Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Still lying.

When did I say it was not peer reviewed?

If I did then I will redact that comment as I don't know if it was peer reviewed as a review article or not.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
I'm confused now?

If.tou have clearly.proved us all wrong and won the debate as you claim then why are you continuing to post?

Surely there is nothing left to.say on the matter and anymore involvement in this thread would just be a waste of your time?

You've told us that you won and that's that.

Thanks for setting me straight. If you see me making any more errors of judgment round here please do me a favour and let me know before I make too much of a tit of myself in public.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

I reply to your replies.

Still I need to see some good evidence on the claims made by your side. There is nothing though.

Yes the paper is peer reviewed, contrary to the claims made and despite the fact that you guys don't read any papers.

Yes it is 'proper' research, contrary to the claims made.

Yes, Dr Malhotra isn't biased contrary to the personal unsubstantiated opinions.

If any of you have doubts and valid claims then make a rebuttal and ask the journal to retract the paper. But you need more than personal opinions which don't fit your ideology. A good analysis and evaluation of the data will do.

originally posted by: nonspecific
When did I say it was not peer reviewed?

If I did then I will redact that comment as I don't know if it was peer reviewed as a review article or not.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
I'm confused now?

If.tou have clearly.proved us all wrong and won the debate as you claim then why are you continuing to post?

Surely there is nothing left to.say on the matter and anymore involvement in this thread would just be a waste of your time?

You've told us that you won and that's that.

Thanks for setting me straight. If you see me making any more errors of judgment round here please do me a favour and let me know before I make too much of a tit of myself in public.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

I reply to your replies.

Still I need to see some good evidence on the claims made by your side. There is nothing though.

Yes the paper is peer reviewed, contrary to the claims made and despite the fact that you guys don't read any papers.

Yes it is 'proper' research, contrary to the claims made.

Yes, Dr Malhotra isn't biased contrary to the personal unsubstantiated opinions.

If any of you have doubts and valid claims then make a rebuttal and ask the journal to retract the paper. But you need more than personal opinions which don't fit your ideology. A good analysis and evaluation of the data will do.

I was talking for the poster above who made a range a claims and I was referencing these claims to you so you can have a look in who has lost and won the arguments.

The last 4-5 pages just show how desperate these arguments have become and constantly unstated and upgraded... Without realising there is already a record of...15 pages...

Why would you reply to me with an accusation of what another member said?

Where did they say it was not peer reviewed?

I'll be honest your debating style leaves a little to be desired and needs some work for there to be less confusion.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nonspecific
I'm confused now?

If.tou have clearly.proved us all wrong and won the debate as you claim then why are you continuing to post?

Surely there is nothing left to.say on the matter and anymore involvement in this thread would just be a waste of your time?

You've told us that you won and that's that.

Thanks for setting me straight. If you see me making any more errors of judgment round here please do me a favour and let me know before I make too much of a tit of myself in public.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

And clearly as its peer reviewed it can't be disputed so all other scientists agree.

Would have thought I would have heard more about that somehow.

You can write your rebuttal if you want.

It has to be based on evidence by the way and evaluation of real world data.

Personal opinions and vaccine ideology are not valid. But on the other hand to publish you need to be a scientist such as Dr Malhotra.

You can still disagree with what he has said but that's part of life. I know it contradicts your views and your beliefs but that's not the only paper out you will disagree with.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Why would you reply to me with an accusation of what another member said?

Where did they say it was not peer reviewed?

I'll be honest your debating style leaves a little to be desired and needs some work for there to be less confusion.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

Some pages ago. He has made a range of arguments though. That's not the only one. He hasn't challenged it by the way. You can see out conversations.

I replied because you asked me how does the side you support lost the debate. Exactly like this! When some of you making a range of unsubstantiated claims and arguments.

Did you say debating? I am just refuting the false claims today. It's not that difficult.

That's what happens when someone is invested in an ideology or belief and then when confronted with data and evidence/facts they can't cope with it. They start expanding the arguments making one unsubstantiated claim after the other without realising there is a history in this thread of several pages.

