47) AEIR jumps on their own dick with cleats, again
a) they understate the actual COVID CFR by a factor of 1500% (which is what happens when you shoot your mouth off six months into a three-year pandemic)
b) their sources for masking info are YouTube videos. No, really.
c) They claim that wearing a mask for one minute is toxic and incapacitating, despite literally millions of surgeons and OR staff over a literal century to prove exactly the contrary
They make a few good points on policy, and if they'd only confine their bloviation to their forte of economic, legal, and philosophical arguments, they wouldn't sound like jackasses out of their depth every time they try and make medical pronouncements.
What they either know, or can prove, about the utility of masks could be written inside a thimble with a Sharpie, and their papers haven't aged well, unless they were printed on 4"x4" squares of perforated tissue.
Open Letter's informative value in this discussion: nil.
48) Yet ANOTHER survey of other people's surveys, trying to extrapolate apples to oranges
Do original research, or go back to class, kids. This is like reading the newspaper and calling it "medical research". Just because you found 5, 10, or 200 people who failed to prove something, you don't get to take a vote, and elevate them to being Oracles of Truth. Maybe (usually) they're just lackwit fuckups who publish to justify a rent check.
As in 90+% of all research, especially medical.
The fact that they had to dig through 804 studies to find 6 they could call "qualified" should be a major cluebat up against the back of their pointy heads.
49) Oz article in the Sydney Morning Herald from 20 years ago
Srsly? Why not quote the NYTimes, FFS? Or The Daily Show? Or The Onion? GTFO of here with that horseshit.
50) Federalist article based on ONE STUDY, showing that face masks don't protect the wearer
Here's Your Sign:
No thought given to likelihood of transmission outside of school. Or from family. Or out and about away from school. This is like basing the effectiveness of seatbelts on a survey of "highway deaths" that includes fatalities of motorcyclists, pedestrians in crosswalks, and people on busses who died of heart attacks.
See if you can guess why something so patently retarded can't get peer review.
Applicability to mask effectiveness: nil.
Well, butter my ass and call me a biscuit! A total of 51 studies examined.
Total that shed any light on "Nurse Claire's" central thesis:
ZERO.
Thus not only fulfilling our exact expectations from before we started, but indeed, far surpassing them, with study conclusions that directly contradicted "Nurse Claire's" hare-brained prounouncements about masks, and in a highlight, one of which was already revoked and disavowed years before she linked to it.
Total test score awarded, based on accumulated points for this examination:
ZERO.
Total number of these links she's probably ever actually read in her life:
ZERO.
Total IQ it takes to point to things you've never read, when some of them flat-out contradict what you're claiming is so:
ZERO.
Nurse Claire Brings The Receipts
We tell you again, if you're going to listen to things on the Internet, either find trustworthy sources, or do your own damned homework.
When somebody spams out 51 links to total bullshit and hyperbole, and calls it "evidence", grab your wallet, and hold onto your ass, because one or the other, if not both, is directly at risk.
If Nurse Claire is actually any sort of nurse, she should get back to the veterinary clinic in haste, before the puppies miss her, or else return to her actual school of human nursing, and punch all her instructors in the dick and/or throat, and refuse to leave until she secures a full refund of all tuition paid.
Or just come clean, and admit profound retardation, to end this farce.
We spent our own time to dig through this enormous pile of shit purely for the satisfaction of telling you the truth, so you don't have to. You're welcome.
But we gave you the links and the quotes to enable you to see for yourself both the accuracy and validity of our complaints against the misapplication and propagation of this kind of bullshit as if it were useful information.
And in a conclusion altogether sweet and fitting:
3 comments:
Nurse Cuckoo's main claim to internet fame is being part of a hyper partisan faction of Catholicism that seems to be centered around a writer and blogger known among the right wing section of the fever swamps. CA links to her fairly often, but since I don't want to restart the 30 Years War, I'm not going to name the main writer.
Among the atheists that I associate with online(under another handle), this faction is the most amusing and least intelligent, something that takes some doing these days. When I get bored with the Warhammer 40K forums and the endless discussions about the latest outbreak of Heresy or Ork incursion into the Galactic Empire, I go to the main writer's site and see what drivel has leaked out of her nether regions. Nurse Cuckoo is often cited there, though I haven't seen her on the main screwball's site recently.
I really should get a Gab account and have some fun, but I am finding that I'm busier than ever now that I'm retired The Plague Nun doesn't want me trying to compete with some of the "gentler" souls, such as Silverdeth, White Rabbit, and Goodchild...
The Bug Eyes should be a warning to circumspect folks. ;)
This whole exercise was one of differentiating Confirmation Bias Fever Dreams from actual useful information.
I don't even want Nurse Claire treating puppies. S/he's probably not competent enough for that.
~Rhea
Post a Comment