Who's behind Trump's big polling deficit? Two key groups defecting to Biden

You've alluded to 'facts', but you haven't presented any facts at all.
That's not how debates work, Moolk.

 

Incompetent rebuttals are [highlighted pertains to your comment and general non arguments you have committed] non arguments, especially those which contain vacuous (unsubstantiated) declarations, rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities ) ad hominems, loaded phrases, egregious logical fallacies and misuse of logic terms, off topic, off point, (includes 'kill the messenger" tactics which are highly debatable [unless the messenger is a well-established unreliable source; a CTer, etc.] ), flaming, and otherwise disingenuous remarks, childish and simplistic thinking, including, but not limited to, comments of self puffery and all it's variants (such as shaming, trivializing opponent's argument, mockery) etc.,

 

It’s not my job to make you an informed individual. It is your job to be informed and do your own research. I am objectively correct and that’s supported by the facts.

 

T

hats your delusion about me, I don’t care. You have nothing but personal attacks.” Because deep down you know you are wrong.

 

Incompetent rebuttals are [highlighted pertains to your comment and general non arguments you have committed] non arguments, especially those which contain vacuous (unsubstantiated) declarations, rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities ) ad hominems, loaded phrases, egregious logical fallacies and misuse of logic terms, off topic, off point, (includes 'kill the messenger" tactics which are highly debatable [unless the messenger is a well-established unreliable source; a CTer, etc.] ), flaming, and otherwise disingenuous remarks, childish and simplistic thinking, including, but not limited to, comments of self puffery and all it's variants (such as shaming, trivializing opponent's argument, mockery) etc.,

 

Again, your personal attacks only serve to further demonstrate that you dont have an effective argument and deep down you realize i am right.

 

Name calling is not allowed. I suggest you clean up your name calling.

It’s the sign that you realize you dont have an effective argument.

 

You haven't convinced anyone on this forum you are correct on the point of HCQ and Covid.

I'd say your argument is ineffective.

 

I dont care if i have convinced anyone of anything, that is not my goal. My goal is to put out the objective truth and I have succeeded and will continue to succeed in this. Whether people believe it or not is entirely on whether or not they wish to do the legwork and make themselves informed.

I am objectively correct and the facts support that.

 

So, your argument simply is, "if I say it is so, and say it often enough, I am correct'.

That's delusion.

"objectively correct' is redundant.

You need to do two things:

Learn how to properly debate.

Learn how to avoid sloppiness in your presentation.

 

Nope, my argument is that the objective truth, as supported by decades worth of evidence and studies is that the HCQ absolutely helps with flu like symptoms of which the chinavirus has, and by using it, we are saving lives. These hero doctors continue to use it even as we speak. This is objectively true regardless of how you choose to “feel” about it, or mischaracterize my argument.

 

You chided me for 'not an effective argument' that implies yours is effective.

Funny thing though, you haven't convinced one person on this forum you are correct.

If you aren't here to debate, then what the hell are you hear for?

You allude to 'facts', but claiming there are facts, when the FDA asserts those facts do not count for Covid, refutes said facts, and your ignoring
that fact is, indeed, the only fact here.

Now, you can have the last word, because it is obvious we would go until dawn with this kind of delusion in play.

I'm done with you.

Fire way and enjoy your last word.

 

My argument is effective as it is supported by the objective facts of decades worth of science. This is true regardless of how you “feel” about it. Regardless if people emotionally cling to their argument makes no difference. My goal was to put out the objective truth, and thats exactly what I did. And will continue to do, as its the right thing to do. The attack on this medicine is irrational.

 

Yea, please just put him on ignore or at least do not engage him on this topic any further.. The topic of HCQ isn't relevant to the topic of this thread and @Moolk is never going to admit that he has no proof and is unable to even discuss the relevant topic.

The topic of this thread is the shifts in demographic preferences that explain why Biden is currently beating Trump in the election.

 

The objective reality is the proof is out there for you to find if you had the ability to do an ounce of your own research. Your refusal to do so is not my fault. I am objectively correct and this is supported by decades worth of evidence. This will remain true regardless of how you choose to “feel” about it. Hero doctors are using it every day to save lives, despite the irrational attacks on it.

 

IMO he's trying to jerk someone's chain.
I rarely put someone on ignore, in his case I made an exception.

 

Not doing that at all, just pointing out the objective facts regardless of how much the irrational anti science left attacks me for it. This medicine is saving lives.

 

Yeah, I kill filed him ( ignore listed, I'm still on usenet lingo ). Ignore listing is the only way to deal with someone who incessantly says there are facts to support his claim but is unwilling to produce the facts . He thinks others should do his homework. that's now how it works.

 

It’s on you to do your own research, not me to do it for you. That will never change, its on you to be informed. The objective reality is I am correct and science supports that. I dont care if you like that or not.

 

Trump is seriously down with seniors, eh? He needs them to win.

My view is that he should select either Klobuchar or Warren, and give Abrams a cabinet post, and make Harris the AG.

 

That’s absolutely hilarious!


These should be taken with a grain of salt for sure.

