Has Dolores Cahill been debunked?

v638sg7k1a92bx

I’ve seen comments that she had been debunked but not the actual debunking. There is an article here https://healthfeedback.org/computing-forever-interview-with-dolores-cahill-contains-numerous-inaccuracies-about-covid-19-and-vaccines/ which refers to “inaccuracies” but doesn’t debunk what she is saying.

Shes obviously qualified and has been working in UCD as a professor for years without an issue or questions over her professional credibility.

It’s concerning that someone goes against the received message and is suddenly considered a conspiracy theorist

RandomViewer

Nah ,just not worth noticing, heard on radio few months ago, answers a different question to what she's asked, basically Trump devotee

Onesea

RandomViewer wrote: »

Nah ,just not worth noticing, heard on radio few months ago, answers a different question to what she's asked, basically Trump devotee

She hasn't been debunked has she?

v638sg7k1a92bx

RandomViewer wrote: »

Nah ,just not worth noticing, heard on radio few months ago, answers a different question to what she's asked, basically Trump devotee

Forget about Trump for a min. What about what she says about the virus?

Water John

Is this the; 'I'm a Professor' Dolores Cahill? 'I know more than anyone else'.

Onesea

Water John wrote: »

Is this the; 'I'm a Professor' Dolores Cahill? 'I know more than anyone else'.

Has she been debunked?

Water John

I know they're med students and thus longwinded, (it's 33 pages), but it qualifies as a debunking;
http://collegetribune.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Claims-made-by-Prof-Cahill.pdf

Onesea

Water John wrote: »

I know they're med students and thus longwinded, (it's 33 pages), but it qualifies as a debunking;
http://collegetribune.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Claims-made-by-Prof-Cahill.pdf

They are students, shouldn't her piers be debunking her.

Water John

They have, they've asked her to step down from the EU Committee she's on.

RandomViewer

Onesea wrote: »

She hasn't been debunked has she?

The shyte talk that was coming out of her on Highland Radio about 6 weeks ago was pure dribble, any scientific questions were answered with banal oddball studies from random places. Woman obviously has issues

Water John

Here's a GP debunking the myth about masks lowering you'r oxygen levels, one of her claims;
https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/irish-doctor-goes-viral-while-debunking-face-mask-myths-1012459.html

Thierry12

Water John wrote: »

Here's a GP debunking the myth about masks lowering you'r oxygen levels, one of her claims;
https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/irish-doctor-goes-viral-while-debunking-face-mask-myths-1012459.html

Depends on the mask surely?

sydthebeat

Thierry12 wrote: »

Depends on the mask surely?

yes, if you wear plastic bags on your head..... some of these gemmaroids are actually that stupid.

heres a doctor who wears a n95 mask with a surgical mask over, during 10 hours shifts, and still oxygen levels never drop below 98%

https://kmph.com/news/local/doctors-demonstrate-how-wearing-a-mask-does-not-impact-oxygen-levels

banie01

Onesea wrote: »

They are students, shouldn't her piers be debunking her.

Piers may well burn down, fall down and even be torn down, but I'm not sure how they'd debunk an argument.
Now Peers on the other hand...
Given that they have asked her to step aside from her chair of the IMI committee?
That the UCD school of medicine has disassociated itself from her statements.
That her claim of lifetime immunity and the prophylactic benefits of vitamins are not being championed by her peers, is surely indicative of where she lies on the crazy science - Nobel prize spectrum?
If there was any substance in her claim, she'd be the media darling of the Covid-hoax believers and nominated for a Nobel!

Economies worldwide are shutting down again, there have been multiple reports made to medical authorities of reinfection. There is a growing consensus that airborne transmission is likely long after aerosol events.

If Prof Cahill is right, allow her to present evidence?
A paper, that her peers can review or refute.
Expecting peer review for nonsense rambling during interviews?
That's not how peer review works.

She has made claims, claims that scientific consensus and even cursory reading around the topic would at least indicate those claims as a little exaggerated.
There has been no actual paper or evidence presented by the Prof, and as such their is nothing to debunk.

Anybody can make claims.
Good science is reliant upon making those claims based upon a reasonable evidential base.
Without that base, it doesn't matter what the ladies job title is.
As there is nothing at all of substance to actually rebutt.

v638sg7k1a92bx

banie01 wrote: »

Piers may well burn down, fall down and even be torn down, but I'm not sure how they'd debunk an argument.
Now Peers on the other hand...
Given that they have asked her to step aside from her chair of the IMI committee?
That the UCD school of medicine has disassociated itself from her statements.
That her claim of lifetime immunity and the prophylactic benefits of vitamins are not being championed by her peers, is surely indicative of where she lies on the crazy science - Nobel prize spectrum?
If there was any substance in her claim, she'd be the media darling of the Covid-hoax believers and nominated for a Nobel!

Economies worldwide are shutting down again, there have been multiple reports made to medical authorities of reinfection. There is a growing consensus that airborne transmission is likely long after aerosol events.

If Prof Cahill is right, allow her to present evidence?
A paper, that her peers can review or refute.
Expecting peer review for nonsense rambling during interviews?
That's not how peer review works.

She has made claims, claims that scientific consensus and even cursory reading around the topic would at least indicate those claims as a little exaggerated.
There has been no actual paper or evidence presented by the Prof, and as such their is nothing to debunk.

Anybody can make claims.
Good science is reliant upon making those claims based upon a reasonable evidential base.
Without that base, it doesn't matter what the ladies job title is.
As there is nothing at all of substance to actually rebutt.

If there is nothing to debunk then why is she being torn down?

What I'm trying to understand is that we have a UCD professor who has made some claims that appear to go against the received message and mus now be cancelled. Either her statements are true or they are false, accurate or inaccurate and if she is such a crazy person as people are making her out to be, how has this crazy person gone undetected in the scientific community for so long in a senior position in one of Ireland's leading universities???.
We're not talking about a nutritionist here, this is a legitimate scientist, a professor in UCD school of medicine with 20 years of research and a catalog of scientific papers behind her who is now all of a sudden considered a crazy person that knows less than keyboard immunologists on boards.ie?

So the question again is, where is this debunking and if so, how is it that someone with her experience and credentials has got this so wrong?

Arghus

Something tells me you haven't come here to be persuaded Tickers.

That above report that another poster linked is actually quite interesting. Some of her claims are so absolutely off the wall that they can't possibly be taken seriously : she's been pretty comprehensively debunked.

Some of her claims are ridiculous: it going away in The States after four weeks, it's been around the world and is now "gone", doctors don't get trained about the immune system... C'mon, these are wacky claims. There's loads more that are similarly just as batshyte.

If you can't see that, it looks like you aren't willing to see it.

Sure, she's a scientist, but she appears to have a political ideology underpinning all that she says and it's blinding her to the completely unscientific nature of what she is saying. It's actually quite sad.

banie01

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

If there is nothing to debunk then why is she being torn down?

What I'm trying to understand is that we have a UCD professor who has made some claims that appear to go against the received message and mus now be cancelled. Either her statements are true or they are false, accurate or inaccurate and if she is such a crazy person as people are making her out to be, how has this crazy person gone undetected in the scientific community for so long in a senior position in one of Ireland's leading universities???.
We're not talking about a nutritionist here, this is a legitimate scientist, a professor in UCD school of medicine with 20 years of research and a catalog of scientific papers behind her who is now all of a sudden considered a crazy person that knows less than keyboard immunologists on boards.ie?

So the question again is, where is this debunking and if so, how is it that someone with her experience and credentials has got this so wrong?

She is being torn down specifically because of the implied weight her position affords her opinion.
Many people with no scientific/research experience will look at her job title, look at the interview and assume there is at least a supporting paper and body of evidence.
There isn't, she has made a dangerous and unfounded claim.
Where is her actual evidence?

Every Institute she has worked at has distanced themselves from her comments.
There has been no expression of support, of solidarity or even basic understanding from any colleague or Institute that she has worked with.
Not one!

As I said in my earlier post, there is nothing to to be debunked in anything Prof Cahill has said.
If someone, anyone chooses to base their health decisions on the unsupported and unresearched claims by a solitary scientist.
That is their choice, rather than looking for people to be debunking her?
Logic would dictate that should she be right, she has a body of evidence that would rapidly lead to consensus support for her?
Where is that support?

She has made claims about transmission, virulence, Hydroxychloroquine, immune response, vaccination and antibody resistance all without evidence.

I can go on to JSTOR or multiple other academic research sites and pull papers all with evidenced research all making her claims look nonsensical.

Yet she can make her claim, have it be afforded a large degree of acceptance solely because of her prior experience and current job title.

Now as to why a failed election candidate may decide to nuke an otherwise very good academic research and lecturing career?
I wouldn't deign to make a claim as to why, or indeed how she has reached her conclusions without evidence.

I'd extend her the courtesy that she hasn't given the public.
I'd not make a baseless claim.
I'd ask where she has been the last 6 or so weeks however?
Quite telling that their is basically radio silence now?

Onesea

banie01 wrote: »

Piers may well burn down, fall down and even be torn down, but I'm not sure how they'd debunk an argument.
Now Peers on the other hand...
Given that they have asked her to step aside from her chair of the IMI committee?
That the UCD school of medicine has disassociated itself from her statements.
That her claim of lifetime immunity and the prophylactic benefits of vitamins are not being championed by her peers, is surely indicative of where she lies on the crazy science - Nobel prize spectrum?
If there was any substance in her claim, she'd be the media darling of the Covid-hoax believers and nominated for a Nobel!

Economies worldwide are shutting down again, there have been multiple reports made to medical authorities of reinfection. There is a growing consensus that airborne transmission is likely long after aerosol events.

If Prof Cahill is right, allow her to present evidence?
A paper, that her peers can review or refute.
Expecting peer review for nonsense rambling during interviews?
That's not how peer review works.

She has made claims, claims that scientific consensus and even cursory reading around the topic would at least indicate those claims as a little exaggerated.
There has been no actual paper or evidence presented by the Prof, and as such their is nothing to debunk.

Anybody can make claims.
Good science is reliant upon making those claims based upon a reasonable evidential base.
Without that base, it doesn't matter what the ladies job title is.
As there is nothing at all of substance to actually rebutt.

Still no debunking. Listen to what she says based on her experience in that field.The university will always distance themselves from controversy.
If what she says is so incorrect surly another medical science fellow could sit down and explain what she says and why it's just so wrong.
Idiots don't rise to the top as she has.Lets see what happens in two weeks from today regarding death tolls or the lack off hopefully.

KiKi III

Onesea wrote: »

Still no debunking.

She's been fact-checked numerous times and found wanting. Have you considered Googling it?

Here are a couple of examples:

https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=dolores-cahill-in-computing-forever-interview-claims-that-taking-vitamins-c-and-d-as-well-as-zinc-boosts-the-immune-system-against-covid-19-that-hydroxychloroquine-has-been-proven-effective-against-c

https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=dolores-cahill-claims-in-an-interview-on-thehighwire-that-there-is-already-a-preventive-strategy-and-treatment-for-covid-19-through-nutrition-vitamins-and-hydroxychloroquine-therefore-social-dista

Onesea

KiKi III wrote: »

She's been fact-checked numerous times and found wanting. Have you considered Googling it?

Here are a couple of examples:

https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=dolores-cahill-in-computing-forever-interview-claims-that-taking-vitamins-c-and-d-as-well-as-zinc-boosts-the-immune-system-against-covid-19-that-hydroxychloroquine-has-been-proven-effective-against-c

https://www.poynter.org/?ifcn_misinformation=dolores-cahill-claims-in-an-interview-on-thehighwire-that-there-is-already-a-preventive-strategy-and-treatment-for-covid-19-through-nutrition-vitamins-and-hydroxychloroquine-therefore-social-dista

Drivel.

A strong imune system will keep you fit and healthy.

These fact checking sites are circus material

banie01

Onesea wrote: »

Drivel.

A strong imune system will keep you fit and healthy.

These fact checking sites are circus material

But we don't believe you!
Shur you haven't even debunked those fact checking sites, nor indeed the medical students.
You have just shared an opinion.

How about a point by point rebuttal of the rebuttals you asked for?
With each point linked to your lit review and supporting articles

You are supporting baseless claims by Cahill, yet looking for evidenced rebuttal?
How about you provide the evidence for her claims?
Or better yet, rebut the rebuttals?

v638sg7k1a92bx

banie01 wrote: »

She is being torn down specifically because of the implied weight her position affords her opinion.
Many people with no scientific/research experience will look at her job title, look at the interview and assume there is at least a supporting paper and body of evidence.
There isn't, she has made a dangerous and unfounded claim.
Where is her actual evidence?

Every Institute she has worked at has distanced themselves from her comments.
There has been no expression of support, of solidarity or even basic understanding from any colleague or Institute that she has worked with.
Not one!

As I said in my earlier post, there is nothing to to be debunked in anything Prof Cahill has said.
If someone, anyone chooses to base their health decisions on the unsupported and unresearched claims by a solitary scientist.
That is their choice, rather than looking for people to be debunking her?
Logic would dictate that should she be right, she has a body of evidence that would rapidly lead to consensus support for her?
Where is that support?

She has made claims about transmission, virulence, Hydroxychloroquine, immune response, vaccination and antibody resistance all without evidence.

I can go on to JSTOR or multiple other academic research sites and pull papers all with evidenced research all making her claims look nonsensical.

Yet she can make her claim, have it be afforded a large degree of acceptance solely because of her prior experience and current job title.

Now as to why a failed election candidate may decide to nuke an otherwise very good academic research and lecturing career?
I wouldn't deign to make a claim as to why, or indeed how she has reached her conclusions without evidence.

I'll extend her the courtesy that she hasn't given the public.
I'll not make a baseless claim.
I'd ask where she has been the last 6 or so weeks however?
Quite telling that there is basically radio silence now?

Again, that still doesn't answer anything. What is so baseless about what she has said? Is she just making up these claims, is she giving her opinion or a making statement of fact. If she has made a statement of fact then it should be easy to contradict and yet nobody has done it. UCD has "distanced" themselves from her claims but they haven't specifically contradicted her from what I can see, it was a fairly wishy washy statement probably because they were being badgered by newspapers for a statement.

Whole thing seems utterly bizarre. Well respected professor one minute, nut job the next.

banie01

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

Again, that still doesn't answer anything. What is so baseless about what she has said? Is she just making up these claims, is she giving her opinion or a making statement of fact. If she has made a statement of fact then it should be easy to contradict and yet nobody has done it. UCD has "distanced" themselves from her claims but they haven't specifically contradicted her from what I can see, it was a fairly wishy washy statement probably because they were being badgered by newspapers for a statement.

Whole thing seems utterly bizarre. Well respected professor one minute, nut job the next.

That you need to have baseless explained to you?
Is quite illustrating of the level of critical thinking you are applying here.

She has made claims, without presenting any evidence to support her claims.
Academic and scientific hypothesis are based on evidence. If you make a claim without such evidence?
It is quite self evidently, baseless.

All evidence and academic consensus is at odds with her claims.
How about this.

