What is the point of these threads? Did Trump say anything new today or do you just like repeating his nuttery? Why isn’t this in Fever Dreams?
Then don’t watch. Bye
Some data on the sociopath’s Covid rallies.
The actual white paper:
https://sebotero.github.io/papers/COVIDrallies_10_30_2000.pdf
It’s Stanford Anti-Trump disease and completely ridiculous. I already read that. Face News, as if they would even know.
Covid is not the Andromeda Strain.
In a bad flu season, people use more caution, but “caution” does not mean handing over our lives to the foolish and pathetic CCP and degenerate Globalist cabal that made the virus.
What is fake about it?
The studies first sentence is a fallacy. They have NO idea how many actually contracted Covid. It’s a lie to say so. They don’t even know how many were tested, positive or negative. They don’t even know how many false positives or negatives there have been. They have no idea how many are already immune. They only know people in there 80’s and 90’s make up the bulk of the deaths.
Need I go on? I could go line by line, but already I have destroyed this fake study. The study is a fraud. A Fake. Who paid for it?
Did you read the whole thing?
I have read other studies, this is fake. yes I read this one already. This is just kids on keys creating fake models like 80% of fake, politicized science today.
If the beginning is confabulation the rest is too. Ivory tower nonsense for a price$ Just reread my reply. Reason it out.
How should research on large gatherings effecting the spread of a disease be done so it’s not fake?
Start by not issuing a fake study by a Economics Professor and his Econ research assistants From the “Global Development Dept.”
What does that have to do with the methodology? What is wrong with the methodology?
Everything is wrong with it. Just listen to this a few times.
You’re saying it’s wrong because Frank Zappa said so in a song?
That’s “concrete thinking” you have there.
You never did answer what was wrong with methodology of the paper.
Yes I did. They failed the first step. Discard the whole thing. This is basic.
This is called “going to the seashore to find nuts.” (nuts don’t generally grow at the seashore)
You don’t go to an Economist/statistician to do real science. In fact, Economics is not a “science,” in any strict sense. It’s like saying, “Library Science” is real science.
Hard science is very strict and even most hard science is very primitive guesswork
