What do you mean I have to address what is wrong with correlational? The same god damn thing that you say is wrong with the correlational vitamin d studies.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with correlational vitamin D studies. They are better or worse on an individual basis depending on their methodology and analysis. You picked a fuckton of shit ones. Maybe you should have picked better ones, if you had the ability to recognise them.
Although the other substantial problem is that the data points heavily that vitamin D is only likely to be beneficial in the vitamin D deficient, as a whole lot of papers seem to show vitamin D not doing very much.
Just because after a mask mandate there was a decline in cases doesn't mean masks were the reason why as there's numerous other reasons that could have caused the decline. Like if you implemented mask mandates right before the Fall spike, you'd still see cases increase but that doesn't mean masks didn't work either. It's like saying the flu went away because we distanced and cleaned better but it could be viral interference as well.
If I'm weaseling then you're weaseling. Just because something in theory works, doesn't mean it'll work in the real world. Like the in vivo studies of things don't mean it'll work in the real world either. For the thing you want to be true, you consider that as valid evidence, but the stuff you don't want to be true, you say it's not good evidence. I'm literally only applying your burden of proof to your things, then you claim WEASEL!!!
You're applying my burden of proof, but without my understanding of what's good science and bad science. This approximates to what computer scientists call this "garbage in, garbage out". Or as I read someone deliciously put it about Pierre Kory's review on ivermectin, "A meta-analysis of junk produces meta-junk".
And tell me the times I was wrong (which you can't even prove that I was wrong).
HCQ multiple times (mechanism of action, effectiveness, circumstances of effectiveness), whether children can catch and spread covid, vitamin D, ivermectin, what a histogram is, whether New York could see another increase in cases, etc.
This is not an exhaustive list.
Find the message that where I said HCQ was an antiviral. I said it's primarily for the inflammatory modulation and ionophore for zinc. And you still don't have any evidence saying early HCQ doesn't work...
1) p value. p value represents statistical significance. The way that it works is that an experiment is set up with a "null hypothesis". The null hypothesis roughly equates to meaning "no effect". So in a study of whether HCQ improved mortality from covid-19, the null hypothesis is that HCQ...
forums.escapistmagazine.com
"Also, an ionophore + zinc has been shown to hamper virus replication with SARS-COV-1, which is extremely similar to SARS-COV-2. Here's a study here and here that show zinc with an ionophore helps vs only taking an ionophore (like HCQ) or only taking zinc. HCQ helps because it lets the zinc into the cells to interfere with virus replication."
Although bear in mind this is just the once. You've argued it numerous times the year before too, probably in v1 forums. If your argument is literally nothing more than you did not mention the word "antiviral", you can get knotted, because "interfere with virus replication" is unmistakably the the description of antiviral activity.
Nope, he definitely claimed immunity is short-lived. He didn't just say we don't know or else there wouldn't have been tons of articles claiming short-lived immunity.
“And immunity to this thing looks rather fragile — it looks like some people might have antibodies for a few months and then it might wane, so it’s not looking like a safe bet,” he said. “It’s a very deceitful virus and immunity to it is very confusing and rather short-lived.”
It "
looks like"; "
some people
might have antibodies for a few months and then it
might wane"; "
it's not a safe bet"
.
1st and last aren't early treatment and the 2nd is seeing if giving people basically a toxic dose of HCQ is bad, shocker it's bad.
Wait. Didn't you argue for months that the safety profile of HCQ was excellent, and now you're saying it's toxic? Make your mind up!
Not working or being redundant means it doesn't do anything, which is the whole point, masks outside are pointless and we've known that the whole time. Unless you're like body to body with people outside, you're fine and even then you're probably fine.
Right. So if you are, say, in an open-air sports stadium seated next to someone, you are literally body to body with them (unless they have seats with more generous width than any sports stadium I've ever been in). If you are walking down a crowded city pavement, you are pretty much body-to-body with other people.
These guys are all in a pub garden, outdoors. My, they look awfully close. Like, body-to-body close.
And I say again, infection control is about minimising risk, not hand-waving "Oh, it'll
probably be okay!"