Let's apply the academic method here?
How about you present evidence in support of her claims?
How about you provide the basis?
Then I'll retract my belief that her claims are baseless.

endacl

banie01 wrote: »

Academic and scientific hypothesis are based on evidence. If you make a claim without such evidence?
It is quite self evidently, baseless.

.

I think this is the first time I’ve disagreed with you on here, and I may be splitting hairs, but I must offer in contradiction possible the most famous hypothesis, General Relativity, first proposed in 1915 but not proven by evidence until over a century later in 2018.

https://www.space.com/40958-einstein-general-relativity-test-distant-galaxy.html

I’d happily be bunked.

runawaybishop

Onesea wrote: »

Still no debunking. Listen to what she says based on her experience in that field.The university will always distance themselves from controversy.
If what she says is so incorrect surly another medical science fellow could sit down and explain what she says and why it's just so wrong.
Idiots don't rise to the top as she has.Lets see what happens in two weeks from today regarding death tolls or the lack off hopefully.

Getting fired from every committee you are on and every person you worked with saying you are mental is a pretty good debunking.

Nothing she claims is fact or evidence based.

banie01

endacl wrote: »

I think this is the first time I’ve disagreed with you on here, and I may be splitting hairs, but I must offer in contradiction possible the most famous hypothesis, General Relativity, first proposed in 1915 but not proven by evidence until over a century later in 2018.

https://www.space.com/40958-einstein-general-relativity-test-distant-galaxy.html

I’d happily be bunked.

Ah! A fair enough point at 1st glance.
But!
Einstein actually published and subjected his theory to peer review.
What was presented as far more than just the famous equation.
Theoretical physics and it's related experiments are I'll grant a grey area in so far as evidence.

However the presentation and adoption of Einstein's paper were the basis for a slew of mathematical and physics advancements.
Einstein presented his theory, supported by his maths.
This allowed other advancement on the basis of inferring Einstein's sums are correct.
The physical confirmation of it a hundred years later was physical confirmation of a known.
It's IMO a resounding affirmation for the academic method.

Because even though the maths and inferences of other calculations showed Einstein was right.
It wasn't until 100yrs later it was proven, people still sought to prove the hypothesis.

Applying that logic to biology would mean however that we would never have moved on from the 4 humours theory.
Galen and Hippocrates were right, and only the move to the scientific method knocked those notions on the head after 2000yrs.

If there is no observable or corroborative evidence, the theory isnt worthy of being called a theory IMO.
It's a spitballed word cloud, a notion, a ghost of an idea.

That a scientist of any repute would publicly posit such a dangerous pile of guff as Cahill has!
Without a paper to support her stance, and without any corroboration is not science, it's an opinion, an unsubstantiated story that only has weight in media and public because of her Job title.

If she publishes anything in support of it, I'll be happy to read it as will many far more qualified.
If she's right?
She has saved the world, the economy and there's no need for any new normal.

But until she publishes anything?
No credence should be afforded to anything she suggests as it is, as I said to tickers
Baseless

Water John

'Ms Cahill is a member of the faculty at UCD school of medicine, where she is the module co-ordinator on a number of subjects, including one taught to first-year medicine students called Science Medicine and Society.'

Does this job description say that she simply a co-ordinator, a secretarial role, and doesn't lecture any students?

v638sg7k1a92bx

banie01 wrote: »

That you need to have baseless explained to you?
Is quite illustrating of the level of critical thinking you are applying here.

She has made claims, without presenting any evidence to support her claims.
Academic and scientific hypothesis are based on evidence. If you make a claim without such evidence?
It is quite self evidently, baseless.

All evidence and academic consensus is at odds with her claims.
How about this.

Let's apply the academic method here?
How about you present evidence in support of her claims?
How about you provide the basis?
Then I'll retract my belief that her claims are baseless.

Sorry but why are you asking me to prove a negative? I didn't think that was how critical thinking worked?

