Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)

[Mr. Tea]

What do you think they might be reading? Clue: not The Byline Times

You're right. Best stick to the MSM, eh?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

You might learn something. Maybe you'll build a mental model with more than one variable.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Academics literally spend much of their time 'reading stuff on the internet'

I would hope those involved in medical research spend more time in the laboratory or in hospitals.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

You're right. Best stick to the MSM, eh?

Obvious troll is trolling

 

[Mr. Tea]

You might learn something. Maybe you'll build a mental model with more than one variable.

I'll hand it to you - your models are nothing if not mental.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I would hope those involved in medical research spend more time in the laboratory or in hospitals.

That does appear to be the British way: read no research findings; make it up as you go along

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Medxit

 

[Mr. Tea]

That does appear to be the British way: read no research findings; make it up as you go along

Reading other's research is fine, but that's not "research".

 

[Mr. Tea]

Are you still pretending that a paper posted to a social networking site has been "peer reviewed", btw?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Are you still pretending that a paper posted to a social networking site has been "peer reviewed", btw?

It's a damn sight more credible than your unsourced emanations.

Btw you do realise that if you're unable to read and then integrate new findings into your analysis then you're basically stuck in first gear?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Read the paper

OK, I've had a look. Their only "control" group is the general population. That's not a proper control. For assessing the efficacy of a new treatment you need a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Otherwise all you've got is, at best, a collection of anecdotal reports. It's not science.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

OK, I've had a look. Their only "control" group is the general population. That's not a proper control. For assessing the efficacy of a new treatment you need a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Otherwise all you've got is, at best, a collection of anecdotal reports. It's not science.

Yes, I'm sure you know better than the pros.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes, I'm sure you know better than the pros.

What do you know about these people? The square foot of fuck all, except that they're saying something you want to hear.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

What do you know about these people? The square foot of fuck all, except that they're saying something you want to hear.

Maybe you should send that criticism to the author.

 

[wild greens]

Molecular Evidence for SARS-CoV-2 in Samples Collected From Patients With Morbilliform Eruptions Since Late Summer 2019 in Lombardy, Northern Italy

Background: Skin manifestations have been reported in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. As a reference laboratory for measles and rubella surveillance in Lomb

papers.ssrn.com

Molecular evidence for SARS-CoV-2 infection was found in 13 subjects. Two patients were from the pandemic period (2/12, 16·7%, March 2020-March 2021) and 11 were from the pre-pandemic period (11/44, 25%, August 2019-February 2020). Five of the positive individuals showed the simultaneous presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. No clear evidence of infection was found in 281 samples collected between August 2018 and July 2019 from 100 patients. The first positivity for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in a sample collected on September 12, 2019. Mutations typical of B.1 (PANGOLIN classification) strains, previously reported to have emerged in January 2020, had already been circulating in October 2019. Hence, we estimate SARS-CoV-2 progenitor of known human infections to have emerged in late June-late August 2019.

Is this already in here? Probably

 

[HMGovt’s Glorious Return!]

Here's a pro eviscerating the FDA's approval of vaccination of 5-11 year olds.

Ten red flags in the FDA's risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer's EUA application to inject American children 5 to 11 with its mRNA product

The FDA briefing document is preposterous junk science and it must be withdrawn immediately

tobyrogers.substack.com

 

[Mr. Tea]

Maybe you should send that criticism to the author.

Why would I waste my time doing that?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Here's a pro eviscerating the FDA's approval of vaccination of 5-11 year olds.

Ten red flags in the FDA's risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer's EUA application to inject American children 5 to 11 with its mRNA product

The FDA briefing document is preposterous junk science and it must be withdrawn immediately

tobyrogers.substack.com

Let’s start with my bona fides. I have a year of undergraduate statistics at one of the best liberal arts colleges in America (Swarthmore). I have a year of graduate statistics at the masters program rated #1 for policy analysis (UC Berkeley). And I have a Ph.D. in political economy from one of the top universities in the world (University of Sydney).

Quite the pro! I also did some stats at uni. Am I a pro, too?

My research focus is on corruption in the pharmaceutical industry...

Always good to approach a field of study without any preconceptions that might cloud your thinking, eh?

 

[Slothrop]

I mean, if you want too then you can google the author of the not-actually-peer-reviewed paper and find from their LinkedIn profile that they're a jobbing tech-sector "data analyst" with a masters in statistics whose only public health experience is that they've been working for some dodgy bunch of invermectin enthusiasts for the last year or so.

But all that'll get you is a flippant dismissal before biscuits moves onto the next bit of dodgy information. There's no point arguing with someone who's just trying to waste your time and doesn't give a crap about basic honesty.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I mean, if you want too then you can google the author of the not-actually-peer-reviewed paper and find from their LinkedIn profile that they're a jobbing tech-sector "data analyst" with a masters in statistics whose only public health experience is that they've been working for some dodgy bunch of invermectin enthusiasts for the last year or so.

But all that'll get you is a flippant dismissal before biscuits moves onto the next bit of dodgy information. There's no point arguing with someone who's just trying to waste your time and doesn't give a crap about basic honesty.

So it's a crime to be an enthusiast of something of benefit?

Pfizer are very enthusiastic about their products, after all...