This doesn't link me to anything that shows what he posted originally.

Chain of custody broken. Entire election in doubt



guess you don't know how to use web archives

This post was edited by Jere on Nov 26 2020 04:01pm

I don’t even know what you’re trying to say

Are you saying he didn’t intend to cite that, or that someone messed up his citations? Or that he changed his citations later and that wasn’t reflected?

Regardless of which it is, his words are still precisely what the citation in question claims - that surgical masks are non inferior to N95s in terms of respiratory droplets

The issue is the erroneous logic in making the claim that surgical masks are not effective because they are no worse than N95s.

Yes I said that correctly, aka I recited his claim. Does that make sense to you? Do you not see why reviewers did not let this get passed Microsoft word

You are correct, I've never used a web archive.

So if you want to show something it's up to you to show it.

exactly i mean anybody saying there was no voter fraud, just by watching the election hearings in PA yesterday is enough to convince any honest person there was organized fraud in all states most likely
and Rigging

Yep, either pretending not to understand web archives, or so oblivious they exist.

Just dropping this here as more evidence of Dominion pay 2 play deals clearly between elected officials.

https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1326570329238626305?s=19

Or that it is inconsequential

Did you read the “Regardless of which it is ...”

Democrats not challenging these voter fraud/rigging court cases because they are GUILTY, and they are not filling any defamation suits against these claims because they will be exposed, They Are GUILTY . The media will lie and say nothing is happening, but in court they will be under oath exposing the crimes

No, click dates. Compare changes. You're trying to make it sound like rocket science, a 9 year old can do this.

This is probably bullshit to huh.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342257571_Behind_the_French_controversy_over_the_medical_treatment_of_Covid-19_The_role_of_the_drug_industry

https://project-evidence.github.io/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340508206_The_French_response_to_COVID-19_intrinsic_difficulties_at_the_interface_of_science_public_health_and_policy


Look MOAR? All the scientists I guess are just dumb and you are smarter...

Look how they explain the part you chose to ignore in my original post.


What's that second red paragraph say? What do the above links also say?




What are you doing? (HINT: ^^^)

This post was edited by Jere on Nov 26 2020 04:14pm

This has nothing to do with the citation he used to make his claim. Those citations are for some other weird claims he made in the article.

To be clear he conveyed the result of his reference fine, then derived illogical conclusions. I don’t think there should be any doubt that the reference (his reference) I posted in my original critique was apart of his actual review, which frankly invalidates his own review.

I have literally never seen that happen before lol. Posting a reference contradicting your working thesis

I am not smarter than most scientists. In fact the opposite, I listen and respect them greatly. Posting reviews are not primary scientific literature as much as they are commentary. Some commentary is good, some is not. it still has to be labeled as what it is and that is commentary. This guys commentary was deemed inferior by his peers which is why it didn’t go further than word/gmail. That wasn’t my decision but I think it was the right decision give the self contradictions within it

This post was edited by Bazi on Nov 26 2020 04:21pm