there's just so many ridiculous logical errors here it's amazing it's come from a doctor.
studies are always small at first, then we do large studies. if every study was discarded for having few participants then no medicine would ever be approved because they'd never get to the large trial stage.
the 3 studies he says are the best all concluded individually that ivermectin had a net benefit, yet because they're included with other less reliable studies he thinks that means the whole thing is wrong?
and the retracted study accounted for 15%... so then 85% of the data is good? i mean come on that's politician-level truth-dodging.
he points out that the error bars cover the 0 line, and then claims that this means they show no effect, which is completely unture. this is exactly why we do meta studies! if say 10 studies all had error bars that cross the 0 line, around half being right of center and half being left then sure that confirms nothing statistically significant, but when every study except one is left of center then that is statistically significant.
just a terrible analysis of the analysis.
edit: -3 and no replies as to where the apparent errors in my analysis are. that's telling. you have reasons, i'm sure. completely inarticulable reasons are still reasons aren't they...?
+1
-3
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Sato this post is for the ideologically possessed to reassure themselves via Hegelian science. Socalled "scientists" infected with this religion are particularly dangerous becaue they often don't believe they are ideological or religious. As a result, they tend to make a shitload of logical errors and omissions that are baffling and embarrassing to behold, as we often see from Daft Cunt and other wokeists like Benign Individual (who I suspect is actually a MonkeyMania sock, but perhaps not).
You know I didn't fully appreciate Sam Harris's critic of religious doctrine and dogma (which he unfortunately conflates with belief in a creator) until I saw the wokeists exhibiting the same behavior as I saw in the socalled "Christian" fundamentalists growing up. I actually didn't think the population was this susceptible to this kind of programming, and yet we can see "men of science" who are completely subsumed and don't seem to realize it. So yeah, fuck, this is some dangerous stuff, and represents a clear and present threat to anyone who wants to focus on determining what's actually going on, which is supposed to be the primary function of science in terms of the material realm. As a society, we are now almost completely detached from that basic, bedrock ethic of science.
It's extremely dangerous - as in mortal threat dangerous.
Something like 100 members of congress have been given Ivermectin by their doctors in relation to COVID. Ivermectin is currently being used in Japan to treat COVID. Doctor Yang Yu here introduces this video on Twitter with the statement "Ivermectin is not a treatment for COVID - that is misinformation." Sato above details the errors that point to a highly motivated analysis by Doctor Yu" in this posted video: He's doing what he can to validate his preset, non-scientific beliefs without being completely conscious of it (that's me being charitable - I think we all know the alternative explanation here).
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I wouldn't trust John's analyses on covid issues on anything but hygiene related topics. Recent post clearly showed he is not the most competent when it comes to getting into the nitty gritty.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
\
real tweet from yesterday
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
lol fits the blonde stereotype perfectly!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
yup this is stupid. cancer has nothing to do with communicable disease. similarly, one person being an idiot has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a drug, and being blonde has nothing to do with anything.
Comments
(Old Spike)
there's just so many ridiculous logical errors here it's amazing it's come from a doctor.
studies are always small at first, then we do large studies. if every study was discarded for having few participants then no medicine would ever be approved because they'd never get to the large trial stage.
the 3 studies he says are the best all concluded individually that ivermectin had a net benefit, yet because they're included with other less reliable studies he thinks that means the whole thing is wrong?
and the retracted study accounted for 15%... so then 85% of the data is good? i mean come on that's politician-level truth-dodging.
he points out that the error bars cover the 0 line, and then claims that this means they show no effect, which is completely unture. this is exactly why we do meta studies! if say 10 studies all had error bars that cross the 0 line, around half being right of center and half being left then sure that confirms nothing statistically significant, but when every study except one is left of center then that is statistically significant.
just a terrible analysis of the analysis.
edit: -3 and no replies as to where the apparent errors in my analysis are. that's telling. you have reasons, i'm sure. completely inarticulable reasons are still reasons aren't they...?
(Old Spike)
Sato this post is for the ideologically possessed to reassure themselves via Hegelian science. Socalled "scientists" infected with this religion are particularly dangerous becaue they often don't believe they are ideological or religious. As a result, they tend to make a shitload of logical errors and omissions that are baffling and embarrassing to behold, as we often see from Daft Cunt and other wokeists like Benign Individual (who I suspect is actually a MonkeyMania sock, but perhaps not).
You know I didn't fully appreciate Sam Harris's critic of religious doctrine and dogma (which he unfortunately conflates with belief in a creator) until I saw the wokeists exhibiting the same behavior as I saw in the socalled "Christian" fundamentalists growing up. I actually didn't think the population was this susceptible to this kind of programming, and yet we can see "men of science" who are completely subsumed and don't seem to realize it. So yeah, fuck, this is some dangerous stuff, and represents a clear and present threat to anyone who wants to focus on determining what's actually going on, which is supposed to be the primary function of science in terms of the material realm. As a society, we are now almost completely detached from that basic, bedrock ethic of science.
It's extremely dangerous - as in mortal threat dangerous.
Something like 100 members of congress have been given Ivermectin by their doctors in relation to COVID. Ivermectin is currently being used in Japan to treat COVID. Doctor Yang Yu here introduces this video on Twitter with the statement "Ivermectin is not a treatment for COVID - that is misinformation." Sato above details the errors that point to a highly motivated analysis by Doctor Yu" in this posted video: He's doing what he can to validate his preset, non-scientific beliefs without being completely conscious of it (that's me being charitable - I think we all know the alternative explanation here).
(Old Spike)
I wouldn't trust John's analyses on covid issues on anything but hygiene related topics. Recent post clearly showed he is not the most competent when it comes to getting into the nitty gritty.
(Long Spike)
real tweet from yesterday
(Old Spike)
lol fits the blonde stereotype perfectly!
(Old Spike)
yup this is stupid. cancer has nothing to do with communicable disease. similarly, one person being an idiot has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a drug, and being blonde has nothing to do with anything.