re: My 16 year old daughter has covid.

quote:

---

I linked directly to the FDA, the CDC, and the exact study someone try to cherry-pick earlier.

---

I haven't read every post in the thread.

Alas, "linking" isn't "hey, here's the data and here's how I understand it and why I think it matters.

quote:

---

It isn't because that's exactly what you did. Now you're trying to explain why you did it.

---

This is just an idiotic interpretation barely worthy of anything but laughing.

It isn't "eliminating" to describe the HUGE differences.

quote:

---

You started off with promise, but your intellectual dishonesty got the better of you and your true intent here showed through.

---

LOL. There's zero dishonest about a word I've typed. I've been exceedingly clear and consistent about my position and where it comes from.

quote:

---

When all else fails, scream for links.

---

When you claim YOU have done something, demanding you show it is perfectly rational.

quote:

---

Then maybe you just aren't very good at communicating that. I don't know. All I can go off is what I've seen in the thread.

---

You've made no attempt whatsoever to refute a single take on the data I've made.

quote:

---

I've been discussing things based on a consensus of the data.

---

Systems, which are worthless for individual participation.

"SyStEmS aRe RaCiSt" until this one came around, I guess.

quote:

---

I asked him a simple yes/no question:

If your work depends on skewed or manipulated data, can the results be trusted?

---

I know. And I understand why you asked.

That said, it is my assertion that the CDC data AS IT EXISTS doesn't even support the non-sense it's used to support.

And make no mistake. This is why despite me pointing to multiple pieces of their data, he NEVER ONCE even tried to refute it.

That's the thing about data. The problem is rarely with the data(although sometimes it is). The problem is almost always with the portrayal of said data. The link example I gave of the CDC comically creating a scary chart from non-scary data was a good example of this.

I just don't find it productive to attempt to refute the data he wants to look at. I find it more productive to say, "cool............your data doesn't support your conclusion". Which, it flat out doesn't.

quote:

---

You posted exactly two data, I believe, which so happened to be favorable to your point.

There's nothing else to call that.

---

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that somewhere in this thread, you posted the entire library of data from the CDC.

Yes. The data supported my point. The end. If you have some data to count with, have at it.

quote:

---

Cherry-picking data is intellectually dishonest.

---

Calling the use of data cherry picking WITHOUT showing how there's other data to refute said conclusion is dishonest. Otherwise, "cherry picking" could be the reply to literally every use of data in this history of the world.

quote:

---

Of course I have

---

False

quote:

---

I made the controversial request for you to look at all the data. I think that would cover it,

---

quote:

---

assuming you are willing to change your mind in the face of reality.

---

Says the guy who STILL hasn't said HOW my data or interpretation thereof is incorrect. Not ONCE. Other than to cry "Cherry picking".

quote:

---

I didn't realize that somewhere in this thread, you posted the entire library of data from the CDC.

---

I posted organic links to referenced study. I didn't isolate only data that were convenient.

quote:

---

Yes. The data supported my point. The end. If you have some data to count with, have at it.

---

And this is how I know you don't understand data analysis.

quote:

---

Calling the use of data cherry picking WITHOUT showing how there's other data to refute said conclusion is dishonest. Otherwise, "cherry picking" could be the reply to literally every use of data in this history of the world.

---

Is it just that you don't know what cherry-picking is?

I also find it hilarious that when I did call out specific data that you provided, and provided a reason why, you pivoted to some bullshite about finality of outcomes.

Textbook intellectual dishonesty.

quote:

---

You know what's funny...

The second I posted that actual study, everyone shut the frick up about it.

---

Alas, I have never made a claim counter to the study you linked.........AND..........the link makes no attempt to address anything I've asserted in this thread.

You might as well have said, "oh yeah!!! But purple!!!"

Also. My very first post in this thread was 2 pages after AND, was about Invermectin which I specifically said I don't know shite about.

quote:

---

I also find it hilarious that when I did call out specific data that you provided

---

This still has yet to occur unless your definition of "calling out" is to say "nuh uh".