Feel free to argue the data is legit.
Feel free to argue the data is legit.
I don't have to. There's zero claims there that the data and/or study is not legit.
You didn't answer, are you standing on that based on a gut feeling, or just overall butthurtness that it contradicts dear leader, tbh?
It's ok, you don't have to answer
I dont get why these Trump s keep going after taking it on the chin.
Resentful ignorance followed by unyielding wrong.
Our president has had an impact on the dull.
He never answers directly about anything. He's the conservative Chumpdumper. As soon as he's painted in a corner he just moves the goalposts to keep from admitting he's wrong.
Harsh comparison, tbh.
Chump doesn't try to demean or laughs nervously about serious injustices like TSA loves to do.
Gotta get that W at any cost.
Eh, the details my differ slightly but their MO is the same.
https://youtu.be/TYIVspoodUM
Lol dr says half of what is record is the truth about deaths
Lol not watching it because you're a well do ented got
All of the open states still have less problems than nyc. Florida, Georgia... doing great. Its like lockdowns didn't do anything.
There’s literally 120 MDs, researchers, statisticians, epidemiologists & ethicists from 24 countries claiming the data isn’t legit. I’m standing on neither of your choices and defer to people well more qualified than you.
1.There wasinadequate adjustment for known and measured confounders (disease severity, temporal effects, site effects, dose used).
2.The authors have not adhered to standard practices in the machine learning and statistics community. They have not releasedtheir code or data. There is no data/code sharing and availability statement in the paper. The Lancet was among the many signatories on the Wellcome statementon data sharing for COVID-19 studies.
3.There was noethics review.
4.There was no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data sourceandno acknowledgments to their contributions.A request to the authors for information on the contributing centres was denied.
5.Data from Australia are not compatible with government reports (too many cases for just five hospitals, more in-hospital deaths than had occurred in the entire country during the study period). Surgisphere (the data company) have since statedthis was an error of classificationof one hospital from Asia.Thisindicates the need for further error checking throughout thedatabase.
6.Data from Africa indicate thatnearly 25% of all COVID-19 cases and 40% of all deaths in the continentoccurred in Surgisphere-associated hospitals which had sophisticated electronic patient data recording, and patient monitoring able to detect and record “nonsustained [at least 6 secs] or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricularfibrillation”. Both the numbers of cases and deaths, and the detailed data collection, seem unlikely.
7.Unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes between continents(Table S3)
8.Mean daily doses of hydroxychloroquine that are 100 mg higher than FDA recommendations, whereas 66% of the data are from North American hospitals.
9.Implausible ratios of chloroquine to hydroxychloroquine use in some continents
10.The tight 95% confidence intervals reported for the hazard ratios are unlikely. For instance,for the Australiandatathis would need about double the numbers of recorded deathsas were reported in the paper.
What specifically am I wrong about Bene?
Except that none of those people are making the claim YOU are making that the data is not legit. They're asking for clarification on the points you summed up.
Do you agree they never claimed in that letter that neither the study or the data is bunk? Because if you don't even have the decency to admit that, there's not much more to go on.
You can quote on the letter where they unequivocally state that the data and/or study is bunk, and this would be a really easy win for you, but you clearly cannot do that.
So, again, are you standing on that claim based on a gut feeling or just overall butthurtness that it contradicts dear leader?
inadequate adjustment for known and measured confounders (disease severity, temporal effects, site effects, dose used).
Data from Australia are not compatible with government reports (too many cases for just five hospitals, more in-hospital deaths than had occurred in the entire country during the study period)
Implausible ratios of chloroquine to hydroxychloroquine use in some continents
strange hill to die on Nono
so they found some discrepancies and are asking for clarification. Says as much in the letter YOU posted (rofl)
But you keep not posting the quote where they call the data bunk. Would just be such an easy W for you, tbh...
This is actually the easiest argument I had in months, tbh
I don't get somebody to own themselves posting things that don't say what they claim they say.
I also called it early you were ing the ball prematurely, and damn, I got that one right too
So, again, are you standing on that claim based on a gut feeling or just overall butthurtness that it contradicts dear leader?
YOu said the study was bunk. You posted a letter that obviously you think debunks it.
So you don't know whey it is bunk, you just gots the feels that it is.
Got it.
That is a lot of yapping. Period.
No-take McGee and his perpetual parade of petty personal attacks. You did manage to deflect from thodrens evasions, so that is, for you, a "w" I am sure.
This from a pizzagate pusher doing hours of PR for the President's favorite snake oil drug. You've died on more hills by yourself than the early Christians of Rome. All in service to a beta pussy POTUS. What a stupid and pathetic way to live.
this also calls me out specifically demanding that I apologize to Darrin (which I would have zero problem doing, and wouldn't be the first time either), and I'm the one dying on the hill over this
double post, stupid slowvenian servers
But this isn't exclusive to COVID. This is true basically across the board because most of the time autopsies are not performed, and a cause of death is presumed. So it's not that it's wrong, exactly.. but that it's not proven. They could say someone died of complications from pneumonia when in reality maybe they died from some other thing, but we all die of myocardial infarction eventually.
What happened to McGurk?
There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)