Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covidDid you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:what you wanted to hear?
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO".I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covidDid you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you just stop at your right-wing source because it told you
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covidDid you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:interventions. Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an international network of reviewers, based in London, that has partnerships with the WHO and Wikipedia. Medical journals have hailed it for being “
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covidThe gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, and the gold standard for analyzing this evidence is Cochrane (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration), the world’s largest and most respected organization for evaluating health
From the above article quote:
"Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an..."
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/anthony-s-fauci-md#:~:text=In%201968%2C%20Dr.,a%20position%20he%20still%20holds
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:34:07 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:interventions. Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an international network of reviewers, based in London, that has partnerships with the WHO and Wikipedia. Medical journals have hailed it for being “
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covidThe gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, and the gold standard for analyzing this evidence is Cochrane (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration), the world’s largest and most respected organization for evaluating health
From the above article quote:
"Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an..."
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/anthony-s-fauci-md#:~:text=In%201968%2C%20Dr.,a%20position%20he%20still%20holdsNot quite. The Cochrane studies are generally meta-analyses, and well-regarded, but not definitive.
I went to the actual report, which says, "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks".
https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:07:24 AM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:health interventions. Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an international network of reviewers, based in London, that has partnerships with the WHO and Wikipedia. Medical journals have hailed it for
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:34:07 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covidThe gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, and the gold standard for analyzing this evidence is Cochrane (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration), the world’s largest and most respected organization for evaluating
wearing a mask **MAY** make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness." (my emphasis) Is that what Travel's right-wing source represented they said? I don't think so.From the above article quote:
"Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an..."
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/anthony-s-fauci-md#:~:text=In%201968%2C%20Dr.,a%20position%20he%20still%20holdsNot quite. The Cochrane studies are generally meta-analyses, and well-regarded, but not definitive.
I went to the actual report, which says, "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks".
https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-virusesThey also said from the start, "We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed." They also said, "Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only,
But when you read the rebuttals of the Cochrane study from infectious disease experts, even the wishy-washy Cochrane claims quoted above seem to be open to a high degree of skepticism.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:25:39 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:health interventions. Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an international network of reviewers, based in London, that has partnerships with the WHO and Wikipedia. Medical journals have hailed it for
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:07:24 AM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:34:07 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covidThe gold standard for medical evidence is the randomized clinical trial, and the gold standard for analyzing this evidence is Cochrane (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration), the world’s largest and most respected organization for evaluating
only, wearing a mask **MAY** make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness." (my emphasis) Is that what Travel's right-wing source represented they said? I don't think so.From the above article quote:
"Funded by the National Institutes of Health and other nations’ health agencies, it’s an..."
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/anthony-s-fauci-md#:~:text=In%201968%2C%20Dr.,a%20position%20he%20still%20holdsNot quite. The Cochrane studies are generally meta-analyses, and well-regarded, but not definitive.
I went to the actual report, which says, "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks".
https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-virusesThey also said from the start, "We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed." They also said, "Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies
illnesses."But when you read the rebuttals of the Cochrane study from infectious disease experts, even the wishy-washy Cochrane claims quoted above seem to be open to a high degree of skepticism.Here is what the source given says, "The most rigorous and extensive review of the scientific literature concludes that neither surgical masks nor N95 masks have been shown to make a difference in reducing the spread of Covid-19 and other respiratory
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:what you wanted to hear?
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO".I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covidDid you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you just stop at your right-wing source because it told you
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed pablum just because you happen to like the taste.Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:what you wanted to hear?
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO".
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you just stop at your right-wing source because it told you
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself?? Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
~ On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
<another dump truck load of FTZWS (flood the zone with shit)>
Newsflash, Canadian Blabbermouth: You tried to kick Travel's ass and were only able to kick your own ass.
Entertaining, if nothing else.
On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 1:27:15 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
~ On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:10:13 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
<another dump truck load of FTZWS (flood the zone with shit)>
Newsflash, Canadian Blabbermouth: You tried to kick Travel's ass and were only able to kick your own ass.
