Listing of trolls from forum and monitoring of sanctions

[Janic]

simpleton

I remain in your virtual list of "funny", it suits me perfectly.

sad rather than funny clown, which suits you perfectly as you say!

[sicetaitsimple]

Ah, he did his usual little morning spit, that's good.

[Janic]

11/10/22, 11:49
simpleton

Ah, he did his usual little morning spit, that's good.

what do you want, I copy on you... even if it is not the good model!

[izentrop]

Ps: Regarding the supposed "zetetic turn". I never fired, I have always been, I always said,

Do you hear that Janic? It's not beautiful, he says it himself, no wonder the "zététit'funny" like him...

I fully assume

You're good enough for some things like the war in Ukraine, but for peer-reviewed, double-blind scientific studies with incontrovertible conclusions, the cult of the leader is still superior to you.

A glaring example is the "immortal time bias" (severe cases knowingly removed from the treated groups and not from the control groups to skew the results) of the studies on HCQ and on ivermectin, all because one should above all not not touch the "great teacher" of the creeks.

[Obamot]

It deserves approval, not on the content but on the principle! Either one is a zetetician or one is not.

I point out to you that in terms of "hiding the dead under the carpet", the professor had answered it and to this day he has never been condemned for it (except reprimands but for insignificant things) - despite a vice very close to those who wanted his downfall, I deduce that what you advance, or what his detractors advanced was NOT relevant, he knew what to answer as a great scientist (even if the character can annoy ) — but anyway, let's be honest, it's a method that was also used when testing mRNA maxchins (there you don't say anything despite pharmacovigilance, why? It's up to you too to be consistent, if you did, s would be the end of the doubts that hover over each of your posts: it would not be very difficult), and also by Gilead or even the DREES.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Do you hear that Janic? It's not beautiful, he says it himself, no wonder the "zététit'funny" like him...

I fully assume

You're good enough for some things like the war in Ukraine, but for peer-reviewed, double-blind scientific studies with incontrovertible conclusions, the cult of the leader is still superior to you.

A glaring example is the "immortal time bias" (severe cases knowingly removed from the treated groups and not from the control groups to skew the results) of the studies on HCQ and on ivermectin, all because one should above all not not touch the "great teacher" of the creeks.

Oh crush a little, will you... it's already been debunked, the myth of randomized double-blind studies. Unfortunately you come back to the charge again like a moron:

Authors' conclusions

Our results for all reviews (combined MMR of 1,08) are very similar to the results reported by reviews conducted in a similar manner. Therefore, we got similar conclusions; on average, there is very little evidence indicating significant differences in the estimate of effect between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion studies of pharmacological interventions. Factors other than the study design itself should be considered when exploring the reasons for disagreement between the results of RCTs and observational studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but also level of heterogeneity in meta-analyzes of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence the effects of studies could lead to representative estimates of actual effectiveness.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/do ... iesEnabled

[Janic]

like a moron:

why AS only?

[Remundo]

should you write TEL?

but rather... like a zealous communicator?

[izentrop]

I fully assume

You're good enough for some things like the war in Ukraine, but for peer-reviewed, double-blind scientific studies with incontrovertible conclusions, the cult of the leader is still superior to you.

A glaring example is the "immortal time bias" (severe cases knowingly removed from the treated groups and not from the control groups to skew the results) of the studies on HCQ and on ivermectin, all because one should above all not not touch the "great teacher" of the creeks.

Oh crush a little, will you... it's already been debunked, the myth of randomized double-blind studies.

What are you causing?

I was telling you about that https://pharmacomedicale.org/biais-3-biais-de-confusion
I also know that you don't like this researcher who nevertheless demonstrates the same fraud:


There too https://www.20minutes.fr/sante/4002616- ... -explosive

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Thibeau Fiolet, the cocksucker... yes, Huey, Dewey and Louie do "science". Turds, yes!