Dr Strangetroll : or how I learned to stop arguing and be amused by the intransigence

[Ozark Tinkering]

Ok .... Here's a twitter post

Seriously? A fucking tweet? The owner of Twitter himself says it is full of imposters and bots. He just permanently banned 14 Elon Musks this week and it's only Monday. I figured you'd be posting screenshots of Truth Social posts...surprised by a dumbfuck.

 

[grizzzman]

Ah once again the name calling bunch.

 

[Bob B]

Seriously? A fucking tweet? The owner of Twitter himself says it is full of imposters and bots. He just permanently banned 14 Elon Musks this week and it's only Monday. I figured you'd be posting screenshots of Truth Social posts...surprised by a dumbfuck.

You have a really foul mouth for someone who claims to be a minister ...... I guess that you don't realize that relying on profanity is a sign of poor character and low intelligence.
The tweet merely references an study in the New England Journal of medicine .... but, I don't really expect you to be intelligent enough to figure that out and find the study for yourself.
I haven't really been a Twitter fan, but if they continue to level the playing field I might go there more often ... and even pay $8 / month.

 

[MurphyGuy]

You have a really foul mouth for someone who claims to be a minister ...... I guess that you don't realize that relying on profanity is a sign of poor character and low intelligence.

You make a spectacular show of ignorance with your statements, and show a clear lack of keeping up with science.
Profanity, when used sparingly and appropriately, is actually considered to indicate a higher level of intelligence.

Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists

The use of obscene or taboo language - or swearing, as it’s more commonly known - is often seen as a sign that the speaker lacks vocabulary, cannot express themselves in a less offensive way, or even lacks intelligence.

www.sciencealert.com

Colorful Language May Have Benefits, Be Sign Of Intelligence

Researchers throughout the years have studied the use of curse words and according to some, dropping a well-placed expletive can be a sign of honesty or an indication of a high pain tolerance.

www.npr.org

Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?

New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of failure

www.scientificamerican.com

And take note, not a single twitter link in there. Why? Because twitter is not a source of information genius boy.

The tweet merely references an study in the New England Journal of medicine .... but, I don't really expect you to be intelligent enough to figure that out and find the study for yourself.
I haven't really been a Twitter fan, but if they continue to level the playing field I might go there more often ... and even pay $8 / month.

Repeat after me.. READ MY LIPS..

Twitter is not a source of information.

Post a direct link to the study or sit down and shut up.

 

[Bob B]

You make a spectacular show of ignorance with your statements, and show a clear lack of keeping up with science.
Profanity, when used sparingly and appropriately, is actually considered to indicate a higher level of intelligence.

Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists

The use of obscene or taboo language - or swearing, as it’s more commonly known - is often seen as a sign that the speaker lacks vocabulary, cannot express themselves in a less offensive way, or even lacks intelligence.

www.sciencealert.com

Colorful Language May Have Benefits, Be Sign Of Intelligence

Researchers throughout the years have studied the use of curse words and according to some, dropping a well-placed expletive can be a sign of honesty or an indication of a high pain tolerance.

www.npr.org

Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?

New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of failure

www.scientificamerican.com

And take note, not a single twitter link in there. Why? Because twitter is not a source of information genius boy.


Repeat after me.. READ MY LIPS..

Twitter is not a source of information.

Post a direct link to the study or sit down and shut up.

If you are too lazy to search for the study that is clearly labeled .... then you won't read it anyway.

So .... are you saying studies in the New England Journal of Medicine is not a legitimate source of information? That you won't find any science there?
ANY study that doesn't fit the narrative you want to hear will be considered by you to be illegitimated and promptly ignored.
I have read the entire study and find it compelling .... I'm not posting this information for you and your comrades anyway since I already know you are lost causes .... Those who are truly interested will find the study.

 

[LeoThomson]

Disprove the data he provides. You are deflecting using the medical doctor tangent. You know you can't disprove the data from the official sources, thus a tangent.

That is the problem with many people, they deflect when faced with data and facts instead of looking at the data and actual facts and using critical thinking skills to make a decision for themselves.

Oh, the man is widely discredited by medical professionals. The reason I picked on his credentials is because the man has a cult following who believe he is a medical doctor. He isn't and like I said before, there are medical doctors who are vaccine hesitant. The problem for you guys is that you ignore the fast majority of the medical professionals who do advocate for taking vaccines, you basically ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative. And when I posted a recent double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, it is dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative of the conspiracy theorists.

Basically what you guys are doing is falsely accusing me of being biased, even though I have stated multiple times that I do want ivermectin, or any other remedy for covid to work. On top of that you guys are advocating to hang medical professionals, scientist or any one who influenced people to take a life saving vaccine. That means that you guys are not just "misinformed", you are a mortal threat to free society and the people living in it and therefore nuts.

