- Apr 27, 2008
- 66,932
- 81,713
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chael Sonnen: Moral Champion
Lol at 66 trying to sell some clear offended and melts as 'stiring'
Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Corona virus, Port and the AFL. Part 4.
- Thread starter Capital Power
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
G3TWOTYAD3S3RV
Premiership Player
- Aug 22, 2016
- 3,014
- 2,745
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Banned
- #8,378
Contested Marx
FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY
- Jun 21, 2014
- 12,495
- 28,264
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Maggies, Spurs, Raiders?
The G3TW0T vs '66 battle is the showdown none of us deserve to be honest 
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
wallumi
Team Captain
‘Everyone that doesn’t agree with me is a troll’
At the risk of feeding your pathological need for attention, here are the dot points to cut through your evasive gish gallop dancing:
• Doctor who specialises in obstetrics, hasn’t practised since 2013 and hasn’t done any direct research on COVID, publishes a meta-analysis which cites, among others, an Egyptian study which was found to be full of holes (plagiarism accusations, etc)
• Said doctor starts her own NFP called ‘British Ivermectin Research Development (BIRD)’ and is later quoted as saying: “Ivermectin works. There's nothing that will persuade me."
• After the vanguard Egyptian study’s problems arise, said doctor is undeterred, and merely removes it from her data set — relying on the other low quality studies she’s collated.
Is any of this sinking in, or are you too busy cooking up another quip?
Exactly! So maybe go easy with using a flimsy meta-analysis as a cudgel to try to beat, well, the consensus on Ivermectin, that currently sees you standing with alt-luminaries such as Joe Rogan, Robert F Kennedy Jnr and the Yosemite Sam element of the Republican Party?
Given your form, this reads as projection.
Whereas you stayed up past midnight arguing with strangers like a big boy!
Time then to deal with this opportunistic little piece.
Medical research is itself a medical specialty. Clinical research is one part of that. Meta-analysis is one other. The skills required in the latter are different to the former and do not rely upon medical acumen specifically required for those clinical procedures. Your cheap shot about Lawrie's clinical background and her duration absent from it reflects either ignorance or a capacity for opportunistic misinformation and deceit. Although those two feed each other like 2 romancing trolls at a children's birthday party.
As Lawrie's 'sophomoric' evidence statement makes clear, she is
"a frequent member of Technical Teams responsible for developing international clinical practice guidelines and [am] currently employed as the Guideline Methodologist on two World Health Organization (WHO) clinical practice guidelines due to be published in 2021. [My] peer-reviewed publications have received in excess of 3000 citations and [my] ResearchGate score is among the top 5% of ResearchGate members."
Should we acknowledge that such substantive peer status pales against her failure to meet the Tribey Standard of Opportunistic Convenience, an arcane credential assessed ad hoc according to need, but very valuable on Big Footy?
A Meta-study's citation of a paper that is later withdrawn is not a malpractice. Given the extent of published work assessed it is neither expected nor possible for the authors to forensically examine each input paper's background.
Nor does it necessarily defeat the meta-study findings, as the withdrawn paper only constitutes a proportion of the input. Response to such event, by the meta-studies authors and by others, is the measure of the matter.
Laurie competently addresses these matters in her letter that I previously linked and which you evidently failed to comprehend or chose to misrepresent. Re-read it here:
Supporting her letter's second response criteria a further meta-study review paper, absent the Elgazzar study, has been published. It confirms the positive effect of Ivermectin.
A letter explaining the study outcomes can be read here:
Bayesian Hypothesis Testing and Hierarchical Modeling of... : American Journal of Therapeutics
An abstract is unavailable.
journals.lww.com
The study paper can be read here:
Note the letter's detailed description of bias the authors found in the Roman meta-study which, by way of that biased methodology, found zero benefit of Ivermectin treatment.
Given your deep repugnance at research bias, do you now feel the need to loudly decry Ivermectin debunkers? No, you won't, because you have a bias. It colours your view of the data and, much more heinously, you express it by slurring the character of those who offer data opposite to your preferred view.
We all have biases. I declare a bias in favour of Ivermectin. I do hope the research falls in that direction. This bias arises from my preference that this hideous disease can be kept at bay with medications and practises that are affordable and autonomous at local levels of community risk and infection. I do not want this disaster to be yet another vector for corporate control via monopoly dispensation over our personal and local well-being, and even our survival. Those who can't afford this form of monopolistic delivery die. Those who can often become indebted and unduly dependent.
Lawrie's own words reflect a similar hope for equitable prophylaxis of Covid. No doubt it is this bias that moves her to do this research in spite of the sh*t she will get for doing it. Of course her research has to be objective. However that can only be objectively found in her methodologies not in her statements of personal values. But you are not objective so you'll find grains of flysh*t in a sugar bowl to smear on her as if it is a trainload of feedlot manure.
