• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Let's take a moment to thank Pfizer, Moderna & the academic Elites at WFU: forcing mRNA into young athletes veins "It could have been so much worse"

If you’re going to link your sources get them right it’s conservapedia.com and they definitely have a section on ivermectin linking to other hard hitting sites as sources such as mustreadalaska and covid19criticalcare
 
PhDeac said:
80, why do you seem to think he's the only person who knows how to do "scientific studies"? The people who debunk his work do scientific studies too.
Click to expand...
Please post some links of McCollough's COVID research that's been debunked. He has lots of treatments and success rates. None are near 100%. But there are corolations between onset, age, other heath factors. To totally reject them for tx is what he's fighting against, because he's found certain off-label drug combinations and treatments do work for many.
 
80deacon said:
Please post some links of McCollough's COVID research that's been debunked. He has lots of treatments and success rates. None are near 100%. But there are corolations between onset, age, other heath factors. To totally reject them for tx is what he's fighting against, because he's found certain off-label drug combinations and treatments do work for many.
Click to expand...
You do understand that with things like science the person making the claim, in this case it's you, needs to provide the evidence to support the claim? Asking someone to prove you wrong isn't a supporting argument to your claim.

With this established, please post McCullough's published, peer reviewed research.
 
Last edited:
And just to level set, Loose Change-esque youtube videos don't count
 
I find this thread particularly interesting as I just finished taking some tests for grad school on epidemiology, risk assessment, policy and public awareness. It seems the professor and text book might not be full of shit after all.
 
a quick “Peter McCullough quack” google search is quite humorous. And, again, is not even the tip of the iceberg. He’s a serious idiot. Not just an awful doctor. He is mentally ill. But sure - give him a microphone, let him take the millions he stole from patients and Baylor and fund “research” into proven science to which he has less than zero understanding - let him voice a completely unhinged belief you already have, and allow him to be your voice. That’ll work. That’ll be legitimized. Get a grip
 
You’ve gotta respect a doctor who comes up with his own homemade remedies and tries to patent them. He can call it something like “Dr Mac’s Miracle Wax” and sell it from an old van. Or on infowars
 
80deac, why do you believe this one guy over the hundreds of other doctors who disagree with him? The deep state can’t have gotten to EVERYONE
 
People look to find support whatever position that they want to take. David McCullough would be anonymous if he didn't take a position that a segment of the public desperately wants to believe. So, he told that segment what they want to hear about COVID remedies, and he is faux-famous now. Many people will do literally anything to for fame and notoriety.

That has been and will always be the position of carnival barkers and frauds. Don't worry about the truth, give the people what they want to hear. Incredibly, that gameplan resulted in the greatest fraud in the history of U.S. politics becoming our 45th President. Just tell the people what they want to hear; we'll work out the rest later.
 
tell the people what they want to hear, then move the ball on them later and tell them that you told them something different and that they thought it was great
 
Frosty said:
You do understand that with things like science the person making the claim, in this case it's you, needs to provide the evidence to support the claim? Asking someone to prove you wrong isn't a supporting argument to your claim.

With this established, please post McCullough's published, peer reviewed research.
Click to expand...
Sorry this took awhile. And this is roughly 10%
Frosty said:
You do understand that with things like science the person making the claim, in this case it's you, needs to provide the evidence to support the claim? Asking someone to prove you wrong isn't a supporting argument to your claim.

With this established, please post McCullough's published, peer reviewed research.
Click to expand...
Hundreds of articles. Simply type in Peter A McCullough's research works | Baylor Hamilton Heart in Google Search. Normally you have to login as a member, but this gateway will get you to the link.
 

Attachments

  • 1670598696565.png
    1670598696565.png
    70 bytes · Views: 43
  • 1670598696601.png
    1670598696601.png
    70 bytes · Views: 44
  • 1670598696637.png
    1670598696637.png
    70 bytes · Views: 35
  • 1670598696673.png
    1670598696673.png
    70 bytes · Views: 31
  • 1670598696709.png
    1670598696709.png
    70 bytes · Views: 30
  • 1670598696746.png
    1670598696746.png
    70 bytes · Views: 29
  • 1670598696782.png
    1670598696782.png
    70 bytes · Views: 27
  • 1670598696817.png
    1670598696817.png
    70 bytes · Views: 25
  • 1670598696856.png
    1670598696856.png
    70 bytes · Views: 26
  • 1670598696895.png
    1670598696895.png
    70 bytes · Views: 42
That. Is. Tremendous. Screenshots that don't work?

also, that link has a lot of articles and can't tell what any of them say.
 
The major point is quacks don't get 888 research articles peer reviewed and published.

Once downloaded in their entirety, any of these articles can be read by MDs or medical researchers who can interpret what the studies find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top