• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:330] Trump's New Favorite COVID Doctor Believes in Alien DNA, Demon Sperm, and Hydroxychloroquine

ReubenSherr said:
Beefhart, Lol you’re basically committing fraud, here.

I’m going to refer you to the other thread, many posters there can educate you and bring you up to date on the reality of HCQ.

I’m also beginning to question your motivations here. The topic isn’t me, the topic is HCQ. Are you upset because I’m kicking your thread into the ground and stomping on it?
Click to expand...

Don't accuse someone here of a crime.

You really are making desperate posts.
 
Threegoofs said:
I did. Three times at least.
Click to expand...
There are 66 studies referenced.

If you are claiming many are misrepresented, please provide a link to two or three of the studies you feel are misrepresented. Then we can evaluate the credibility of this site.
 
ReubenSherr said:
There are 66 studies referenced.

If you are claiming many are misrepresented, please provide a link to two or three of the studies you feel are misrepresented. Then we can evaluate the credibility of this site.
Click to expand...

I did it already, and I’m not gonna read your goddamed stupid site because you are too lazy and incompetent to.
 
Threegoofs said:
I did. Three times at least.
Click to expand...

I think it's incredibly immature for anyone to imagine that there is any authority or authentic validation of an issue based on the number of posters supporting it. :doh

The authority and authenticity is in the data...and understood by those with minds open to the facts...not their preconceived conclusions based on their own biased agendas or their ignorant leader....and willing to use critical thinking and hopefully some science or medical background to assess the information accurately.

As a staunch capitalist and fiscal conservative, I cant take anyone seriously that uses the same "intellect" and discernment to assume I am a Marxist on a topic of medical research. :roll:

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
I did it already, and I’m not gonna read your goddamed stupid site because you are too lazy and incompetent to.
Click to expand...
You posted that you evaluate studies for a living, so you are the one with the resources to prove the Covid19study site fraudulent if it is.

If I don’t hear otherwise, I will assume the site is valid.

Something is really off here. Information is released that could indicate we could cut the death rate to almost nothing, and you are pissed off?
 
Lursa said:
I think it's incredibly immature for anyone to imagine that there is any authority or authentic validation of an issue based on the number of posters supporting it. :doh

The authority and authenticity is in the data...and understood by those with minds open to the facts...not their preconceived conclusions based on their own biased agendas or their ignorant leader....and willing to use critical thinking and hopefully some science or medical background to assess the information accurately.

As a staunch capitalist and fiscal conservative, I cant take anyone seriously that uses the same "intellect" and discernment to assume I am a Marxist on a topic of medical research. :roll:
Click to expand...

Although there are a handful of posters here that are a good signal that if they support something, its highly likely to be BS.

I mean, if I have a belief and I see bubba agrees - it automatically makes me go back and carefully look at the evidence.

Sort of like a reverse canary in a coal mine.
 
ReubenSherr said:
You posted that you evaluate studies for a living, so you are the one with the resources to prove the Covid19study site fraudulent if it is.

If I don’t hear otherwise, I will assume the site is valid.

Something is really off here. Information is released that could indicate we could cut the death rate to almost nothing, and you are pissed off?
Click to expand...

Did it three times. Boulware - wrong.


Doesn’t the fact that this unbelievable information that could save thousands of lives, restore the economy and bring the world so much good..... is on a website where no one is named and the interpretation of the studies is done by...anonymous people?

Do you think a little bit? Ever?
 
Threegoofs said:
Did it three times.
Click to expand...
No, you didn’t.

If you truly evaluate studies for a living, all you need to do is pull up 2 or 3 studies, provide links, and prove that the website is inaccurate.

If you cannot do this, the website is credible. Unless you think these 66 studies are fabricated. And that’s going to be pretty hard for you to prove.
 
ReubenSherr said:
No, you didn’t.

If you truly evaluate studies for a living, all you need to do is pull up 2 or 3 studies, provide links, and prove that the website is inaccurate.

If you cannot do this, the website is credible. Unless you think these 66 studies are fabricated.
Click to expand...

Look at what they say about Boulware, et al.

Actually- why bother? You wouldn’t comprehend it.
 
Threegoofs said:
Look at what they say about Boulware, et al.

Actually- why bother? You wouldn’t comprehend it.
Click to expand...
If you evaluate studies for a living, it is on you to pull up the information, and provide specifics. It shouldn’t be difficult.

In terms of why the website staff is not printing their names on the site, look at what you all are doing to the physicians who came out in support of Trump. One physician, not Immanuel, was interviewed on Fox and she was in tears that she was getting constant threats from liberals. And although Immanuel is pretty far out there, you all have probably ruined her life.

Your entire Impeachment Inquiry was based on an anonymous source. I’m sure liberals understand the reasoning behind it.
 
Last edited:
sound.jpg
 
ReubenSherr said:
If you evaluate studies for a living, it is on you to pull up the information, and provide specifics. It shouldn’t be difficult.

In terms of why the website staff is not printing their names on the site, look at what you all are doing to the physicians who came out in support of Trump. One physician, not Immanuel, was interviewed on Fox and she was in tears that she was getting constant threats from liberals. And although Immanuel is pretty far out there, you all have probably ruined her life.

Your entire Impeachment Inquiry was based on an anonymous source. I’m sure liberals understand the reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...

Wait.... so you’re saying no one will put their name to the site and interpretations because... people are mean to them?

That’s a pretty stupid- no...an *epically* stupid take.
 
ReubenSherr said:
It’s from C19study.com.

If you do a a Google search, there are university researchers using this site as a source.

Are you asking why the site doesn’t list the names of the people who put it up?

More importantly, which of those 66 studies looks fraudulently reported to you?
Click to expand...

Your list of 66 studies is, indeed, interesting.

You do know that your list of 66 studies sort of forgot to include 76 other clinical trials which had been conducted as of 14 APR 20, don't you?

Can you say "cher - ry - pick - ed data"?

Good. I knew that you could.

PS - Have you been checked to ensure that you are free of that "Alien DNA" that is put into all of the vaccines? If you haven't, send $10,000 to the people who operate DP and, when they tell me that your cheque has cleared, I will do the necessary investigations (you don't even have to provide a sample because I'll use Mr. Gate's microchips) and, if you are free of that "Alien DNA", provide you with a certificate (suitable for framing) that proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that you have a certificate that certifies that you are free of that "Alien DNA".
 
Lursa said:
Well, I also found this...the owner of the site.

Shows owner of C19study.com site:

C19study.com [Whois Lookup, Whois History & Reverse Whois]

complaints:

Ripoff Report > Contact Privacy - Contactpriv Review - Internet

Ripoff Report > Contact Privacy Inc. Review - Toronto, Ontario


Sorry. There are probably legit studies in there but the info is limited and uncontrolled.

They use all kinds of half-correct, partial, and out of context science to try and support Intelligent Design too. It 'sounds' good, but it's still bull****.

And the ludicrous corruption of science used by the WTC deniers is the stuff of legends.
Click to expand...

The actual owner of the website is "Vice Media" and the CEO of Vice Media is Nancy Jean Dubuc. Ownership of Vice Media is split with original founder Shane Smith owning approximately 20% and the rest being split between The Walt Disney Company, A&E Networks, TPG Capital (a private equity group), and 21st Century Fox. Media bias rates Vice Media as

Left-Center Biased due to wording and story selection that moderately favors the left and High for factual reporting based on proper sourcing
​

The fact that the studies cited in the article does not negate the fact that there were many other studies which were (deliberately[?]) omitted from the article.

There appears to be more than one business operating out of 96 Mowat Avenue, Toronto.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom