/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11585901

93KiB, 383x383, 1587400586293.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 22:23:04 2020 No.11585901 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11585912 >>11586401 >>11586892

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102549/
>18 people with actual degrees wrote this

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 22:29:41 No.11585912 Report

Quoted By: >>11585922

>>11585901
no, two people wrote it, one was their PI, and the remaining 15 were grad students and postdocs and clinical lab staff

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 22:34:08 No.11585922 Report

Quoted By:

>>11585912
That still means 15 grad students accepted to have their names on this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 22:34:53 No.11585926 Report

Quoted By:

How does the medical science work ? Do you just throw random chemicals into people and see what sticks ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:17:03 No.11586401 Report

Quoted By: >>11586580 >>11586814 >>11586820 >>11586824

>>11585901
What's your problem with it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 02:19:00 No.11586580 Report

Quoted By:

>>11586401
They didn't use it in conjunction with zinc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:20:34 No.11586814 Report

Quoted By:

>>11586401
You should really read it. They asked people in a hospital to participate and everyone who accepted got put into the treatment group. The people who said no got put into the control group. They added people from other hospitals to this control group. So 100% of the treatment is from a single hospital and the control is a mix of hospitals. That's 20 in treatment and 22 in control. But it's fine because they've got the same mean age, gender, clinical status, and inclusion timing so it's all balanced. Now they've got six drop outs. One checked out to the morgue, three booked beds at the ICU, one got fed up puking his guts out and stopped taking the drug, and one decided to leave the hospital. That's a bit of a problem, but nothing the delete key can't solve. We're now down to 36 observations, but attrition is part of life. Then it comes to light that the control hospitals only test every few days and they have to mark 3 to 13 observations as not tested depending on the day (19-80% of the control). Finally comes the moment to calculate the percentage of people cured. What do they do? They put virus negatives in the numerator and everything else including the missing values in the denominator. 70% cured after a week? Almost 60% better than the control? That's miraculous. Now let's put back the drop outs and stop counting missing values as positives. Now it's 54%. Still not bad. What's happening with the control? 44%. These are statistically the same numbers. You get different results using the same data all by treating attrition and missing values differently. This thing was published in a peer reviewed journal and 18 people put their names on it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:22:42 No.11586820 Report

Quoted By:

>>11586401
>You should really read it. They asked people in a hospital to participate and everyone who accepted got put into the treatment group. The people who said no got put into the control group. They added people from other hospitals to this control group. So 100% of the treatment is from a single hospital and the control is a mix of hospitals. That's 20 in treatment and 22 in control. But it's fine because they've got the same mean age, gender, clinical status, and inclusion timing so it's all balanced. Now they've got six drop outs. One checked out to the morgue, three booked beds at the ICU, one got fed up puking his guts out and stopped taking the drug, and one decided to leave the hospital. That's a bit of a problem, but nothing the delete key can't solve. We're now down to 36 observations, but attrition is part of life. Then it comes to light that the control hospitals only test every few days and they have to mark 3 to 13 observations as not tested depending on the day (19-80% of the control). Finally comes the moment to calculate the percentage of people cured. What do they do? They put virus negatives in the numerator and everything including the missing values in the denominator. 70% cured after a week? Almost 60% better than the control? That's miraculous. Now let's put back the drop outs and stop counting missing values as positives. Now it's 54%. Still not bad. What's happening with the control? 44%. These are statistically the same numbers. You get different results using the same data all by treating attrition and missing values differently. This thing was published in a peer reviewed journal and 18 people put their names on it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:23:51 No.11586824 Report

Quoted By: >>11587056

>>11586401
You should really read it. They asked people in a hospital to participate and everyone who accepted got put into the treatment group. The people who said no got put into the control group. They added people from other hospitals to this control group. So 100% of the treatment is from a single hospital and the control is a mix of hospitals. That's 20 in treatment and 22 in control. But it's fine because they've got the same mean age, gender, clinical status, and inclusion timing so it's all balanced. Now they've got six drop outs. One checked out to the morgue, three booked beds at the ICU, one got fed up puking his guts out and stopped taking the drug, and one decided to leave the hospital. That's a bit of a problem, but nothing the delete key can't solve. We're now down to 36 observations, but attrition is part of life. Then it comes to light that the control hospitals only test every few days and they have to mark 3 to 13 observations as not tested depending on the day (19-80% of the control). Finally comes the moment to calculate the percentage of people cured. What do they do? They put virus negatives in the numerator and everything including the missing values in the denominator. 70% cured after a week? Almost 60% better than the control? That's miraculous. Now let's put back the drop outs and stop counting missing values as positives. Now it's 54%. Still not bad. What's happening with the control? 44%. These are statistically the same numbers. You get different results using the same data all by treating attrition and missing values differently. This thing was published in a peer reviewed journal and 18 people put their names on it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gof.png, 413KiB, 730x776

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:49:54 No.11586892 Report

Quoted By:

>>11585901
>bio majors
i've seen them do much worse. case in pt:
>The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2
>As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted7,11.
from the 2 public journals you mentioned, shit that bioweapons labs would not publish to. also as if there haven't been many more publicly available gain of function viral studies you haven't listed, andersen et al..

>Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used19.
>probably
nice opinion, bro. just because that is how you would do it does not mean it is the only way. also "probably" by how much in you estimation? oh that's right you never made that calculation and can't because you probably barely passed stat200.

>However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone20.
meaning it could very well be made from playing around with snps in a lab. in fact because it is so novel lends more credence to it possibly being lab made because it's odd that we are missing such an evolutionary jump.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 05:37:23 No.11587056 Report

Quoted By:

>>11586824
That is pretty much the state of science right now.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches