placeholder

What you failed to note is that this is a retrospective study. So not so reliable. In addition it also found significant benefits in just taking hydrochloroquine. Oxford University launched a massive clinical study of the possible benefits of hydrochloroquine in treating covid-19. They called the study off halfway through because they couldn't ethically justify continuing it since no benefit in using it treat covid-19. A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. ‘These data convincingly rule out any meaningful mortality benefit of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Full results will be made available as soon as possible. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-05-no-clinical-benefit-use-hydroxychloroquine-hospitalised-patients-covid-19 And as a preventative medication, it's a bust. https://www.science.org/content/article/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

Actually, there an entire dimension to this issue that I don't think has been addressed here. The conservative Supreme Court has ruled that the only gun control legislation that is legitimate would have to find some counterpart in laws that existed before the 2nd Amendment was ratified. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/28/bruen-supreme-court-rahimi-00108285 So, were there laws that prohibited the mentally ill from possessing firearms back then? Or against people making threats? There is renewed interest in this as a case is now making its way through the courts re a law that forbids such possession by those under domestic violence restraining orders. For that matter, do laws that forbid felons from having firearms find any precedent in 18th century law? What about background checks? Or age limitations? Will the supreme court overturn those laws as well if they have no appropriate historical precedent?

Making things up again?

This is from a dubious piece of research from someone at the Heritage Foundation. Other economists have pointed out that this researcher has concocted a worst case scenario. McCarthy says Biden has cost families $7,400, but it depends on your math https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/18/mccarthy-says-biden-has-cost-families-7400-it-depends-your-math/ One of the ways this dubious researcher came up with this figure is by computing what happened to average wages. The thing is, a disproportionate number of lower wage service workers had lost their jobs during the pandemic, so when they rejoined the workforce that tended to drag down the average wage. There's other stuff in the article, too, that shows how he manipulated the data. The figure other economists who use more widely accepted data is that the average family lost about $108,

This material is almost as strongly magnetic as magnets made with rare earth elements. If this is successful, that would drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the use of rare earth magnets in EVs, wind turbines, and lots of other applications.

Scientific breakthrough with mysterious cosmic metal could solve major crisis on Earth: ‘There’s been an urgent search’ Rick Kazmer Sun, October 29, 2023 at 5:15 PM GMT+7·2 min read Cambridge researchers are working to recreate an outer space magnet on Earth If successful, the work could give the West renewable tech independence from China, while also securing a more planet-friendly material to help power electric vehicles and other tech. The researchers call tetrataenite a “cosmic magnet” that could revolutionize how we power cleaner technology. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientific-breakthrough-mysterious-cosmic-metal-190000695.html

There's a huge problem with this statistic. It measures deaths, not the severity of the storms. The fact is that as communications have become better and hurricane forecasts improve as well, it's possible for people to get out of the way of hurricanes much more effectively than they have in the past. https://www.iweathernet.com/tropical/lives-saved-by-hurricane-forecasting-advancements

Actually, he doesn't seem to understand that Trump's legal team did their best to delay the investigations. Even though this has been pointed out to him repeatedly. Maybe one of the consequences of having an overexcitable trigger finger on the IGNORE button.

Well, he believes that failing to make a payment on a loan per se constitutes lying.

You sure you doh't mean "the farce"?

The first case would show he was clueless, but not a liar. As for the rest, in the legal system, alleging belief isn't enough. It has to be believable. Exaggerating the size of your apartment by almost 3 times or claiming property could be developed when development rights had been signed away, and claiming these were sincerely held beliefs, is, well, not believable. As the judge has already ruled.

