New, improved coronavirus thread

[raideralex99]

lol. Which "top doctor?" Dr Trump?

Dr Rashid A Buttar, FAAPM, FACAM, FAAIM in the top 50 Doctors in USA list.

 

[SensibleGuy]

Dr Rashid A Buttar, FAAPM, FACAM, FAAIM in the top 50 Doctors in USA list.

lol. About what I expected...

Rashid Buttar

Physician
Rashid Ali Buttar is an American osteopathic physician, conspiracy theorist, and anti-vaccine proponent from Charlotte, North Carolina. He is known for his controversial use of chelation therapy for numerous conditions, including autism and cancer. He has twice been reprimanded by the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners for unethical treat…

 

[Gotaf7]

lol. About what I expected...

Rashid Buttar

Physician
Rashid Ali Buttar is an American osteopathic physician, conspiracy theorist, and anti-vaccine proponent from Charlotte, North Carolina. He is known for his controversial use of chelation therapy for numerous conditions, including autism and cancer. He has twice been reprimanded by the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners for unethical treat…

You can’t make this shit up.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

You can’t make this shit up.

Which is why anything scientific is proofed by consensus i.e.many people peer reviewing proving what ever theory is proposed. Science isn't done in a bubble. No one person has the right to prove something right or wrong until it is peer reviewed. Which is why listening to one person on any scientific study is a very bad idea

 

[raideralex99]

Which is why anything scientific is proofed by consensus i.e.many people peer reviewing proving what ever theory is proposed. Science isn't done in a bubble. No one person has the right to prove something right or wrong until it is peer reviewed. Which is why listening to one person on any scientific study is a very bad idea

Exactly have you noticed any Doctors who comes out and disagrees with the establishment is label as a conspiracy theorist.
Read up Dr. Fauci history ... the guy has wrong about everything. Oh excuse me he was right in February 2017 on video about a "surprise" outbreak before Trump finishes his term. Why does he get passes from the media?

 

[Gm0ney]

There's a saying that the left only read the headline and not the whole story that's why a lot of story headlines don't match the actually story.
Always remember to read the last paragraph.

"After this story was published online, state health department spokesman Alberto Moscoso explained the discrepancy by saying the health department “reports cases where the individual tested positive for COVID-19 and subsequently died, while Medical Examiners report deaths that they have directly attributed to COVID-19.”

If a person has cancer and had a heart attack and died ... what would be the cause of death?
The cancer foundation will say cancer and the heart foundation would say heart attack ... why?
Because more death means higher research grants.

I'm not asking why there's a discrepancy between the State and the ME's death counts, which is what Alberto Moscoso is attempting to explain and what you seem to want to argue about in your post.

I'm saying Florida was trying to conceal the true number of deaths due to COVID-19 in the state. If you read the entirety of the articles, it seems pretty clear. They've been withholding ME reports over "privacy concerns" - but the information they want deleted is the cause of death and the case details...? So after a few weeks they release a spreadsheet with cause of death and case details deleted. The Medical Examiners they talked to seem to think this is BS...but they're probably all leftists who only read the headline instead of sifting through two articles to find a single irrelevant quote like us free-thinkers, eh?

 

[SensibleGuy]

Exactly have you noticed any Doctors who comes out and disagrees with the establishment is label as a conspiracy theorist.
Read up Dr. Fauci history ... the guy has wrong about everything. Oh excuse me he was right in February 2017 on video about a "surprise" outbreak before Trump finishes his term. Why does he get passes from the media?

I've noticed a lot of nuts and quacks get labelled as conspiracy theorists.

 

[Jets 31]

As each country sends dozens of private jets with 2 passengers each and then endlessness motorcades with bullet proof 5 MPG stretch limos to talk about needless emissions which ironically are ten fold when they speak at these wonderful summits.

Global warming my ass , i just got home from golfing , that wind is nasty, just nasty. Anytime spring can get here that would be great .

 

[SensibleGuy]

2 degrees forecast for Mother's Day

seriously...wtf?

 

[Howard Chuck]

Global warming my ass , i just got home from golfing , that wind is nasty, just nasty. Anytime spring can get here that would be great .

I can't stain my deck for another week at least because the night time temperatures are still BELOW FREEZING!!!!!!

 

[Jets 31]

I can't stain my deck for another week at least because the night time temperatures are still BELOW FREEZING!!!!!!

The whole weekend looks like crap too, come on give us a little break already.

 

[Gotaf7]

It wouldn’t be opening day for open water fishing if it wasn’t cold and windy, at least no rain is forecasted My wife asked me if it would kill me to miss opening day for one year, I told her probably not but I am not taking the chance! Have a good weekend everyone.

 

[Eyeseeing]

We need greenhouse gases again STAT

2 rounds already !
I’m super jealous
My first hopefully will be next Saturday

 

[Eyeseeing]

I can't stain my deck for another week at least because the night time temperatures are still BELOW FREEZING!!!!!!