Your bias in this specific matter, knowingly or not, helps advance the dominion of expensive patented corporate monopoly upon our basic life needs. Your bias helps keep Ivermectin in subjective disrepute and remote from the scope and quality of assessment it merits. In definitive terms you are being a tool.
If Ivermectin fails, then so be it, but let that follow full and rigorous testing, not decimation of reputation by popularised inference.
Are you aware that marijuana prohibition arose directly out of corporate machinations (reefer madness) to replace hemp rope with newly synthesised petrochemical fibres? But conspiracies are nut-job territory aren't they? FFS. Not seeing the patterns of political and narrative corruption endemic within the abysmal depths our socio-economic hierarchy is lobotomy territory.
I'm not saying this is a conspiracy and I'm certainly not saying all conspiracies are the same. It is evident though that a lot of well-resources, well distributed negative pressure is placed upon those who seek to investigate this product, and similar, and who then dare to find positively.
Do what you like, but take a quiet moment to think about the basis of your reflex belief. Or not. You'll not be short of company being a dill.
G3TWOTYAD3S3RV
Premiership Player
- Aug 22, 2016
- 3,014
- 2,745
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Banned
- #8,381
Dude don’t even try to compare Adelaide beaches to Shitburn, no fukn contest. I spend a couple of months a year there cause of family so don’t even. It’s a big city yes, caters for population. I can do there what I can do here, is there something I’m missing cause I don’t see it ? All you do is wish Covid upon us & that makes you a pathetic maggot. No fukn way are you’re a Port supporter, probs some melbum storm rugby bum sniffing supporter. Life’s good there, good I’m glad for my family there, as for you, hope Covid crawls up your arse.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
chiwigi
I’ll make tears from your Wines.
Time then to deal with this opportunistic little piece.
Medical research is itself a medical specialty. Clinical research is one part of that. Meta-analysis is one other. The skills required in the latter are different to the former and do not rely upon medical acumen specifically required for those clinical procedures. Your cheap shot about Lawrie's clinical background and her duration absent from it reflects either ignorance or a capacity for opportunistic misinformation and deceit. Although those two feed each other like 2 romancing trolls at a children's birthday party.
As Lawrie's 'sophomoric' evidence statement makes clear, she is
"a frequent member of Technical Teams responsible for developing international clinical practice guidelines and [am] currently employed as the Guideline Methodologist on two World Health Organization (WHO) clinical practice guidelines due to be published in 2021. [My] peer-reviewed publications have received in excess of 3000 citations and [my] ResearchGate score is among the top 5% of ResearchGate members."
Should we acknowledge that such substantive peer status pales against her failure to meet the Tribey Standard of Opportunistic Convenience, an arcane credential assessed ad hoc according to need, but very valuable on Big Footy?
A Meta-study's citation of a paper that is later withdrawn is not a malpractice. Given the extent of published work assessed it is neither expected nor possible for the authors to forensically examine each input paper's background.
Nor does it necessarily defeat the meta-study findings, as the withdrawn paper only constitutes a proportion of the input. Response to such event, by the meta-studies authors and by others, is the measure of the matter.
Laurie competently addresses these matters in her letter that I previously linked and which you evidently failed to comprehend or chose to misrepresent. Re-read it here:
Supporting her letter's second response criteria a further meta-study review paper, absent the Elgazzar study, has been published. It confirms the positive effect of Ivermectin.
A letter explaining the study outcomes can be read here:
Bayesian Hypothesis Testing and Hierarchical Modeling of... : American Journal of Therapeutics
An abstract is unavailable.
The study paper can be read here:
Note the letter's detailed description of bias the authors found in the Roman meta-study which, by way of that biased methodology, found zero benefit of Ivermectin treatment.
Given your deep repugnance at research bias, do you now feel the need to loudly decry Ivermectin debunkers? No, you won't, because you have a bias. It colours your view of the data and, much more heinously, you express it by slurring the character of those who offer data opposite to your preferred view.
We all have biases. I declare a bias in favour of Ivermectin. I do hope the research falls in that direction. This bias arises from my preference that this hideous disease can be kept at bay with medications and practises that are affordable and autonomous at local levels of community risk and infection. I do not want this disaster to be yet another vector for corporate control via monopoly dispensation over our personal and local well-being, and even our survival. Those who can't afford this form of monopolistic delivery die. Those who can often become indebted and unduly dependent.
Lawrie's own words reflect a similar hope for equitable prophylaxis of Covid. No doubt it is this bias that moves her to do this research in spite of the sh*t she will get for doing it. Of course her research has to be objective. However that can only be objectively found in her methodologies not in her statements of personal values. But you are not objective so you'll find grains of flysh*t in a sugar bowl to smear on her as if it is a trainload of feedlot manure.
