What a surprise... you won't tell us
why... you said this...
But... this is the bullshit you wrote to start this... so we will start from there.
"Once again we have idiots who don't know the difference between the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)."
How the can you claim experts from Stanford are confusing the CFR and IFR?
So tell us why they are confused.
[/QUOTE]
why... you said this...
But... this is the bullshit you wrote to start this... so we will start from there.
"Once again we have idiots who don't know the difference between the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and Infection Fatality Rate (IFR)."
How the can you claim experts from Stanford are confusing the CFR and IFR?
So tell us why they are confused.
[/QUOTE]
Your "Experts" at Stanford are political hacks. Do you really think that providing the founder and leader of the conservative war on science and his compatriots at the conservative National Association of Scholars with the fake "reproducibility crisis" narrative as your "experts" is meaningful . Still sticking with this? Time to post a meme of people laughing at you.
These clowns at Stanford are being deliberately misleading which is even worse than being ignorant. This is the same reason that Michael Mann and the climate change crowd are so despicable. In the case of Mann they adjusted temperature data to fit their political narrative rather than delivering unbiased science.
As noted in the papers from the National Association of Scholars the "reproducibility crisis" narrative has little to do with science but is about proclaiming there is the crisis with the “progressive left” and its attack on higher education with “neo-Marxism, radical feminism, historicism, post-colonialism, deconstructionism, post-modernism, liberation theology, and a host of other ideologies”.