Got it?

 

[LeoThomson]

So .... really funny you guys are so upset that I questioned your intelligence .... I think you are a little TOO sensitive about that. If you don't lack intelligence it must be that you are just lazy or dishonest .... or trolls.

LOL, I don't mind my intelligence being questioned, I have no problem being wrong on occasion as we all learn from our mistakes.

Oh, and it is REALLY odd that you somehow equate holding people accountable to terrorism. Seems like you actually have no idea what terrorism is.

The FBI defines terrorism as the unlawful use or threatened use of violence committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Special Report: A Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Prior to the September 11 Attacks

Threatening to hang people is a threat of violence, or do you disagree?

But ... I agree with Zwy. You got us WAY off track and continue to ignore facts I have presented.

You have not presented facts, you have presented "studies" that have been widely discredited and ignore facts.

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19

This randomized clinical trial compares the efficacy of ivermectin vs placebo in shortening symptom duration among adult outpatients in the US with symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

 

[MurphyGuy]

If you are too lazy to search for the study that is clearly labeled .... then you won't read it anyway.

You posted the link, it is your ethical responsibility to post the source.

Ethics are kind of a challenge aren't they?

So .... are you saying studies in the New England Journal of Medicine is not a legitimate source of information?

I did not say any such thing.

That you won't find any science there?
ANY study that doesn't fit the narrative you want to hear will be considered by you to be illegitimated and promptly ignored.
I have read the entire study and find it compelling .... I'm not posting this information for you and your comrades anyway since I already know you are lost causes .... Those who are truly interested will find the study.

Something seriously wrong with you people who think others "want to hear a narrative". Preferred narratives are normal when it comes to social issues, they are irrelevant with scientific concerns.

 

[LeoThomson]

If you are too lazy to search for the study that is clearly labeled .... then you won't read it anyway.

So .... are you saying studies in the New England Journal of Medicine is not a legitimate source of information? That you won't find any science there?
ANY study that doesn't fit the narrative you want to hear will be considered by you to be illegitimated and promptly ignored.
I have read the entire study and find it compelling .... I'm not posting this information for you and your comrades anyway since I already know you are lost causes .... Those who are truly interested will find the study.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[Bob B]

LOL, I don't mind my intelligence being questioned, I have no problem being wrong on occasion as we all learn from our mistakes.


The FBI defines terrorism as the unlawful use or threatened use of violence committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Special Report: A Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Prior to the September 11 Attacks

Threatening to hang people is a threat of violence, or do you disagree?


You have not presented facts, you have presented "studies" that have been widely discredited and ignore facts.

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19

This randomized clinical trial compares the efficacy of ivermectin vs placebo in shortening symptom duration among adult outpatients in the US with symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

There is so much wrong in this post that it's not even worth trying to correct all the errors since you will just circle back and start over anyway.
I still haven't seen any evidence that you have looked at the analysis of ALL the Ivermectin studies .... around 100 of them ..... you still prefer to cherry pick the low hanging fruit offered by your browser.

Are you even mildly interested in the study showing the vaccines are of no benefit for children?

 

[LeoThomson]

There is so much wrong in this post that it's not even worth trying to correct all the errors since you will just circle back and start over anyway.
I still haven't seen any evidence that you have looked at the analysis of ALL the Ivermectin studies .... around 100 of them ..... you still prefer to cherry pick the low hanging fruit offered by your browser.

Are you faulting the FBI definition of terrorism? Really?

Are you faulting a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial? Really?

 

[Bob B]

Are you faulting the FBI definition of terrorism? Really?

Are you faulting a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial? Really?

I haven't seen anyone make a threat of violence .... Well, except Ozark

Why do you want to put all your eggs in ONE flawed study?

 

[Bob B]

Are you faulting the FBI definition of terrorism? Really?

Are you faulting a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial? Really?

Your strawman arguments are getting really old ..... I'm starting to wonder if you are comrade Kipp who has re-invented himself for the 3rd time. The ridiculous strawman stuff was one of his favorite tactics.

 

[LeoThomson]

I haven't seen anyone make a threat of violence .... Well, except Ozark

Ok, lets try again, do you support or denounce the hanging of scientists, medical professionals and any one who influenced people to get vaccinated?

Why do you want to put all your eggs in ONE flawed study?

I don't, that is the most recent one and randomized double blind trials are the gold standard when it comes to medical research. There are loads more and I am sure that if you wanted to find them, you could.

