Only one way that matters, in academia. Particularly the “hard” sciences.
You’re just weaseling again now.
In order to be published in a PRV Journal it must first be submitted and either summarily rejected or reviewed.
It is then published with all the supporting data so your peers can review it, and it will be critiqued by the editorial revue staff.
There are numerous ways of publishing papers however that don’t go through that process.
And they don’t matter.
It’s possible that you’re right - maybe they didn’t submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Theres no way for us to know unless it gets published, which will take weeks, if not months.
But it seems unlikely that they would go to all that work and not submit it.
All assumptions not supported by any fact.
It’s already shredded so there’s virtually no chance it will be submitted for review and rightfully so without some serious revisions and data.
No, it really hasn’t been “shredded”.
You should try actually reading the study, rather than relying on guys on the TV to “explain” it to you.
More BS from a guy who knows nothing on the subject and weasels his way through two hours of argument over a “study” that doesn’t support your claims. 
Hey, I have an idea - instead of personally attacking me, you know you could just back up your claim?
You know, the first post of yours I responded to in this thread?
I’ll remind you:
I have repeatedly and you keep weaseling. You haven’t been able to provide an answer to a single question I’ve asked nor have you been able to backup your assertions of fact.
If you don’t like me pointing that out, be and do better.
No, you haven’t.
All of your posts are here to see. In none of then did you provide any evidence to support your claim.
You have tried desperately to move the goalposts, to shift the burden of proof to me, and thrown everything but the kitchen sink into this thread, in your attempts to deflect from that first claim of yours, that you quickly released you couldn’t support.
They were cherry picked and they were all severely ill as the data shows. What were the mortality rates for those off/on ventilators?
What was the duration of their stay in the hospital?
How many days from admission, start of treatment and either death or being released as recovered?
The data does not show that they were “cherry-picked”.
As for the ventilator question, I once again refer you to the study.
Try again.
All of this data is in the study. Tables start at p. 16.
Of courses it does. One week and a sample of only 378 very sick patients and their guidance is in direct conflict with their conclusions and their data.
What is the average age of VA hospital patients?
What is the average age of all VA patients admitted for CCCPV Treatment?
There was nothing random at all about their selection criteria and they even point that out themselves.
Picking a single week’s admissions seems like a perfectly representative sample of hospital admissions.
Is there any reason to believe that the week they chose to study was unrepresentative of other weeks?
This is a joy to watch. He literally has yet to provide any evidence to back up his claims. He is asking you questions as if you authored the study
3 Likes
No one has claimed their sample was “random”.
This study was observational. They didn’t sample their datasets, they used the entire population.
Either it’s random, or it’s cheery picked, there is no in between.
Did you read the rest of that article? I’m quite surprised that you posted it.
You’ll have to forgive me, but a press release by the VA press secretary isn’t exactly evidence of anything.