How clueless can a comment be? Lying is about intent. If you sign for a loan and x number of years later, you can't make a payment, that has nothing to do with lying unless you intended all those years ago not to make a payment for that installment. Here is the definition of lie "an intentionally false statement." https://www.google.com/search?q=lie&sca_esv=577798594&sxsrf=AM9HkKmFDf8gY6NLm2zb8PFF729l_4dicw%3A1698668004599&ei=5J0_Ze6eJP3E4-EPqq-6kAc&ved=0ahUKEwjuoIW4352CAxV94jgGHaqXDnIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=lie&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiA2xpZTIKEAAYigUYsQMYQzIHEAAYigUYQzIHEAAYigUYQzIHEC4YigUYQzIHEAAYigUYQzIHEAAYigUYQzIHEAAYigUYQzIJEAAYigUYChhDMgcQABiKBRhDMgcQLhiKBRhDSKooULkHWKsRcAF4AZABAJgBgAGgAdcCqgEDMC4zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICChAAGIoFGLADGEPCAg4QABjkAhjWBBiwA9gBAcICEBAuGIoFGMgDGLADGEPYAQLCAgcQIxiKBRgnwgINEC4YigUYxwEY0QMYQ8ICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIKEC4YgAQYFBiHAsICBRAuGIAEwgIEECMYJ-IDBBgAIEGIBgGQBhO6BgYIARABGAm6BgYIAhABGAg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

No they haven't. Did you actually read the quote you cited in another of your posts? Here it is again: Do the words "business associates" mean anything to you?

Maybe Yellowtail is a time traveler and assumes everyone else is too?

Just to clarify something in your quote of me. I should have written "Archer said that Hunter Biden'told him his father called him daily."

It was Donald Rumsfeld who said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're taking it one state further and claiming that absence of evidence is evidence. Your understanding of what is and what isn't evidence is worthy of the King in Alice in Wonderland: "Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen. `No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, `and that's the queerest thing about it.'... `He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-XII.html

There was money flowing from companies that were located in Ukraine and China. No evidence that the money came from the governments of these countries. Did Hunter Biden meet with Chinese or Ukrainian officials on these flights? I've seen no evidence of that.

Once again, you betray your actual lack of knowledge of what Devon Archer said. Over the space of about 10 years, Hunter Biden received 20 calls from his father at these dinners/meetings. Only pleasantries were exchanged. Absolutely no business matters were discussed. What's more, Archer said that his father called him daily. So, if over the space of 10 years, Hunter Biden received only 20 phone calls at these business dinners/meetings out of the thousands he received from his father, how does that constitute proof that these phone calls were arranged in advance?

And acquaintance with the facts would tell you that Devon Archer in his testimony to the Congressional committee repeatedly told them that Hunter Biden explicitly said he had no pull with his father but misled clients to believe that he did. That may be sleazy. Who knows, it may even be a crime in those countries. But it does not incriminate Joe Biden.

It figures he'd be pilloried by them for one of his few truthful public utterances.

And how did the economy do during Trump's last year in office?

You might want to look again at the topic of this thread.

Apparently, according to Mike johnson, dinosaurs and people live together at the same time. At least that's what the Ark Encounter shows. And why not? After all according to these people, the Earth is only 6,000 years old. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that Johnson also believes the burning of fossil fuels is not connected to climate change.

Anyone who contends that "Alll's well that ends well" when it comes to fraud and banking, has never worked for a bank a day in their life.

Well, you had earlier claimed that Palestinians had voted in Hamas in Gaza when actually it was a coalition of Hamas and the PA that formed the government. I believe Hamas got 44% and the PA got 41%. So that was false, and not insignificantly.Is my calling you out on that an example of my "nitpicking"? But in your latest post you claimed among other things "There is no wall-to-wall support among Palestinians for a two-state solution - regardless of your 'definitely'. And that's referencing the general public. Considering Hamas is not really into this, and that it's support base is significant, that would make your assertion out of touch with reality." According to this poll, support for Hamas in Gaza was at 24% were an election to be held. I guess you can call that significant if you like. I would call it pitiful. And support for the eradication of Israel was at 20% among Gazans, and as is to be expected that was concentrated among Hamas supporters. There's a lot more data in there that's basically unfavorable to Hamas. You might want to actually read about the report instead of indulging in a Pavlovian reaction.