prominent people so that there is a favoritism to promote their careers. Along this line too, there can be a tendency to publish research that is biased toward specific ends, as determined by the journals. (They are less likely to include research that counters their narrative.)
It would be helpful to know what people are selected to review proposed papers ... and to know what ownership and sponsorship exists for specific journals. We cannot simply assume that the publishing of a study means that that study is great stuff. Nor does it help simply to say that a journal has a great reputation -- unless it is known what that reputation is based upon realistic and verifiable evidence. It is easy for things to be corrupted in this world.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
23 responses
143 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 06:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
296 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
86 responses
369 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:40 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
60 responses
376 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 06:44 AM
|
Comment