Coronavirus

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Don't fall for the junk science where people put masks on and cough on a petri dish - that's not real world science. Real world science measures actual outcomes with random controlled trials among a representative population sample.

You should probably cite more recent and more relevant studies. Like ones actually involving Covid-19 studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html#recent-studies

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302301 [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
You understand why you can't ethically use an RCT when exposing people to disease DDM?

The best thing people can do if they don't want to get sick is get in good shape, get enough of the right nutrition to help build up their immune system, and get sufficient sunlight. If they do happen to get sick, the healthier they were before getting sick the greater chance they'll have of getting over it.

F*** masks, f*** social distancing, and especially f*** vaccines which are even more dangerous than wearing masks for an extended period.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's all you'd need to read, then. Any other study that does not use RCTs runs the risk of measuring other variables and self-reporting/testing bias.

I apologize for being high and mighty in my reply. I consistently see people try to participate in these discussions while ignoring the actual content of posts. So I always am skeptical of the honesty of people participating when it seems they dismissive.

Based on the quality research available to us, the results are in for social distancing but not masks including N95 masks. Just avoid people.

In an extremely controlled study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7153751/

And the findings were so disturbing that the editors forced them to retract the study with the excuse of that the researchers did not express results with a Limit of Detection value. The researchers collected additional data with the LoD corrections: the editors still refused to allow the study to be updated with better data that accounted for LoD.

Who would be comfortable publishing highly controlled research that shows COVID-19 is readily found on both the outside and inside of masks? With how often people are messing with their masks and then touching other things, the results speak to a very shitty scenario and ethics would come into question.

Ok, cool.

The problem is that pure avoidance isn't a realistic option for me. I wish it was, but it isn't. Not without severely ****ing myself over. And sure, you could say "it's better than dying", but I don't consider that much of a choice.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Okay, but back in May (the same month) he also said this:

YouTube video

And in June he said this:

YouTube video

So which is it?

Because TBH, if I can't be sure of either, wearing a mask really seems like the lesser or two evils here.

Wear a mask, especially if you're high risk of getting it. While not guaranteed to protect 100% (and few things are), it's still a layer of protection. Worse thing that will come of it, you wear a mask and they can be slightly uncomfortable at times. It's a logical trade off.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Funny that the same people telling us that masks don't stop viruses getting in tell us that they do stop the 500x smaller CO2 molecules getting out.

Lol...idiots.

Science-Bingo

Originally posted by dadudemon
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/

No more junk science, right?

I see wearing masks as a sign that you've fallen for the placebo.

The same AAPS that thinks breast cancer is caused by abortions, HIV doesn't lead to AIDS and vaccines cause autism?

That AAPS?
Lol...no more junk science though.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The same AAPS that thinks breast cancer is caused by abortions, HIV doesn't lead to AIDS and vaccines cause autism?

That AAPS?
Lol...no more junk science though.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The same AAPS that thinks breast cancer is caused by abortions, HIV doesn't lead to AIDS and vaccines cause autism?

That AAPS?
Lol...no more junk science though.

Good lord. Are they a foundation of Evangelical doctors then?

Originally posted by Robtard
Good lord. Are they a foundation of Evangelical doctors then?

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/02/aaps-make-health-care-great-again/607015/

Trump loves them btw.

I'm starting to get why DDM's ideas are so leftfield, I think he genuinely has gone the red pilled route and it's not trolling or gaslighting.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The same AAPS that thinks breast cancer is caused by abortions, HIV doesn't lead to AIDS and vaccines cause autism?

That AAPS?
Lol...no more junk science though.

Ignoring glaring logical fallacy of this being a clear ad hominem aside...

...feel free to go through the cited research in the write-up including my follow-up about the CDC link you used. 🙂

Edit - Cite your ad hominems - I'm coming up empty handed - I do find some research that links breast cancer risks and some forms of abortions. So good job redpiilling?

Never mind, just recalled AAPS was used here before by one of Broly's socks, claiming a majority of doctors they interviewed, found that Clinton was not mentally or physically fit to be president.

Originally posted by Robtard
Never mind, just recalled AAPS was used here before by one of Broly's socks, claiming a majority of doctors they interviewed, found that Clinton was not mentally or physically fit to be president.

Originally posted by Robtard
Never mind, just recalled AAPS was used here before by one of Broly's socks, claiming a majority of doctors they interviewed, found that Clinton was not mentally or physically fit to be president.

I think neither Trump nor Biden are mentally fit to run this country at this poinnt.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yup, that was where I first noticed them too. DDM has either gone full rabbit Warren tin foil hat with Ethneo or like Ethneo is parody trolling.

DDM really triggers you. Why? You can't even say it's his "gaslighting" cuz Rob and Bash don't trigger you the same way despite all their gaslighting.

Is this like an Inigo Montoya sitch. He kill yo daddy?

CNN's Tapper rips Cuomo 'crowing' about COVID-19 handling: 'No other state has lost as many lives'

Tapper can sometimes be a b*tch, but he's more real than anyone else at CNN.

Is US Covid-19 News: White evangelicals among groups with slipping confidence in Trump’s handling of COVID-19

White evangelical Protestants are President Donald Trump’s most supportive religious constituency, but they are slightly less positive about his response to the coronavirus pandemic now than they were in March, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. -snip

Quite racist indeed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ignoring glaring logical fallacy of this being a clear ad hominem aside...

...feel free to go through the cited research in the write-up including my follow-up about the CDC link you used. 🙂

Edit - Cite your ad hominems - I'm coming up empty handed - I do find some research that links breast cancer risks and some forms of abortions. So good job redpiilling?

Feel free to address any of the studies I linked to instead ignoring them.

Feel free to also keep posting information from entirely discredited advocacy groups and trying to palm it off as legitimate.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Feel free to address any of the studies I linked to instead ignoring them.

Feel free to also keep posting information from entirely discredited advocacy groups and trying to palm it off as legitimate.