Entertaining, if nothing else.
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO". >>>>
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>> Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear?
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid >>>>>> Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual
Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your
right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you
wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed
pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself??
Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... always last
... always
On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>> Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO". >>>>
I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid >>>>>> Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did >>>>>> you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? >>>>>> Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual
Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your
right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you >>>> just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you
wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed
pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself??
Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished you either move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... always last ... always
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>> Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.
You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO". >>>>>>I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid >>>>>>>> Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did >>>>>>>> you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? >>>>>>>> Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual
Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your
right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you >>>>>> just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you
wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if >>>>>> you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed
pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself??
Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished you either >>> move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... always last >>> ... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting.
On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>> Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO".I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid >>>>>>>> Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did >>>>>>>> you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? >>>>>>>> Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual
Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your
right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you >>>>>> just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you >>>>>> wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if >>>>>> you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed >>>>>> pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself??
Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished you either >>> move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... always last >>> ... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting.Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? Only
blab and dodging anything interesting.
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study.
Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support"
one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject.
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:with the *actual source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if you care about the truth, which is doubtful.
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:It's a "Gold Standard" study.
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? Only
On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO".I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid >>>>>>>>>>> Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did >>>>>>>>>>> you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? >>>>>>>>>>> Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you >>>>>>>>> just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you >>>>>>>>> wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if >>>>>>>>> you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed >>>>>>>>> pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself??
Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished you either >>>>>> move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... always last >>>>>> ... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting.
blab and dodging anything interesting.
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study.
Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support"
one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject.
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual, dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary.
They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, which irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>> Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO".I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did >>>>>>>> you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear? >>>>>>>> Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you >>>>>> wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if >>>>>> you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed >>>>>> pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself??
Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting.Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? Only blab and dodging anything interesting.
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study. Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support"
one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject.
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... notIt's a "Gold Standard" study.
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual, dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary.
Here is what the source given says, "The most rigorous and extensive review of the scientific
literature concludes that neither surgical masks nor N95 masks have been shown to make a
difference in reducing the spread of Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses."
On February 18, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Here is what the source given says, "The most rigorous and extensive review of the scientificWhat's their methodology? You can't put a mob of humans into
literature concludes that neither surgical masks nor N95 masks have been shown to make a
difference in reducing the spread of Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses."
a cage, and do controlled experiments.
--
Rich
On 2/21/2023 1:44 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:It's a "Gold Standard" study.
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? Only >>>> blab and dodging anything interesting.
On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth. >>>>>>>>> Getting his ass kicked, lol.You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a >>>>>>>>>> hard "NO".On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, >>>>>>>>>>>> or did
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>> hear?
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or >>>>>>>>>> did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you >>>>>>>>>> wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important
skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed >>>>>>>>>> pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself?? >>>>>>>> Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished you >>>>>>> either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ...
always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something
more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or
less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm
inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any
study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of
disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact
that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year
that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was
informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian
Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting.
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study.
Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support"
one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject.
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the
study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although it
could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific
community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for
spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best way
to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and
meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual,
dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary.
They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes
from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, which
irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the
study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go with the *actual
source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible
people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if
you care about the truth, which is doubtful.
Still dodging ... still blabbing
1 + 1 = ?
Prove it
On 2/21/2023 2:02 PM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/21/2023 1:44 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:It's a "Gold Standard" study.
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:Only
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth. >>>>>>>>>> Getting his ass kicked, lol.On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a >>>>>>>>>>> hard "NO".
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or did
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>>> hear?
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>>>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>>>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or >>>>>>>>>>> did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you >>>>>>>>>>> wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important >>>>>>>>>>> skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed >>>>>>>>>>> pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself?? >>>>>>>>> Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished
you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ...
always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something
more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or
less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm
inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any
study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of
disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact
that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year
that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was
informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian
Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting. >>>>> Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting?
blab and dodging anything interesting.
