The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[colton]

that’s not any kind of proper scientific study.

It actually is. Here's the link to the study.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

"The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals"

Journal impact factor of 59 is crazy high, far higher than any scientific journal I've published in.

 

[infection]

It actually is. Here's the link to the study.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

"The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals"

Journal impact factor of 59 is crazy high, far higher than any scientific journal I've published in.

I think what he meant to say was that it was not a randomized study, but instead an extraction of EMR data that divides into different groups based on clinical decisions and not any true randomization.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

It actually is. Here's the link to the study.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

"The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals"

Journal impact factor of 59 is crazy high, far higher than any scientific journal I've published in.

unless it’s a double blind randomised study it’s worth jack ****

 

[Gameface]

unless it’s a double blind randomised study it’s worth jack ****

Your mom was a randomized double blind study.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

Your mom was a randomized double blind study.

wow. Clap clap. Aren’t you sharp and witty

 

[colton]

unless it’s a double blind randomised study it’s worth jack ****

I'm sorry you feel that way. You are incorrect.

 

[colton]

 

[FalseFlagg K]

I'm sorry you feel that way. You are incorrect.

Nope. That is the only way to truly measure the worth of a treatment modality. Anything else you can interpret however you see fit.

 

[Red]

Dude ffs you could have said all that in a couple of small paragraphs

Yeah, that’s what happens when you try to think out a solution to something that has no solution. I agree. My bad.

 

[silesian]

Coronavirus deaths are so funny. Ha. Ha. Ha.

 

[silesian]

unless it’s a double blind randomised study it’s worth jack ****

that’s like saying unless you are 5 star restaurant you are jack ****.

it is nonsense.

The scientific analysis can be applied to carefully designed studies.

And scientists can analyze data from a population.

both are useful.

The first is the gold standard. You need time and money to conduct such a study.

 

[silesian]

Nope. That is the only way to truly measure the worth of a treatment modality. Anything else you can interpret however you see fit.

The perfect is the enemy of the good and useful. suppose we know of 10,000 people who take treatment x for disease y. Normally 20% of the untreated patients die. None if the 10,000 die.

this would be great news and actionable. Even thought the ideal double blind study was not employed.