You mean you won’t spill anything because of that ?
I’ve stained my deck in the middle of winter

 

[Eyeseeing]

It wouldn’t be opening day for open water fishing if it wasn’t cold and windy, at least no rain is forecasted My wife asked me if it would kill me to miss opening day for one year, I told her probably not but I am not taking the chance! Have a good weekend everyone.

Are you going to miss her

 

[Gotaf7]

Are you going to miss her

I’d like to say I could take her or leave her, but after 32 years she has kinda grown on me.

 

[Jets 31]

2 rounds already !
I’m super jealous
My first hopefully will be next Saturday

4 actually.

 

[Eyeseeing]

I’d like to say I could take her or leave her, but after 32 years she has kinda grown on me.

We’re also 32 good work

 

[Eyeseeing]

4 actually.

Now I just hate you

 

[Gotaf7]

We’re also 32 good work

 

[Mud Turtle]

As each country sends dozens of private jets with 2 passengers each and then endlessness motorcades with bullet proof 5 MPG stretch limos to talk about needless emissions which ironically are ten fold when they speak at these wonderful summits.

It’s the new religion, until social distancing took it’s place for a short time. But soon Global Warming will regain it’s #1 spot at the top of the fear based religion list.

 

[Mud Turtle]

This is a good COVID related laugh.

 

[buggs]

Which is why anything scientific is proofed by consensus i.e.many people peer reviewing proving what ever theory is proposed. Science isn't done in a bubble. No one person has the right to prove something right or wrong until it is peer reviewed. Which is why listening to one person on any scientific study is a very bad idea

Actually no, not really. Consensus has very little to do with anything. It's a functional buzzword, but that's really about it.

Most papers that are peer reviewed are reviewed by a whopping total of four people, maybe five. Those individuals are generally speaking:
1. Journal editor
2. (maybe) assistant journal editor though in my experience it's one or the other, lead or assistant (if the journal even has assistant editors)
3-5. Three anonymous reviewers.

I don't count four people as equating to many.

Comments are provided back to the author in most cases, very rarely none, and revisions need to be done before the editor will accept or approve the paper. Those revisions may be quite minor (spelling, punctuation, incorrect references) or may be substantial where the data needs to be re-formatted or even re-analyzed in a suitable fashion.

Now the hope is that the Journal editor and the anonymous reviewers are knowledgeable, judicious, fair and thorough. To get to the point of being an editor or even a reviewer you have to be generally well respected and usually well published in your field. So we presume that the reviewers are that. But judicious, fair and thorough are unfortunately often quite suspect. There are a great many fields where papers are submitted and are crap - many should have been outright rejected and weren't. Many papers get published and revised. Some get published and subsequently retracted. You don't hear much about that.

What's never acknowledged is that there is inherent bias in the process. That's regardless of the field. You hope it's not true but it is in most cases - the reviewers know the authors or have even published with them on occasion (happens in many small fields where the number of reviewers can be limited). Many reviewers are lazy or aren't provided with the data to actually run the analyses on their own, so rarely does that aspect even get checked in peer review. It's quite frankly uncommon if not nearly unheard of for the reviewers to be provided with the data at all.

As for consensus, that runs completely counter to science. You have something widely accepted but consensus dictates, or at the very least, should dictate nothing. Public opinion is consensus and I presume you know what value a consensus has on this hockey board on many subjects alone? I'm quite certain with your depth of knowledge in scouting and contacts you can think of multiple opinions on HFJets that were widely accepted as consensus and were vastly wrong. Just look at the "consensus" opinions during drafts alone. Drafting and hockey aren't quite the same as science (I'm trying to be gentle here) but the rationale applies.

A peer reviewed paper isn't infallible. Peer review doesn't make something correct beyond re-examination, it never should. Peer review is a single, simple step to say "yes, we've had presumed experts in the field look this over and they've deemed it to be reasonably written and provides additional knowledge to the field". That's all it means. It doesn't mean no one can contest it, it doesn't even mean the paper is actually accurate. Try to find out how many papers out there have un-reproducible results - it's a major problem when people try and go back and duplicate results. In every field. Think Andrew Wakefield and The Lancet, one of the most widely trusted (peer reviewed) medical journals in the world. It took 12 years to retract that paper. Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines

The public has been lead to believe that peer review is infallible. Anyone that claims that should be suspect because they should damn well know better. It's the best system we currently have but it's far, far from perfect.

 

[Eyeseeing]

It’s the new religion, until social distancing took it’s place for a short time. But soon Global Warming will regain it’s #1 spot at the top of the fear based religion list.

I’m thinking the pandemic one will be milked for a long time, with a smattering of gun control issues, murder hornets and Trump both pro and con stories.....
No wonder many of us stop watching the news.
Fun HF assignment.
Dig through the Covid threads including the positive news.
You don’t even have to read the articles... just look at the headlines.
Once you find a headline that’s to your liking, make it your mantra and ride it like a yard dog.

 

[Eyeseeing]

This is a good COVID related laugh.

25 likes