What's the matter with Donald Trump.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

You totally missed the point of my post. Or chose to ignore it, and focused on the personal in my second post. My first post stated MY belief with no mention of you. Once more:

"ALL ORIGINS OF CV19 ARE THEORIES. The Wuhan lab theory is the most plausible/likely, in my opinion. That's after reviewing the evidence presented for the most plausible theories, "wet market theory," natural origin theory, and "Wuhan lab theory." If YOU have evidence I may have not seen, please present it, and perhaps I'll change my mind."

Yes, all are theories, have not challenged that. Nor have I said it couldn't have come from the lab. I haven't seen anything convincing either way so haven't taken a firm stand.


Okay, so I've seen the evidence you are referring to since it was posted previously. Once again, I believe the most likely origin was the Wuhan lab theory, you are obviously free to believe different. But like I can't post any 100% definitive evidence, nor can you. We are each choosing a theory.

Again I have no problem with any opinion. I have not taken a position because we have only theories, just posting something different to consider.

As for how it was handled. Hindsight is 20/20, and there were certainly things that should have been done differently. Once vaccines became available the country should have 100% opened up. No restrictions. Masks totally voluntary, etc.

Self admittedly, you enjoy frustrating others in your conversation, and some of those people turn to insults (even I might have at some point and I'm fairly even tempered). Insults, though not the most productive form of conversation, don't make anyone wrong either. I'm sure you perceive it as debate skill superiority frustrating others, and that's fine. I perceive it as others just not believing you have a genuine interest in back and forth discussion.

There is nothing I have said that should be read as enjoying frustrating others or insults make them wrong. You being sure I see it as a superior debating skill is also wrong. When I don't have a genuine interest I don't post. I contend disagreeing with completely uncalled for insults is what is disingenuous.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

In the same vein....

Strange how getting award payments or having a different view makes people ignore their own work.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...05/5559347002/

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevi...h-as-covid-19/

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevi...h-as-covid-19/

[EODguy]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...9/#__sec5title

Original article and NOT some "fact checkers" write up as if was gospel....

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...9/#__sec5title

Original article and NOT some "fact checkers" write up as if was gospel....

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

Posting a link to the original article means nothing. The claims of the original article are what has been debunked.

In the face of three reputable fact checkers that have studied the article and listed all the false claims-- you choose to ignore them and respond with a link to the original article as if posting it endorses your post. It is the exact article that was fact checked and debunked. Please explain why you think posting the original article is meaningful.

[EODguy]

I posted to a respected peer reviewed scientific journal yet the random fact checker is who you believed?

I guess you don't recall telling pretty much everyone that links we provided weren't good enough as the AGGREGATOR websites were not trustworthy in your opinion, so now you think some liberal newspaper overrides an actual scientific journal.

Unfucking believable.

It does actually say that chloroquine stopped transmission of SARs Coronavirus and pretty much killed it off in the original host, doesn't it?

You go ahead believe USA Today, since that is the most respected bastion of science in the USA.



Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

I posted to a respected peer reviewed scientific journal yet the random fact checker is who you believed?There is no challenge to the study as it was intended. However, the procedure and the virus are not applicable to COVID-19.

I guess you don't recall telling pretty much everyone that links we provided weren't good enough as the AGGREGATOR websites were not trustworthy in your opinion, so now you think some liberal newspaper overrides an actual scientific journal.

Show me where I said that.

Unfucking believable.

It does actually say that chloroquine stopped transmission of SARs Coronavirus and pretty much killed it off in the original host, doesn't it?

You go ahead believe USA Today, since that is the most respected bastion of science in the USA.

If you don't like USA Today fact checker there are two others for your reading pleasure.


Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

Maybe this will help explain why the study is not applicable.

Overstates scientific confidence: The claim that chloroquine is a cure against SARS-CoV-2 is based on an in vitro study published in 2005 on SARS-CoV-1. It is impossible to infer that a drug will work as a COVID-19 cure in a living person from an in vitro cell culture study on a different virus, even one as closely related to SARS-CoV-2 as SARS-CoV-1.
Factually Inaccurate: There is no indication that the 2005 research paper was requested, conducted, or funded by the NIH. Rather, the authors were affiliated with the U.S. CDC and a Canadian research institute.

[EODguy]

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by EODguy

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

Can't read all of your post.

[RocketyMan]

Originally Posted by crystalworks

You totally missed the point of my post. Or chose to ignore it, and focused on the personal in my second post. My first post stated MY belief with no mention of you. Once more:

"ALL ORIGINS OF CV19 ARE THEORIES. The Wuhan lab theory is the most plausible/likely, in my opinion. That's after reviewing the evidence presented for the most plausible theories, "wet market theory," natural origin theory, and "Wuhan lab theory." If YOU have evidence I may have not seen, please present it, and perhaps I'll change my mind."

Okay, so I've seen the evidence you are referring to since it was posted previously. Once again, I believe the most likely origin was the Wuhan lab theory, you are obviously free to believe different. But like I can't post any 100% definitive evidence, nor can you. We are each choosing a theory.

As for how it was handled. Hindsight is 20/20, and there were certainly things that should have been done differently. Once vaccines became available the country should have 100% opened up. No restrictions. Masks totally voluntary, etc.

Self admittedly, you enjoy frustrating others in your conversation, and some of those people turn to insults (even I might have at some point and I'm fairly even tempered). Insults, though not the most productive form of conversation, don't make anyone wrong either. I'm sure you perceive it as debate skill superiority frustrating others, and that's fine. I perceive it as others just not believing you have a genuine interest in back and forth discussion.

Yup. I guess you see where this is going with this guy. He's clearly choosing sides regardless of what is presented. This is CLEARLY a more political issue over actual scientific based....ergo, it's "political-science."

It just amazes me there are people, aka sheeple, out there that believe only what the MSM (CNN, MSNBC, NBC...etc.) tells them to believe. So many times has these liberal slanted medias have been proven wrong on something, confronted, then change the story, gas-light it...and nobody bats an eye. Prime example with CDC...being proven wrong...stating an egregious statement...then brushed under the rug.

Originally Posted by EODguy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...9/#__sec5title

Original article and NOT some "fact checkers" write up as if was gospel....

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

What's amazing with this on how some sheeple--sorry, "people" try and hawk "fact-checked this" is that literally anyone can discredit them with their own "fact-checking." It's a BS liberal tactic...at this point it's refusal to be presented with the possibility with something and owning up to it.
https://youtu.be/kHVUREOqYS8

[ard]

EOD posts a peer reviewed article on HCQ in **cell cultures"""...totally pointless in supporting a claim of clinical efficacy in a population of humans. I mean there are more- fraudulent studies, quacks creating meta analyses of previously withdrawn trials to create unsupported claims. Just hackery



HCQ is a proven scam. If you still believe it in you have two choices: moron or scammer. Pick one.


Rocketman, maybe head back to oann and war room? Ya know, to your people....


Oh, there really is no point at all in engaging with these alt right whackos- they arent playing in reality, just one conspiracy theory after another.


Lizard people....chem trials...Q anon.... Flynn fielding an army of right thinking patriots. Deluded AND dangerous.