JAMA and PNAS — i.e., the peer-reviewed medical journals that have lead medical development since the 20th century, including alerting people to radiation poisoning from atomic weapons, eradicating small pox, and documenting hidden government experiments on the civilian population — want to crush all resistance?
Bruh. You’re just looking for any ad hominem you can make, and even that isn’t working.
Not really sure why you guys keep quoting Lindsay and Pluckrose, especially given that they did not submit to any medical journals, let alone JAMA or PNAS.
The problem is that you are basing your assumption that people are overall good natured and smart people can't be fooled.
Ah yes, I forgot that the great scholars of conspiracies.win — with such intellectual predictions as Biden won't become president and Trump's attorneys have Epstein — have debunked world-renown, peer-reviewed medical journals that researched everything from bandages to modern antibiotics. All without actually offering any peer-reviewed studies of their own. Golly.
The main point here has nothing to do with the vaccine or masks. You asked why asymptomatic people were being tested, I said:
asymptomatic hosts can still spread COVID-19
You then linked a local news channel source that mentioned nothing about asymptomatic cases. When I gave you two medical journals that proved my point, you cited (1) a hoax-paper experiment that did not include medical journals, and (2) some conclusory statements about "faulty data" and me making an assumption that "smart people can't be fooled."
You have yet to actually support any of your points. Even your attempts to attack JAMA/PNAS missed the mark entirely. Don't get me wrong — there are valid reasons to attack the journals and the studies in them; PNAS especially has been known to publish some theory-intensive stuff in the workplace-equality field. However, my experience has been that the hard-science publications in these journals are fairly reliable.
Again, I would sincerely appreciate if you can give me sources to support your claims. I'm not saying your claims are wrong, but you have to support them with more than broad, conclusory statements.
JAMA and PNAS — i.e., the peer-reviewed medical journals that have lead medical development since the 20th century, including alerting people to radiation poisoning from atomic weapons, eradicating small pox, and documenting hidden government experiments on the civilian population — want to crush all resistance?
Bruh. You’re just looking for any ad hominem you can make, and even that isn’t working.
Go read some Ioannidis before you start quoting JAMA at us. As for "peer reviewed", I give you Lindsay and Pluckrose.
JAMA never made any statement regarding Ioannidis. Lindsay and Pluckrose never submitted their articles to JAMA or PNAS.
Check your sources beforehand my guy.
Are you really that dumb or are you here to entertain us?
My statements are true, you’re apparently just citing random stuff without actually reading it.
Not really sure why you guys keep quoting Lindsay and Pluckrose, especially given that they did not submit to any medical journals, let alone JAMA or PNAS.
Ah yes, I forgot that the great scholars of conspiracies.win — with such intellectual predictions as Biden won't become president and Trump's attorneys have Epstein — have debunked world-renown, peer-reviewed medical journals that researched everything from bandages to modern antibiotics. All without actually offering any peer-reviewed studies of their own. Golly.
Back to the main point?
The main point here has nothing to do with the vaccine or masks. You asked why asymptomatic people were being tested, I said:
You then linked a local news channel source that mentioned nothing about asymptomatic cases. When I gave you two medical journals that proved my point, you cited (1) a hoax-paper experiment that did not include medical journals, and (2) some conclusory statements about "faulty data" and me making an assumption that "smart people can't be fooled."
You have yet to actually support any of your points. Even your attempts to attack JAMA/PNAS missed the mark entirely. Don't get me wrong — there are valid reasons to attack the journals and the studies in them; PNAS especially has been known to publish some theory-intensive stuff in the workplace-equality field. However, my experience has been that the hard-science publications in these journals are fairly reliable.
Again, I would sincerely appreciate if you can give me sources to support your claims. I'm not saying your claims are wrong, but you have to support them with more than broad, conclusory statements.