Ask yourself why you can't accept that you could be wrong. I keep repeating that I want cures for covid and any other illnesses for that matter. I also keep repeating that I leave that research to the experts and largely ignore conspiracy theorists unless they have actual evidence of a conspiracy theory. The chances that there is a conspracy involving millions of medical professionals and most if not all governments around the world, to give people a vaccine that is suposedly dangerous and manage to keep that conspiracy secret, is just nuts. But here we are...

 

[LeoThomson]

Your strawman arguments are getting really old

Why don't you agree or disagree with the FBI definition of terrorism, why do you change the subject? Why do you attack me instead of answering?

..... I'm starting to wonder if you are comrade Kipp who has re-invented himself for the 3rd time. The ridiculous strawman stuff was one of his favorite tactics.

Don't know who that is. I didn't think you were a communist, then again I thought you were just another conspiracy nutter who is not speaking out against the hanging of scientist, medical professionals and people advocating to take vaccines.

 

[Zwy]

Oh, the man is widely discredited by medical professionals. The reason I picked on his credentials is because the man has a cult following who believe he is a medical doctor. He isn't and like I said before, there are medical doctors who are vaccine hesitant. The problem for you guys is that you ignore the fast majority of the medical professionals who do advocate for taking vaccines, you basically ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative. And when I posted a recent double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, it is dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative of the conspiracy theorists.

From your official study documents:

"Although not required for enrollment, high-risk comorbidities were prevalent, including body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) greater than 30 (41%), diabetes (11.5%), hypertension (26%), asthma (15%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4%). Overall, 47% of participants reported receiving at least 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. "

Really?

I'm sure there is more jewels like this. What happened to studies with healthy people or ones that were not jabbed?

I don't place much trust in many studies like this, it seems when digging around the criteria, we find that many times certain aspects are lacking when it comes to representing the actual population.

Then we see this:

"The median time from symptom onset to receipt of study drug was 6 days (IQR, 4-8)"

Hmmnn, I can tell you the ivermectin should be administered as soon as symptoms onset. 6 days? Really?

Do I need to keep looking for more to discredit this? This is called "cooking the books". I won't get into the dosage, I'm not a doctor but from everything I've seen regarding usage the dosage and duration are not consistent with what your quoted study used.

Basically what you guys are doing is falsely accusing me of being biased, even though I have stated multiple times that I do want ivermectin, or any other remedy for covid to work.

Did you actually read the study you linked and use some critical thinking processes about how the study might be skewed/faulted?

On top of that you guys are advocating to hang medical professionals, scientist or any one who influenced people to take a life saving vaccine.

I prefer they spend their life in prison as constant reminders to those who advocate medical tyranny that it won't be accepted.

That means that you guys are not just "misinformed", you are a mortal threat to free society and the people living in it and therefore nuts.

Got it?

LOL

One only needs to read the disclosures to see what really occurred:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Naggie reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study and grants from Gilead Sciences and AbbVie; personal fees from Pardes Biosciences, Personal Health Insights Inc, and Bristol Myers Squibb/PRA Health Services; and stock options from Vir Biotechnology as well as providing unpaid consultation to Silverback Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Boulware reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Lindsell reported receiving grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Department of Defense to his institution and contracts to his institution for research services from Endpoint Health, bioMerieux, Entegrion Inc, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr Lindsell had a patent for risk stratification in sepsis and septic shock issued to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Dr Stewart reported receiving grants from the NIH NCATS during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH outside the submitted work. Dr Gentile reported receiving personal fees from Duke University during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH outside the submitted work. Dr Collins reported receiving personal fees from Vir Biotechnology during the conduct of the study. Dr Jayaweera reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study and grants from Gilead, Pfizer, Janssen, and ViiV and serving as a consultant for Theratechnologies outside the submitted work. Dr Castro reported receiving grants from the NIH, American Lung Association, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pulmatrix, Sanofi, and Shionogi and personal fees from Genentech, Teva, Sanofi, Merck, Novartis, Arrowhead, OM Pharma, Allakos, Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, and Elsevier outside the submitted work. Dr Sulkowski reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Atea Pharmaceuticals, Antios Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Viiv, and Virion and grants from Janssen to Johns Hopkins University outside the submitted work. Dr McTigue reported receiving grants to her institution from the NIH during the conduct of the study and research contracts to her institution from Pfizer and Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr Felker reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study and grants from Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr Ginde reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Defense, AbbVie (investigator-initiated), and Faron Pharmaceuticals (investigator-initiated) outside the submitted work. Dr Adam reported receiving funding from the US government (funding through Operation Warp Speed) during the conduct of the study. Dr DeLong reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study. Dr Hanna reported receiving grants from the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck & Co and AbPro outside the submitted work. Dr Remaly reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study. Dr Wilder reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study. Dr Wilson reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study. Dr Hernandez reported receiving grants from American Regent, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Verily, Somologic, and Pfizer, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, and Merck outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

 

[LeoThomson]

From your official study documents:

"Although not required for enrollment, high-risk comorbidities were prevalent, including body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) greater than 30 (41%), diabetes (11.5%), hypertension (26%), asthma (15%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4%). Overall, 47% of participants reported receiving at least 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. "

Really?