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study. >>>>> Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support"
one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject.
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the
study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although
it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific
community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for
spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best
way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and
meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual,
dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary.
They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes
from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, which
irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the
study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go with the *actual
source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible
people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if
you care about the truth, which is doubtful.
Still dodging ... still blabbing
1 + 1 = ?
Prove it
Still dodging ... why?
On 2/22/2023 11:16 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/21/2023 2:02 PM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/21/2023 1:44 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
It's a "Gold Standard" study.On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:blab and dodging anything interesting.
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth. >>>>>>>>>> Getting his ass kicked, lol.On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a >>>>>>>>>>> hard "NO".
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or did
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>>> hear?
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>>>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>>>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or >>>>>>>>>>> did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you >>>>>>>>>>> wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important >>>>>>>>>>> skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed >>>>>>>>>>> pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself?? >>>>>>>>> Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished >>>>>>>> you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... >>>>>>>> always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures >>>>>>
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something >>>>>> more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or >>>>>> less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm >>>>>> inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any >>>>>> study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of >>>>>> disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact >>>>>> that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year >>>>>> that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was
informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian >>>>>> Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting. >>>>> Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? >>>>> Only
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study. >>>>> Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support" >>>>> one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject. >>>>>
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the
study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although
it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific
community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for
spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best
way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and
meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual,
dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary.
They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes >>> from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, which
irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the
study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go with the *actual >>> source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible
people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if
you care about the truth, which is doubtful.
Still dodging ... still blabbing
1 + 1 = ?
Prove it
Still dodging ... why?Math is hard ...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 1:05:30 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/22/2023 11:16 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/21/2023 2:02 PM, da pickle wrote:Math is hard ...
On 2/21/2023 1:44 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
It's a "Gold Standard" study.On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:blab and dodging anything interesting.
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth. >>>>>>>>>>>> Getting his ass kicked, lol.On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> hard "NO".
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or did
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hear?
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>>>>>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or >>>>>>>>>>>>> did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you >>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important >>>>>>>>>>>>> skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed >>>>>>>>>>>>> pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself?? >>>>>>>>>>> Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished >>>>>>>>>> you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... >>>>>>>>>> always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures >>>>>>>>
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something >>>>>>>> more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or >>>>>>>> less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm >>>>>>>> inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any >>>>>>>> study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of >>>>>>>> disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact >>>>>>>> that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year >>>>>>>> that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was
informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian >>>>>>>> Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting. >>>>>>> Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? >>>>>>> Only
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study. >>>>>>> Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support" >>>>>>> one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject. >>>>>>>
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the
study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although >>>>>> it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific
community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for
spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best
way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and >>>>>> meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual,
dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary.
They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes >>>>> from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, which
irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the
study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go with the *actual >>>>> source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible >>>>> people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if
you care about the truth, which is doubtful.
Still dodging ... still blabbing
1 + 1 = ?
Prove it
Still dodging ... why?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Proving that 1+1=2 took Russell and Whitehead something like 37 pages in the Principia.
On 2/23/2023 2:05 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 1:05:30 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/22/2023 11:16 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/21/2023 2:02 PM, da pickle wrote:Math is hard ...
On 2/21/2023 1:44 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
It's a "Gold Standard" study.On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:blab and dodging anything interesting.
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth. >>>>>>>>>>>> Getting his ass kicked, lol.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> hard "NO".
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or did
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hear?
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>>>>>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or >>>>>>>>>>>>> did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you
wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important >>>>>>>>>>>>> skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed
pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself?? >>>>>>>>>>> Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished >>>>>>>>>> you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... >>>>>>>>>> always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures >>>>>>>>
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something >>>>>>>> more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or >>>>>>>> less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm >>>>>>>> inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any >>>>>>>> study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of >>>>>>>> disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact >>>>>>>> that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year >>>>>>>> that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was >>>>>>>> informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian >>>>>>>> Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting. >>>>>>> Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? >>>>>>> Only
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study. >>>>>>> Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support" >>>>>>> one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject. >>>>>>>
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the >>>>>> study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although >>>>>> it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific
community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for >>>>>> spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best >>>>>> way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and >>>>>> meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual,
dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary.
