The Coronavirus, not the beer

oh and by the way the letter was sent June 2020 and after considering its merits the National Academy of Sciences proceeded to publish the article in January 2021

Edit: it gets even better

the letter refers to an article by Mario Molina, which is NOT the article I have been referencing

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

poor sturg...he is confused again...he doesn't read i guess...how embarassing

looks like he didn't even read the Buzzfeed article either, which cites yet another Lancet article on the efficacy of masks...double embarassment...poor guy
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
The scientists, who sent a signed letter to the journal PNAS on Thursday, say that the paper is based on false statements and flawed statistical analysis and could encourage people to put themselves at risk by congregating in groups, believing that wearing a mask is enough to protect them from infection.

this is such a bizarre hook for mask deniers to hang their hats on

no one is saying that masks will make it safe to congregate in close spaces indoors...the only claim is it lowers transmission

mein gott varum hast du verlassen sturg
Click to expand...

They were saying the journal you love so much is willing to misrepresent their evidence to push a narrative.

This is quite clear when they say that mask mandates showed a reduction in infections worldwide. There are dozens of verifiable contradictions to this.

But this group is clearly interested in an agenda.

They never ran their own experiments. Not one.

You have fallen even behind 57 bc he at least doesn't push misinformation...
 
nsacpi said:
An honorable man would pack up his bags and leave as he promised he would.
Click to expand...

An honorable man would not try to tie together three different random, unscientific findings to try to prove a point that is unrelated.

But you can't post the evidence of the question at hand because it does not exist. You are simply an old man who is wrong on everything and clings to wrong and outdated assumption rather than reflect, and evolve

Sad!
 
sturg33 said:
An honorable man would not try to tie together three different random, unscientific findings to try to prove a point that is unrelated.

But you can't post the evidence of the question at hand because it does not exist. You are simply an old man who is wrong on everything and clings to wrong and outdated assumption rather than reflect, and evolve

Sad!
Click to expand...

anyhow, you are sad, dishonorable and wrong

i'm sure there are some redeeming qualities buried deep inside you

someday they will emerge...maybe
 
nsacpi said:
this is the article i have been referencing

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

this is the article sturg says i'm referencing

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857

poor guy

i'm so embarassed for him
Click to expand...

Man you are stupid.

I know you are referencing the first one. I've quoted the "conclusion" of it twice.

I merely point out to your senile brain that this organization you admire so much and are using their "conclusion" as your "evidence" has been nationally called out by the scientific community for misrepresenting data and faulty statistical analysis just 7 months ago.

And I point out in their "conclusion" that they are once again misrepresenting data and using faulty statistical analysis.

Your prime has past you by. It's a sad to watch
 
sturg33 said:
Man you are stupid.

I know you are referencing the first one. I've quoted the "conclusion" of it twice.

I merely point out to your senile brain that this organization you admire so much and are using their "conclusion" as your "evidence" has been nationally called out by the scientific community for misrepresenting data and faulty statistical analysis just 7 months ago.

And I point out in their "conclusion" that they are once again misrepresenting data and using faulty statistical analysis.

Your prime has past you by. It's a sad to watch
Click to expand...

you did nothing of the sort

you posted and i quote directly:

This is the paper that nsacpi is uncritically blindly believing... bc he has the best judgement, after all

Linkhttps://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ace-masks-pnas

of course I'm not referencing that paper at all

i guess you think piling one lie on top of another will make things better
 
nsacpi said:
you did nothing of the sort

you posted and i quote directly:

This is the paper that nsacpi is uncritically blindly believing... bc he has the best judgement, after all

Linkhttps://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ace-masks-pnas

of course I'm not referencing that paper at all

i guess you think piling one lie on top of another will make things better
Click to expand...

Ahh i see where you got.confused. easy to do at your age. My bad.

Let me rephrase.

"This is the organization that nsacpi is.uncritically blindly believing... bc he has the best judgment, after all"

But I'm a man of honor and can admit to my mistake
 
I mean National Academy of Sciences and Lancet dude. Be a man for once and own up to being your usual wrongo dongo self.
 
sturg33 said:
Ahh i see where you got.confused. easy to do at your age. My bad.

Let me rephrase.

"This is the organization that nsacpi is.uncritically blindly believing... bc he has the best judgment, after all"

But I'm a man of honor and can admit to my mistake
Click to expand...

you said "this is the paper that nsacpi is uncritically blindly believing"

and proceed to refer to the wrong paper

sorry
 
Like I said... Uncritically blindly believe

Neither org did a CRT.

Neither. Org produced actual evidence.

But you believe them blindly bc it would be too much work to read the evidence
 
nsacpi said:
you said "this is the paper that nsacpi is uncritically blindly believing"

and proceed to refer to the wrong paper

sorry
Click to expand...

Correct. I admitted the mistake and rephrase for you to follow along more easily.

You uncritically believe the organization that was nationally embrassed from faulty data analysis just 7 months ago.

Also, good on you to pivot away from that CDC study you posted first. You at least were able to understand what a loser that one was. Progress for you!
 
sturg33 said:
Like I said... Uncritically blindly believe

Neither org did a CRT.

Neither. Org produced actual evidence.

But you believe them blindly bc it would be too much work to read the evidence
Click to expand...

anyhow...you know how wrong you are but i guess you aint enough of a mensch to admit it

you're as wrong as it is possible to get in this whole discussion about masks and protecting people from reinfection
 
Lol its been fun schooling you further about data analysis and what constitutes an actual clinical trial.

I hope you read up on the one that was done.

I'm off to watch basketball. But ill be back later to make fun of your ignorance some more!
 
sturg33 said:
Lol its been fun schooling you further about data analysis and what constitutes an actual clinical trial.

I hope you read up on the one that was done.

I'm off to watch basketball. But ill be back later to make fun of your ignorance some more!
Click to expand...

dude what are you doing still posting here

if you had any honor you would pack your bags
 
tululush said:
I’ll simply state that engaging you in providing you information is an absolutely worthless endeavor and a complete waste of my time.
Click to expand...

It's been a fun exercise showing how wise this assessment is. And I'm going to accept the conclusion and also stop wasting my time engaging with Mr. Wrongo Dongo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top