So the basis:

Paper is peer reviewed
Data and evaluation stand
Dr Malhotra isn't biased or a conspiracy theorist
The study is a ....'proper' one.
The peer reviewed process isn't rigged (that hasn't been claimed but it's the next stage,)

It seems you have failed to understand some of the basics of how these thing work.

Firstly there are no "sides" as you seem to think its a diverse group of strangers with widely varying opinions and backgrounds discussing the topics in hand.

Secondly you can't really just decide you have "won" the argument as its not something that has any definitive to win and even if it was that's really not your decision to make and doing so makes you look both immature and really rather foolish.

And thirdly you can't expect to keep making accusations that ca clearly be refuted by simply re reading what has been said and not look like a fool.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
Why would you reply to me with an accusation of what another member said?

Where did they say it was not peer reviewed?

I'll be honest your debating style leaves a little to be desired and needs some work for there to be less confusion.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

Some pages ago. He has made a range of arguments though. That's not the only one. He hasn't challenged it by the way. You can see out conversations.

I replied because you asked me how does the side you support lost the debate. Exactly like this! When some of you making a range of unsubstantiated claims and arguments.

Did you say debating? I am just refuting the false claims today. It's not that difficult.

And still lying.

Your commitment to dishonesty is quite impressive.

originally posted by: nonspecific
It seems you have failed to understand some of the basics of how these thing work.

Firstly there are no "sides" as you seem to think its a diverse group of strangers with widely varying opinions and backgrounds discussing the topics in hand.

Secondly you can't really just decide you have "won" the argument as its not something that has any definitive to win and even if it was that's really not your decision to make and doing so makes you look both immature and really rather foolish.

And thirdly you can't expect to keep making accusations that ca clearly be refuted by simply re reading what has been said and not look like a fool.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am not making any accusations.
The statements that I have included in my replies have been made by other users, were false, and were easily refuted. Hence those who made them repeatedly lost the arguments.

I don't have to do much when someone says that the paper by Dr Malhotra isn't peer reviewed when it has been submitted in June and been published in September after going through peer review.

insulinresistance.org...

Or that his paper isn't 'proper' research. That's hilarious. What is proper research??? And how scientific and medical journals are publishing this non 'proper' research? These are desperate arguments by the way.

Or that Dr Malhotra is biased. How do you conclude this??

I can see and it's very visible to me a side where they promote their usual vaccine ideology. I.e trying to blend politics with science and medicine.

I didn't have to do much to refute the claims made above. These claims are self defeating and show lack of understanding of the basics in research and science.

Anyone who has valid arguments can write to the journal and ask them to retract it.

I think it's hilarious that you still consider who has won and who has lost the argument. Unless you missed 16 pages... I am not the one who has claimed that Dr Malhotra is biased, or that the publication isn't peer reviewed, or that the quality of his work isn't great as it doesn't fit my narrative (haha) or that this isn't 'proper' research.

So let's put it simply:

The unsubstantiated claims and arguments have been refuted, taken apart and dismantled.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
Why would you reply to me with an accusation of what another member said?

Where did they say it was not peer reviewed?

I'll be honest your debating style leaves a little to be desired and needs some work for there to be less confusion.


a reply to: Asmodeus3

Some pages ago. He has made a range of arguments though. That's not the only one. He hasn't challenged it by the way. You can see out conversations.

I replied because you asked me how does the side you support lost the debate. Exactly like this! When some of you making a range of unsubstantiated claims and arguments.

Did you say debating? I am just refuting the false claims today. It's not that difficult.

And still lying.

Your commitment to dishonesty is quite impressive.

Here is your statement (page 11)

"Thank you for finally linking.

It's a narrative review. Not original research or even a systemic review.

It is his opinion. Not a peer reviewed study."


Not at all. It's a peer reviewed study and published in the journal of insulin resistance.

