CV and mad panic behaviour

[flyboy77]

Sure Donald, never give up the fight, we get it.
Nice twist of terms, complex and novel are not interchangeable.
That is pretty much a straight out lie claiming the opposite of the growing evidence, and as such not worth discussing.
Want to name some, with the evidence linking the scientific study that isn't a distorted retrospective meta-data analysis conducted by dodgy profiteers or will you just go back to Surgisphere,...again, sure not ........HCQ, even Donald din't buy that one when he fell ill, or maybe he was given all those complex and speculative treatments against his free will?
But if you take a homepathic blend of GobSnobling you'll be completely impervious to the virus, as well as free to converse with Karens and Coreys everywhere!
The second wave data has exposed the exact opposite, and the death rate has settled into a fixed percentage of infections, science is closer to defining R[sub]0[/sub] at a stable rate that results from all the prophylactic measures including early intervention, masks, social distancing, not in difference to them! Yet in denialist regions like the US the infections rates go through the roof, 135000 in one day in one Mid-West state, after all the various break-outs to protest the election that must have been coincidence!
Ironic isn't it? Cherry-picking some of the "Types of Bias" and applying them selectively is actually one of the types of bias described, quite bizarre. One in all in! ;D

LP,  rather than just throw cheap shots my 7yo could parry, put up some data, empirical evidence (basic data or even a RCT study - take your pick) to support any of your positions.

You mentioned HCQ - granted it needs to be taken early (given it's an anti viral in effect) and with zinc et al. - c19study.com - have a read fella, you might just learn something.

But there's also ivermectin, budesonide etc.....but no, we must have a vaccine.

You avoid entirely the issues that drown the PCR test - what does it really test for or was it meant to be solely used as a means to amplify?

How many amplification cycles are too many - the French have suggested more than 24 might be sufficient to land yourself in the bad result space, yet the Burnet Institute's work on the Victorian test (from China and we're the only State to use it) reckons 38 cycles are more or less A ok. That's laughable.

By the by, a positive test result is NOT an infection nor an illness, without accompanying symptoms and diagnoses.

It really was a facile response.

And throwing in the word 'denier' or the like - you dill. Grow the f.. up.