DC made certain statements about COVID-19, a lot of people have called her out on this and I am trying to understand what is it that she said that was so at odds with science yet nobody is willing or unable to to tell us mere lay people what it is and instead have directed us to go off and research it ourselves. Why are you so defensive about this, if it was such a slam dunk then surely it's easy to explain.

I'm just trying to understand what she said that was so off the wall? Of the bits I listed to I heard (in summary)
That vitamin D boosts the immune and is effective in fighting covid
Face masks reduce oxygen levels
Hydroxi could be an effective treatment for covid

What is so wrong about what she has said?

runawaybishop

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

I'm just trying to understand

No, you are not.

Water John

'That vitamin D boosts the immune and is effective in fighting covid
Face masks reduce oxygen levels
Hydroxi could be an effective treatment for covid' Cahill.

She's wrong on all 3
Vit D does boost immune system but no proof it's effective in fighting Covid
Face masks do not reduce oxygen levels. Two examples have been given here.
Hydroxi isn't an effective Covid treatment. Even Trump has switched to touting Remdesivir.

gmisk

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

Sorry but why are you asking me to prove a negative? I didn't think that was how critical thinking worked?

DC made certain statements about COVID-19, a lot of people have called her out on this and I am trying to understand what is it that she said that was so at odds with science yet nobody is willing or unable to to tell us mere lay people what it is and instead have directed us to go off and research it ourselves. Why are you so defensive about this, if it was such a slam dunk then surely it's easy to explain.

I'm just trying to understand what she said that was so off the wall? Of the bits I listed to I heard (in summary)
That vitamin D boosts the immune and is effective in fighting covid
Face masks reduce oxygen levels
Hydroxi could be an effective treatment for covid

What is so wrong about what she has said?

I don't think there is proof for anything you listed....bar possibly vitamin d could help.
Face masks do not reduce oxygen levels.
Hydroxi has not been proven as an effective treatment in fact it seems to be the opposite for a lot of people.

banie01

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

Sorry but why are you asking me to prove a negative? I didn't think that was how critical thinking worked?

What negative have I asked you to prove?
Elucidate it please?

I have asked you to provide the scientific research that support Prof. Cahill's claims?
What other than a feeling? Currently underpins her claims?

Critical thinking, as you have illustrated earlier by not comprehending why her claims are currently baseless.
Is clearly beyond your ken.

You are being asked for the evidence to support her claims.
You now say that's being asked to prove a negative?
Which means what, for her claims?

You'd be far better peddling your line of BS over on the Conspiracy Forum tbh.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gmisk wrote: »

I don't think there is proof for anything you listed....bar possibly vitamin d could help.
Face masks do not reduce oxygen levels.
Hydroxi has not been proven as an effective treatment in fact it seems to be the opposite for a lot of people.

Do face masks prevent the spread of Covid?

Water John

We know masks reduce the spread of droplets. Now there is no complete proof that Covid doesn't also float about in aerosol form.
Masks don't stop you getting Covid but may help prevent you transmitting it.

gmisk

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

Do face masks prevent the spread of Covid?

So your admitting they don't reduce oxygen levels so move onto something else?
They can definitely help especially with other measures, look at other countries that have introduced them.

banie01

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

Do face masks prevent the spread of Covid?

Yes.
Here's a few studies on that.
You know actual, peer reviewed and evidence based published work?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042720300117

Still waiting on something of a similar standard in support of Prof C.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Water John wrote: »

We know masks reduce the spread of droplets. Now there is no complete proof that Covid doesn't also float about in aerosol form.
Masks don't stop you getting Covid but may help prevent you transmitting it.

Ok so no proof that face masks prevent the transmission of Covid and no evidence that vitamin D is effective treating Covid but may improve your immune system to fight and infection.

Face masks = good
Vitamin d + bad

This is what I’m hearing.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gmisk wrote: »

So your admitting they don't reduce oxygen levels so move onto something else?
They can definitely help especially with other measures, look at other countries that have introduced them.