Not at all, It isn't his personal opinion as he is a scientist not a pedestrian, who has produced a peer reviewed scientific publication that has passed the checkpoints according to other scientists who have assessed his work.

I can't just keep refuting your arguments. I have made it several times. You have been asking me again and again and I have kept refuting your arguments.

Unless you deny reality.

This isn't the first time I have refuted the same argument.

Your ideology isn't served by these papers that's why you are making these desperate arguments.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your claim was I said he hadn't published.

Now you are lying about what you lied about.

Bravo. I salure your dedication to falsehoods.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your claim was I said he hadn't published.

Now you are lying about what you lied about.

Bravo. I salure your dedication to falsehoods.

I was actually replying to the other false claim you made i.e that his publication isn't peer reviewed. It's also a reply so the other user could see where you made this claim as he has asked me.

You can't really save the day I am afraid.
Take a look at the claims you made.

In case you don't want the conversation to evolve this way then you shouldn't be making so many unsubstantiated arguments and claims.
You don't have anything to add to the conversation other then accusations, strawman, and even trying to doubt the quality of top scientists.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You made a specific claim I said something I didn't.

When asked where I said it, rather than admit what could have been a genuine mistake, you doubled down and continued to lie. Repeatedly.

Any credibility you may have had exited stage left at that point.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'd leave it mate I have, they are obviously a bit deluded and unlikely to let it go.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'd leave it mate I have, they are obviously a bit deluded and unlikely to let it go.

I have replied several times but here again part of the unsubstantiated claims made by the other user you replied to calling us 'deluded'

Page 11

"Thank you for finally linking.

It's a narrative review. Not original research or even a systemic review.

It is his opinion. Not a peer reviewed study"


Clearly not the case. Everything discussed in this reply by ScepticScot is false. Unless you denying reality and you don't trust your eyes.

I see that you are taking sides again supporting a user who has made a series of unsubstantiated claims and has been refuted several times.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You made a specific claim I said something I didn't.

When asked where I said it, rather than admit what could have been a genuine mistake, you doubled down and continued to lie. Repeatedly.

Any credibility you may have had exited stage left at that point.

You have made a series of unsubstantiated claims that have been refuted repeatedly. It's a little ironic to talk about credibility issues.

Here is one of your posts.
Everything you said is false unless you deny reality.


"Thank you for finally linking.

It's a narrative review. Not original research or even a systemic review.

It is his opinion. Not a peer reviewed study

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'd leave it mate I have, they are obviously a bit deluded and unlikely to let it go.

Yes but its kind of fun to watch how often he keeps lying rather than admit a fairly simple and pretty irrelevant mistake.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You made a specific claim I said something I didn't.

When asked where I said it, rather than admit what could have been a genuine mistake, you doubled down and continued to lie. Repeatedly.

Any credibility you may have had exited stage left at that point.

You have made a series of unsubstantiated claims that have been refuted repeatedly. It's a little ironic to talk about credibility issues.

Here is one of your posts.
Everything you said is false unless you deny reality.


"Thank you for finally linking.

It's a narrative review. Not original research or even a systemic review.

It is his opinion. Not a peer reviewed study

Happy to discuss as soon as you admit your mistake and apologise for repeatedly lying over multiple posts.

As I said above, I think you are deluded and unlikely to let go so I'll leave you to singing the praises of this doctor and his Review article in a fringe south African diabetes journal.

Get back to me when its an actual paper in some journals of note and being taken seriously by people outside of conspiracy forums.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'd leave it mate I have, they are obviously a bit deluded and unlikely to let it go.

I have replied several times but here again part of the unsubstantiated claims made by the other user you replied to calling us 'deluded'

Page 11

"Thank you for finally linking.

It's a narrative review. Not original research or even a systemic review.

It is his opinion. Not a peer reviewed study"


Clearly not the case. Everything discussed in this reply by ScepticScot is false. Unless you denying reality and you don't trust your eyes.

I see that you are taking sides again supporting a user who has made a series of unsubstantiated claims and has been refuted several times.