They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes >>>>> from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, which
irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the
study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go with the *actual >>>>> source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible >>>>> people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if >>>>> you care about the truth, which is doubtful.
Still dodging ... still blabbing
1 + 1 = ?
Prove it
Still dodging ... why?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Proving that 1+1=2 took Russell and Whitehead something like 37 pages in the Principia.How long did it take you?
How about 1 + 1 = 10
Give that a try.
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 4:43:48 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/23/2023 2:05 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 1:05:30 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:How long did it take you?
On 2/22/2023 11:16 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/21/2023 2:02 PM, da pickle wrote:Math is hard ...
On 2/21/2023 1:44 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes >>>>>>> from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, whichIt's a "Gold Standard" study.On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:blab and dodging anything interesting.
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard "NO".
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or did
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hear?
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you
wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed
pablum just because you happen to like the taste. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself?? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished >>>>>>>>>>>> you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... >>>>>>>>>>>> always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures >>>>>>>>>>
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something >>>>>>>>>> more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or >>>>>>>>>> less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm >>>>>>>>>> inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any >>>>>>>>>> study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of >>>>>>>>>> disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact >>>>>>>>>> that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year >>>>>>>>>> that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was >>>>>>>>>> informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian >>>>>>>>>> Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting. >>>>>>>>> Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? >>>>>>>>> Only
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study. >>>>>>>>> Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support" >>>>>>>>> one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject. >>>>>>>>>
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the >>>>>>>> study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although >>>>>>>> it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific >>>>>>>> community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for >>>>>>>> spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best >>>>>>>> way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and >>>>>>>> meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual,
dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary. >>>>>>>
irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the >>>>>>> study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go with the *actual >>>>>>> source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible >>>>>>> people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if >>>>>>> you care about the truth, which is doubtful.
Still dodging ... still blabbing
1 + 1 = ?
Prove it
Still dodging ... why?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Proving that 1+1=2 took Russell and Whitehead something like 37 pages in the Principia.
How about 1 + 1 = 10
Give that a try.
Same thing, in binary
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 4:43:48 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/23/2023 2:05 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 1:05:30 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:How long did it take you?
On 2/22/2023 11:16 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/21/2023 2:02 PM, da pickle wrote:Math is hard ...
On 2/21/2023 1:44 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes >>>>>>> from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, whichIt's a "Gold Standard" study.On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:blab and dodging anything interesting.
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard "NO".
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or did
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hear?
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you
wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed
pablum just because you happen to like the taste. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself?? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished >>>>>>>>>>>> you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... >>>>>>>>>>>> always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures >>>>>>>>>>
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something >>>>>>>>>> more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or >>>>>>>>>> less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm >>>>>>>>>> inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any >>>>>>>>>> study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of >>>>>>>>>> disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact >>>>>>>>>> that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year >>>>>>>>>> that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was >>>>>>>>>> informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian >>>>>>>>>> Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting. >>>>>>>>> Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? >>>>>>>>> Only
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study. >>>>>>>>> Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support" >>>>>>>>> one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject. >>>>>>>>>
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... not
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the >>>>>>>> study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although >>>>>>>> it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific >>>>>>>> community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for >>>>>>>> spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best >>>>>>>> way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and >>>>>>>> meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual,
dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary. >>>>>>>
irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the >>>>>>> study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go with the *actual >>>>>>> source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible >>>>>>> people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if >>>>>>> you care about the truth, which is doubtful.
Still dodging ... still blabbing
1 + 1 = ?
Prove it
Still dodging ... why?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Proving that 1+1=2 took Russell and Whitehead something like 37 pages in the Principia.