Where did I say that face masks reduce oxygen levels?

v638sg7k1a92bx

banie01 wrote: »

Yes.
Here's a few studies on that.
You know actual, peer reviewed and evidence based published work?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042720300117

Still waiting on something of a similar standard in support of Prof C.

Why are you asking me to prove a negative?

banie01

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

Why are you asking me to prove a negative?

Elucidate on that negative, you are so close to actually getting the point it may well take your eye out if you aren't careful.

Water John

Take a walk every day and you'll get enough Vit D and I've no problem taking it in a pill. But don't equate this with preventing Covid.

The latest science seems to indicate that the absence of the receptor TLR7 may be an issue, (Dutch study). All the Vit D in the world won't solve that. Beta Interferon may be a medication that will help, (Southhampton trial).

But I don't think you're interested in an honest discussion as to what might work and the science behind it, just defending notions put forward by Cahill.

banie01

Water John wrote: »

But I don't think you're interested in an honest discussion as to what might work and the science behind it, just defending notions put forward by Cahill.

But sure he's only asking questions.
Not being deliberately obtuse, contrarian or anything.
It's not peddling bullshít, it's curiousity

gmisk

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

Where did I say that face masks reduce oxygen levels?

Errrr you said the below a page back...


I'm just trying to understand what she said that was so off the wall? Of the bits I listed to I heard (in summary)
That vitamin D boosts the immune and is effective in fighting covid
Face masks reduce oxygen levels
Hydroxi could be an effective treatment for covid

What is so wrong about what she has said?

Yellow_Fern

runawaybishop wrote: »

Getting fired from every committee you are on and every person you worked with saying you are mental is a pretty good debunking.

Nothing she claims is fact or evidence based.

No its not. You can get knocked off a committee for any number of non scientific reasons. Look at how Tim Hunts reputation and scientific honours were destroyed for lies conducted by a journalist. I dont agree with her claims about mask but the way people are trying to cancel her is messed up.

Yellow_Fern

gmisk wrote: »

I don't think there is proof for anything you listed....bar possibly vitamin d could help.
Face masks do not reduce oxygen levels.
Hydroxi has not been proven as an effective treatment in fact it seems to be the opposite for a lot of people.

Obviously a face mask is going to reduce oxygen intake. The question is how much. I don't think its any real risk for a healthy person but I certainly wouldn't run in them or wear until they are saturated in sweat and can't work.

v638sg7k1a92bx

banie01 wrote: »

Elucidate on that negative, you are so close to actually getting the point it may well take your eye out if you aren't careful.

You can keep trying to make yourself sound intelligent but still don’t understand why a man of science would ask someone to prove a negative.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gmisk wrote: »

Errrr you said the below a page back...


I'm just trying to understand what she said that was so off the wall? Of the bits I listed to I heard (in summary)
That vitamin D boosts the immune and is effective in fighting covid
Face masks reduce oxygen levels
Hydroxi could be an effective treatment for covid

What is so wrong about what she has said?

Read it again

gmisk

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Obviously a face mask is going to reduce oxygen intake. The question is how much. I don't think its any real risk for a healthy person but I certainly wouldn't run in them or wear until they are saturated in sweat and can't work.

Facemasks do not limit oxygen intake. There are plenty of studies from reputable sources have a quick Google.

Water John

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Obviously a face mask is going to reduce oxygen intake. The question is how much. I don't think its any real risk for a healthy person but I certainly wouldn't run in them or wear until they are saturated in sweat and can't work.

I referred to two trials already that prove oxygen levels aren't decreased.
Why do you say, 'obviously'. Just because you can see it?

gmisk

Madisyn Spoiled Sewer wrote: »

Read it again

By stating what is so wrong with what she said you are agreeing with her....at least be honest

Water John

gmisk wrote: »

By stating what is so wrong with what she said you are agreeing with her....at least be honest

It has the equivalence of Trump saying; 'many people say'.