Your bias in this specific matter, knowingly or not, helps advance the dominion of expensive patented corporate monopoly upon our basic life needs. Your bias helps keep Ivermectin in subjective disrepute and remote from the scope and quality of assessment it merits. In definitive terms you are being a tool.
If Ivermectin fails, then so be it, but let that follow full and rigorous testing, not decimation of reputation by popularised inference.
Are you aware that marijuana prohibition arose directly out of corporate machinations (reefer madness) to replace hemp rope with newly synthesised petrochemical fibres? But conspiracies are nut-job territory aren't they? FFS. Not seeing the patterns of political and narrative corruption endemic within the abysmal depths our socio-economic hierarchy is lobotomy territory.
I'm not saying this is a conspiracy and I'm certainly not saying all conspiracies are the same. It is evident though that a lot of well-resources, well distributed negative pressure is placed upon those who seek to investigate this product, and similar, and who then dare to find positively.
Do what you like, but take a quiet moment to think about the basis of your reflex belief. Or not. You'll not be short of company being a dill.
If you‘re so sure you’re right. Why are you hiding behind an alt?
A few hundred posts since 2004 mostly in this thread.
- Jun 12, 2012
- 21,636
- 69,184
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Can you surf at Brighton? At least the Adelaide one has great sand. Melbourne beaches are f@&king awful. You need to drive 100kms from the CBD to find a decent beach let alone surf.
wallumi
Team Captain
Show me the rebuttal to those papers.
Respective to your defamatory frolics, your preferred researchers are most likely actively 'pro-vaxx'. What's your point?
The salient observable difference is they don't need to stick their heads up in any observable way because the status quo affords them that luxury.
Are these two 'anti-vaxx' or anti-vax mandate?
Do you even understand the difference or does your bias blind you to the actual spectrum of concern and dissent that is being expressed and which is most definitely motivating certain avenues of research? Basic human values can impart an 'unprofessional' impatience with letting the current totalitarian 'science' progress one death at time.
You also repeat your accreditation slurs. Why aren't mathematicians competent to do data analysis? Or would you categorically prefer that a clinical virologist do the work rather than a mathematician? If so, why exactly.
You would have hated Einstein in his early years. Total trouble maker. And apparently biased. Turns out he was biased toward discovering truth over the embedded status quo.
wallumi
Team Captain
Why does this even matter?
If you can make a cogent basis for your question I might answer it.
Wallumi passing through this thread with all the grace, surety and self belief of Peter Fonda in Easy Rider:
Meanwhile the outraged locals:
Meanwhile the outraged locals:
tribey
ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Lots and lots of words that don’t move the needle.
Pete Evans, Joe Rogan, a pair of openly alt-health computer boffins, a fringe South African obstetrician fond of low-quality studies and whoever you are around here when you’re not hiding behind this account.
Heaps of words though. Something something ‘Einstein’
tribey
ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
As called pages ago:
His colourful bullsh¡t is just that. Now reduced to bizarre non-sequiturs and rhetorical questions.
- Jun 12, 2012
- 21,636
- 69,184
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
wallumi = Marat
Doctor Feel
Shitposter In Chief
Waluigi should really get double vaccinated and prove his point.
- Nov 6, 2014
- 70,291
- 89,052
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Of course everyone would hope for another cheap
easily available treatment for covid19 but
again, listen to this podcast reviewing scientific evidence for the rebuttal you requested from Tribey. Note that Bryant meta analysis is included.
The authors concluded that at least a third and likely much more of the ivermectin literature is either fake or the study was not conducted as described. Very detailed analysis.
If you don’t have access to Apple podcasts you can also find them in podcast addict, Tunein or soundcloud.
Last edited:
- Nov 6, 2014
- 70,291
- 89,052
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Take one for the cause
tribey
ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
But then how is one supposed to feel like a super-special contrarian with unique insight above and beyond most others (not including the murderers row of high-profile kooks and fringe nobodies stepping outside their specialisation who share the same view)?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
You know like how in the Twin Peaks remake there was Good Coop and Evil Coop. Wallumi is Evil Janus.Time then to deal with this opportunistic little piece.
Medical research is itself a medical specialty. Clinical research is one part of that. Meta-analysis is one other. The skills required in the latter are different to the former and do not rely upon medical acumen specifically required for those clinical procedures. Your cheap shot about Lawrie's clinical background and her duration absent from it reflects either ignorance or a capacity for opportunistic misinformation and deceit. Although those two feed each other like 2 romancing trolls at a children's birthday party.
As Lawrie's 'sophomoric' evidence statement makes clear, she is
"a frequent member of Technical Teams responsible for developing international clinical practice guidelines and [am] currently employed as the Guideline Methodologist on two World Health Organization (WHO) clinical practice guidelines due to be published in 2021. [My] peer-reviewed publications have received in excess of 3000 citations and [my] ResearchGate score is among the top 5% of ResearchGate members."
