- Haha - It was about HCQ Adamski, it wasn't a study into my waffle y'know Archived Message
Posted by walter
on May 9, 2020, 1:47 pm, in reply to "Once again lots of waffle from Walter "
|
You found a study that's two days old that relates post hoc to one of my statements. You might have posted it at the top of the board, as HCQ has been of burning interest to some here. But you seem more keen to score a 'point', so much so that you forgot to contextualize it around the point you thought you were scoring. The context being, that Dr Mikovits statements about HCQ were put into the sarcasm machine given to me as evidence of her quackness. I was responding to that. I'm not sure what you think I've done to you, but I think you're getting a bit carried away. This study has a neutral result, and goes in the mix with the other evidence; but even if ten thousand patients died it wouldn't prove the point about Dr M's statements - as when the statements about HCQ were made, neither Dr M or anyone else had a crystal ball. I asked you before not to turn our discussion (the one I was trying to have) into a personal mission. Second time of asking 
|