Yes really.

I'm sure there is more jewels like this. What happened to studies with healthy people or ones that were not jabbed?

What does the jab have to do with ivermectin being an effective treatment or not?

I don't place much trust in many studies like this, it seems when digging around the criteria, we find that many times certain aspects are lacking when it comes to representing the actual population.

Of course you don't. That is the problem with conspiracy theorists...

Then we see this:

"The median time from symptom onset to receipt of study drug was 6 days (IQR, 4-8)"

Hmmnn, I can tell you the ivermectin should be administered as soon as symptoms onset. 6 days? Really?

Do I need to keep looking for more to discredit this? This is called "cooking the books". I won't get into the dosage, I'm not a doctor but from everything I've seen regarding usage the dosage and duration are not consistent with what your quoted study used.

So it only works if given right away or prior to getting symptoms?

Did you actually read the study you linked and use some critical thinking processes about how the study might be skewed/faulted?

I did not read the study, like most people I am not qualified as a medical doctor, nor do I pretend to be one.

I prefer they spend their life in prison as constant reminders to those who advocate medical tyranny that it won't be accepted.

Ok, so you just want to imprison the fast majority of the 10 million or so US health care professionals.

LOL

One only needs to read the disclosures to see what really occurred:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Naggie reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study and grants from Gilead Sciences and AbbVie; personal fees from Pardes Biosciences, Personal Health Insights Inc, and Bristol Myers Squibb/PRA Health Services; and stock options from Vir Biotechnology as well as providing unpaid consultation to Silverback Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Boulware reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Lindsell reported receiving grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Department of Defense to his institution and contracts to his institution for research services from Endpoint Health, bioMerieux, Entegrion Inc, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr Lindsell had a patent for risk stratification in sepsis and septic shock issued to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Dr Stewart reported receiving grants from the NIH NCATS during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH outside the submitted work. Dr Gentile reported receiving personal fees from Duke University during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH outside the submitted work. Dr Collins reported receiving personal fees from Vir Biotechnology during the conduct of the study. Dr Jayaweera reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study and grants from Gilead, Pfizer, Janssen, and ViiV and serving as a consultant for Theratechnologies outside the submitted work. Dr Castro reported receiving grants from the NIH, American Lung Association, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pulmatrix, Sanofi, and Shionogi and personal fees from Genentech, Teva, Sanofi, Merck, Novartis, Arrowhead, OM Pharma, Allakos, Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, and Elsevier outside the submitted work. Dr Sulkowski reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Atea Pharmaceuticals, Antios Therapeutics, Precision BioSciences, Viiv, and Virion and grants from Janssen to Johns Hopkins University outside the submitted work. Dr McTigue reported receiving grants to her institution from the NIH during the conduct of the study and research contracts to her institution from Pfizer and Janssen outside the submitted work. Dr Felker reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study and grants from Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr Ginde reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Defense, AbbVie (investigator-initiated), and Faron Pharmaceuticals (investigator-initiated) outside the submitted work. Dr Adam reported receiving funding from the US government (funding through Operation Warp Speed) during the conduct of the study. Dr DeLong reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study. Dr Hanna reported receiving grants from the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck & Co and AbPro outside the submitted work. Dr Remaly reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study. Dr Wilder reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study. Dr Wilson reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study. Dr Hernandez reported receiving grants from American Regent, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Verily, Somologic, and Pfizer, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, and Merck outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

It is quite normal to disclose conflicts of interests, I wish that would happen more often.

 

[Ozark Tinkering]

I haven't really been a Twitter fan, but if they continue to level the playing field I might go there more often ... and even pay $8 / month.

So you think the blue check mark will help you spread your message? You must be gonna use a different screen name than Bob B, since that might be hard to verify even for $8. Try using Dipshit or Dumbass instead. I'm sure even a casual observer could verify that is you.

 

[Ozark Tinkering]

I haven't seen anyone make a threat of violence .... Well, except Ozark

please quote me

 

[Ozark Tinkering]

Why don't you agree or disagree with the FBI definition of terrorism, why do you change the subject? Why do you attack me instead of answering?

He might be anticipating charges for taking part in the Jan. 6 coup attempt and doesn't want to make it worse.