Should we acknowledge that such substantive peer status pales against her failure to meet the Tribey Standard of Opportunistic Convenience, an arcane credential assessed ad hoc according to need, but very valuable on Big Footy?
A Meta-study's citation of a paper that is later withdrawn is not a malpractice. Given the extent of published work assessed it is neither expected nor possible for the authors to forensically examine each input paper's background.
Nor does it necessarily defeat the meta-study findings, as the withdrawn paper only constitutes a proportion of the input. Response to such event, by the meta-studies authors and by others, is the measure of the matter.
Laurie competently addresses these matters in her letter that I previously linked and which you evidently failed to comprehend or chose to misrepresent. Re-read it here:
Supporting her letter's second response criteria a further meta-study review paper, absent the Elgazzar study, has been published. It confirms the positive effect of Ivermectin.
A letter explaining the study outcomes can be read here:
Bayesian Hypothesis Testing and Hierarchical Modeling of... : American Journal of Therapeutics
An abstract is unavailable.
The study paper can be read here:
Note the letter's detailed description of bias the authors found in the Roman meta-study which, by way of that biased methodology, found zero benefit of Ivermectin treatment.
Given your deep repugnance at research bias, do you now feel the need to loudly decry Ivermectin debunkers? No, you won't, because you have a bias. It colours your view of the data and, much more heinously, you express it by slurring the character of those who offer data opposite to your preferred view.
We all have biases. I declare a bias in favour of Ivermectin. I do hope the research falls in that direction. This bias arises from my preference that this hideous disease can be kept at bay with medications and practises that are affordable and autonomous at local levels of community risk and infection. I do not want this disaster to be yet another vector for corporate control via monopoly dispensation over our personal and local well-being, and even our survival. Those who can't afford this form of monopolistic delivery die. Those who can often become indebted and unduly dependent.
Lawrie's own words reflect a similar hope for equitable prophylaxis of Covid. No doubt it is this bias that moves her to do this research in spite of the sh*t she will get for doing it. Of course her research has to be objective. However that can only be objectively found in her methodologies not in her statements of personal values. But you are not objective so you'll find grains of flysh*t in a sugar bowl to smear on her as if it is a trainload of feedlot manure.
Your bias in this specific matter, knowingly or not, helps advance the dominion of expensive patented corporate monopoly upon our basic life needs. Your bias helps keep Ivermectin in subjective disrepute and remote from the scope and quality of assessment it merits. In definitive terms you are being a tool.
If Ivermectin fails, then so be it, but let that follow full and rigorous testing, not decimation of reputation by popularised inference.
Are you aware that marijuana prohibition arose directly out of corporate machinations (reefer madness) to replace hemp rope with newly synthesised petrochemical fibres? But conspiracies are nut-job territory aren't they? FFS. Not seeing the patterns of political and narrative corruption endemic within the abysmal depths our socio-economic hierarchy is lobotomy territory.
I'm not saying this is a conspiracy and I'm certainly not saying all conspiracies are the same. It is evident though that a lot of well-resources, well distributed negative pressure is placed upon those who seek to investigate this product, and similar, and who then dare to find positively.
Do what you like, but take a quiet moment to think about the basis of your reflex belief. Or not. You'll not be short of company being a dill.
- Nov 6, 2014
- 70,291
- 89,052
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Nov 6, 2014
- 70,291
- 89,052
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I am curious as to his opinion on mainstream climate science.
- Moderator
- #8,398
They'll probably be freezing cold too.
And you'll have Patrick Dangerfield wearing a suit for company.
wallumi
Team Captain
Seeing as no one wants to take heroin to cure measles there would seem to be no problem whatsoever in allowing it.
Good example buddy.
Let's consider a more plausible construct. Why not let anyone who wants to take heroin do so.
Well why not? Its prohibition is working well, not.
Unless you're in organised crime or a bent cop or politician that is. Then it's working just great. How could access to controlled quality and price be worse? Then delayed with the factors causative to the addictive behaviour rather than its symptomatic results.
If Ivermectin isn't dangerous to health or budget to administer, which its lengthy and broad track record in the field clearly proves it isn't, then at worst it does nothing. At best its uncontroversial application would allow wide-scale, un-emotive evaluation of it's actual efficacy. It's not like it's application would be pushing out any certainly better early treatment methodologies. It seems odd then, at the very least, that there is such vigorous and influential declamation of it in some countries. This is especially odd given the lack of caution these same countries' managing authorities displayed toward the cellular incineration of severe cases via ventilation.
wallumi
Team Captain
What point is that Dr. Feely?
- Status