 

Your apology is accepted and so is your extended hand of friendship. By posting what you did above you have demonstrated that you possess the attributes of honesty and integrity. Your willingness to do this has restored your credibility as far as I am concerned. I always give latitude to newcomers and I am heartened that you chose to take the high road on this matter. Welcome to PF and hopefully we can have many fruitful debates in the future.

 

I only pointed out teens as an example of people who may want to vote but not be registered. My experience with teens is very different. I used to teach special ed in a very conservative district within a very liberal county. Those kids were not Democrats!

Some teachers used to do a voter registration campaign before any election to encourage voting. Interestingly, it was a very liberal teacher who started the campaign even knowing it’d result in a much higher number of conservative votes at this school. The conservative teachers didn’t get involved.

Your neighbor’s daughter made a good point.

 

Thank you very much! I'm relieved that you accepted my apology. All is good now, let's carry on. Cheers.

 

Sorry to interject in this ongoing discussion, under the risk of being told "none of your business" but hey, it's a public forum, and even though I'm a new member, I think it is fair to issue an opinion on anything that another member is posting even if it's in a dialogue between two people that don't include me (otherwise if people didn't want others to interject, they'd be using private messages).

So, what I'm curious to know is, what exactly are you calling flu-like symptoms and what's the relevance of that for the treatment of COVID-19? If HCQ relieves symptoms caused by the influenza virus and other respiratory viruses, it absolutely doesn't mean that it automatically relieves symptoms caused by the SARS-CoV-2, which is the specific agent of COVID-19. An analogy would be antibiotic sensitivity. Most antibiotics are appropriate for certain bacteria that are sensitive to them and get killed by them, but not appropriate for other species of bacteria or fungi that are resistant to them, so that the infection wouldn't improve if we gave to the patient the wrong antibiotic.

There isn't a rule such as "this antibiotic is effective for pneumonia-like symptoms caused by... say, the pneumococcus, therefore it must be effective for all pneumonias, including those caused by pneumocystis carinii." Well, that's just not true. Pneumococcal pneumonia is treated with penicillin, amoxicillin, or ceftriaxone, and these wouldn't work for pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, which is treated with sulfamethoxazole together with trimethoprim, or dapsone, or clindamycin together with primaquine, among other options. When you look at the symptoms of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, they are fever, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, chills, fatigue... which are the same symptoms of pneumococcal pneumonia. Still, the treatments are vastly different, according to what agent is causing the pneumonia.

So I don't see your point with the "flu-like" symptoms. COVID-19 is not the flu. The influenza virus is not the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The two diseases are vastly different (even though they share some of the same symptoms) and respond to vastly different treatments. The influenza virus is sensitive to Tamiflu. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is sensitive to remdesivir. Neither Tamiflu treats COVID-19 (it's been tried), nor remdesivir treats the flu.

So you say doctors are still using it, and are saving lives with it. Yeah, some are. But it's dwindling, as more evidence comes up that it is not effective to treat or prevent COVID-19. As for the idea that doctors are "saving lives" with it, that is certainly the belief of certain doctors, but beware of unsubstantiated beliefs even issued with the best intentions (doctors naturally do want to save their patients) because this condition only kills about 1% of all patients who have it, so the odds that a patient will recover are 99% regardless of what treatment was chosen, so when doctors say "I used it for my patient and it worked", in these non-controlled conditions we don't know if the patient would have recovered just as nicely without HCQ, too. As a matter of fact it is 99% probable that the patient would have recovered anyway, without the drug.

So how do you respond to this, and how do we avoid this bias (even though it comes out of a good heart)? By running randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, randomly assigning pairs of similar patients to two groups, and giving the medication to one group, and a dummy pill that looks exactly like it, to the other group, without the research team or the patients knowing which person is getting the active pill and which patient is getting the dummy placebo pill. Then we collect the outcome results, and then we open up the envelopes to see who is who.

Well, when this was done for HCQ, in all phases of the illness - for prophylaxis, for asymptomatic cases, for mild cases, for severe cases, and for critical cases, HCQ simply did not differentiate from placebo. In other words, did not work. So, the idea that it works was a feeling and an unsubstantiated opinion, because in reality it doesn't. Also, it was observed that unlike for patients with lupus, RA, and malaria, which are the traditional indications for HCQ, for COVID-19 patients HCQ was less than safe, given that unlike the patients with the other conditions, patients with COVID-19 often get heart inflammation from the virus, and HCQ's property of altering a conduction interval in the heart called QTc, resulted in more cardiac toxicity for COVID-19 patients than for lupus, RA, or malaria patients.

And no, neither the FDA nor the researchers who ran the randomized controlled trials are out to get politicians (despite the fact that there were two fraudulent papers sponsored by a rogue group called Surgisphere - but this doesn't mean that all other studies are also fake and tainted; and the fraudulent Surgisphere papers weren't RCTs). They are simply trying to find effective treatments. We'd all be delighted if HCQ worked for COVID-19, regardless of politics. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, and causes a lot of cardiac toxicity for some COVID-19 patients (not all).

This led the FDA here, and the FDA-equivalent in various other countries, last I checked Italy, France, and Belgium, probably more by now, to issue recommendations that HCQ is neither effective nor safe to treat or prevent COVID-19. End of the story. Respectfully, the rest is politics.

Sorry for the long post; one of my shortcomings is being too verbose.

Cheers and have a nice day.