ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 6 of 36
« First < 23456 7891016 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Fauci Emails.
MahomesMagic 08:36 PM 06-01-2021
Take a look.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...y-fauci-emails
[Reply]
Cosmos 10:50 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Oh, and Detoxing ended up not liking him.
Crump just hates people who don’t bow to him, or isn’t corruptible for profit or position.

That’s what he has the Republican Party for....like Putin, he knew the Repubs was the party who would cheat, lie, steal and cover up for him.

Detoxing and Republicans are a great meld of service, truth and honesty.....:-)

Imagine...any Republican trying to fight the virus....REALLY, USE YOUR IMAGINATION.
[Reply]
BleedingRed 10:51 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by Cosmos:
Crump just hates people who don’t bow to him, or isn’t corruptible for profit or position.

That’s what he has the Republican Party for....like Putin, he knew the Repubs was the party who would cheat, lie, steal and cover up for him.

Detoxing and Republicans are a great meld of service, truth and honesty.....:-)
filter evasion, BAN!
[Reply]
Pennywise 10:51 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
For Donger, there is only one honorable action left.


Donger is a COVID Karen because it give him something to troll endlessly about. Imagine the ammo he'd have if he picked Hunter up as a hobby like he did with Detoxing's kids.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-revealed.html
[Reply]
Donger 10:53 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
yes yes pivot bitch monkey
I don't need to pivot. I just proved you wrong above, you twit. But you should be used to that by now.
[Reply]
Pogue 11:03 AM 06-02-2021
Rand for Prez.

Told you ��

#firefauci

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 2, 2021

[Reply]
MahomesMagic 11:13 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/da...e-coronavirus/

While fewer people in the masked group became infected — equivalent to an 18% reduction in risk — the difference was not statistically significant, meaning the result may have come about by chance. Given the observed number of infections in each group, the plausible effect of the mask intervention ranged all the way from a 46% decrease in infection to a 23% increase.

It’s this negative result that some have interpreted to mean that masks are ineffective. But that’s not how the authors frame their findings.

Bundgaard, et al.: Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.


And:

The paper’s lead author, Dr. Henning Bundgaard of the specialty hospital Rigshospitalet and Copenhagen University Hospital, told Forbes much the same.

“Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” he said, “because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease.”
23% increase.

So you think the masks are possibly making it WORSE?!
[Reply]
Donger 11:17 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
23% increase.

So you think the masks are possibly making it WORSE?!
No:

While fewer people in the masked group became infected — equivalent to an 18% reduction in risk
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 11:37 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
No:

While fewer people in the masked group became infected — equivalent to an 18% reduction in risk
Read it again retard.

Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.


:-)

Of course you seem to know little about science other than to go to fact checking political websites.

I prefer to go to the study itself where the authors stated the results were not statistically significant.

Or, you could read an epidemiologist at Oxfords take on the study who also said it matched the other major RCTs. No effect for masks.

The Danish mask study wasn't a victory for Covid Cult members. Most major journals wouldn't touch it because they didn't like what it obviously said. It only got published once a political statement was attached to it. But even the pro mask creators knew what the results meant. Congrats to them, they did a good job and acted ethically.

Lots of studies that go against the narrative have been buried when they didn't say what the authors wanted such as fat and heart disease studies still buried decades later.
[Reply]
Nixhex 11:38 AM 06-02-2021
I am no Q guy but this is pretty good.
Attached: 20210602_121637.jpg (112.6 KB) 
[Reply]
Donger 11:41 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Read it again retard.

Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.


:-)

Of course you seem to know little about science other than to go to fact checking political websites.

I prefer to go to the study itself where the authors stated the results were not statistically significant.

Or, you could read an epidemiologist at Oxfords take on the study who also said it matched the other major RCTs. No effect for masks.

The Danish mask study wasn't a victory for Covid Cult members. Most major journals wouldn't touch it because they didn't like what it obviously said. It only got published once a political statement was attached to it. But even the pro mask creators knew what the results meant. Congrats to them, they did a good job and acted ethically.

Lots of studies that go against the narrative have been buried when they didn't say what the authors wanted such as fat and heart disease studies still buried decades later.
Yes, moron, that's because the author of your beloved RCT which you falsely claimed determined that masks do nothing says this:

"Yet, the findings were inconclusive."

and this:

"Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” he said, “because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease.”

Do you acknowledge that there were fewer infections in the mask wearing group, by the way?

Better luck next time, twit.
[Reply]
Pennywise 11:41 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by Nixhex:
I am no Q guy but this is pretty good.
Same thing here.

Bellweather Counties - Historical Performance pic.twitter.com/bzcJcfCu3t

— CulturalHusbandry (@APhilosophae) November 18, 2020

[Reply]
TLO 11:44 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by Pennywise:
Same thing here.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ened-36-years/
Not found, error 404
[Reply]
Donger 11:48 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by TLO:
Not found, error 404
You have to replace the Trump in the URL with T rump

This filter needs to go away. It was funny for a while.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 11:52 AM 06-02-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Yes, moron, that's because the author of your beloved RCT which you falsely claimed determined that masks do nothing says this:

"Yet, the findings were inconclusive."

and this:

"Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” he said, “because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease.”

Do you acknowledge that there were fewer infections in the mask wearing group, by the way?

Better luck next time, twit.
Inconclusive.

Same as not statistically significant.


This is fun watching your Cult get taken down.
[Reply]
Ninerfan11 11:59 AM 06-02-2021
Virus was mostly political, we know this.
[Reply]
Page 6 of 36
« First < 23456 7891016 > Last »
Up