How about 1 + 1 = 10
Give that a try.
Same thing, in binary
Here is what the source given says, "The most rigorous and extensive review >>> of the scientific literature concludes that neither surgical masks nor N95 >>>> masks have been shown to make a
difference in reducing the spread of Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses."
What's their methodology? You can't put a mob of humans into
a cage, and do controlled experiments.
The point is that is what the article that Travel quoted said. It is not the conclusion of the Cochrane review.
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:51:06 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:23:32 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 2/20/2023 4:25 PM, risky biz wrote:
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:29:42 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 2/19/2023 7:01 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 2/18/2023 1:53 PM, BillB wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 10:02:50 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:55:47 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:39:29 PM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
Chortle, this is what's called gobblygoop from Balbbernouth.You didn't answer my question. I'll take that avoidance as a hard "NO".On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 9:21:12 AM UTC-8, Travel wrote:I went by "The Gold Standard" study. And you?
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax. >>>>>>>>>Did you look for any scientific rebuttals of those claims, or did
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
you just stop there because it said something you wanted to hear?
Just curious. No need to get all defensive again.
Two more obvious questions: Did you at least go to the actual >>>>>> Cochrane study to make sure what was being represented by your >>>>>> right-wing source is what the actual study actually said? Or did you
just stop at your right-wing source because it told you what you >>>>>> wanted to hear?
It's called critical thinking, my man. It is an important skill if
you want to learn the truth, rather than being content being fed >>>>>> pablum just because you happen to like the taste.
Getting his ass kicked, lol.
So another hard "NO"? You didn't even check the study itself??
Seriously? Oh boy. How embarrassing for you.
You even blab about your blab ... and when you are demolished you either
move on to another blab in a different line or blab last ... always last
... always
~ So, you choose to move on to blab a different line ... figures
I think Blabbermouth is just jealous that Travel posted something more interesting than he himself could come up with.
Travel's article did lean a bit toward overstatement. But 5% or less overstatement than Blabbermouth's criticism of it.
I also have basic doubts about the conclusions of the study. I'm inherently cautious of meta-analyses. I also have doubts that any study on this particular subject could be reliable.
I fall back on common sense. Anything that retards the volume of disease particles in common air seems to make sense and the fact that the incidence of flu declined significantly in the one year that mask-wearing peaked seems to confirm that.
The bottom line is that Travel's posting of the article was informative and interesting. I can't recall anything the Canadian Blabbermouth has posted that was either informative or interesting.Has it ever blabbed anything that was informative and interesting? Only blab and dodging anything interesting.
I agree with your doubts of the referenced study or any other study. Studies are to be studied ... pock and choose and one can "support" one's "conclusions" but "proof" is an entirely different subject.
1 + 1 = ? Prove it ... maybe blab can do it ... notIt's a "Gold Standard" study.
That means that there is a consensus that the methodology of the study is superior to the other known studies.
It has nothing to do with necessarily being "definitive," although it could be, depending on a.particular study.
The "Gold Standard" is a term used by the worldwide scientific community for all.mannr of subjects for testing; it could be for spirometry.tests, or masks, all kinds of studies.
It a way of having the general agreement of: "Ya, that's the best way to approach the testing."
Everyone "get it?"
with the *actual source* rather than some ideological spin site designed for gullible people who are highly susceptible to confirmation bias. That is, if you care about the truth, which is doubtful.BillB going cherry picking with Northfuck is really irrelevant and meaningless, I.e., for every picked cherry from their usual, dishonest bias, there can be 9 picked cherries to the contrary.They blatantly lied to you and I proved that with side-by-side quotes from your right-wing spin article and the ACTUAL STUDY, which irrefutably contradicted each other (about the conclusion of the study). I hope you learned your lesson. Next time go
Just fake fabrications that support their latest hoax.
https://www.city-journal.org/new-cochrane-study-on-masks-and-covid
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 169:30:21 |
| Calls: | 12,097 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,838 |