Iranian woman paralysed after being shot over hijab

[NotADcotor]

The ridiculously flawed study in the opinion section of the Lancet was only intended to estimate how many people died. It says absolutely nothing about who was responsible for those deaths. You invented that. It's another lie.

So he is still lying about saying it is according to Lancet even though it has been shown multiple times that this is a misrepresentation, basically a lie.

When you flat out provide a link to Lancet and cut and paste their explanation and someone keeps posting it, it must be one of two things
1: He is so consumed with hate that he doesn't give a fuck, as long as it furthers in his mind the extermination of the Jews in the middle east much like how his neo Nazi fellow travelers repeat the same lies and bullshit no matter how often it is debunked.
2: He is fundamentally retarded and unable to understand something very simple.

I am pretty sure it's 1, but maybe with some 2 thrown in. Considering how many times he makes bad argumentation even when he has been instructed like for example when you accuse his terrorist buddies of something he counters often not with some sort of rebuttal but with some other attack, which does nothing to disprove the initial claim.

And before anyone loses their shit about insult, there is no other inference that can be made from his continued lies when it's been debunked clearly and without question... by LANCET


I also notice skimming that he makes reference to the pope aka King of the Pedos. Charming. I guess any ally in his campaign of hate.

 

[Frankfooter]

The ridiculously flawed study in the opinion section of the Lancet was only intended to estimate how many people died. It says absolutely nothing about who was responsible for those deaths. You invented that. It's another lie.

A racial supremacist declares Lancet is ridiculously flawed.
Just another day on terb

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824609146882363911

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank presented something as "Lancet says" It's been shown to him multiple times that it was in the correspondence section and was provided with both the lancet link and cut and paste where they explain that this section is often not peer reviewed and is just letters they print, much like letters to the editor and not a reflection on their policy. All sorts of letters get printed in Newspaper from all sorts of positions, this is none differenent.

Even though he has been told this multiple times, it seems that he persists in flat out lying about this, based on Shacks responses to him, I try to avoid Frankfooters posts because they are so filled with lies bullshit and hate mongering.

Now perhaps you don't have a problem with flat out lies but normal healthy people do.

But hey, continue on with that 2 minutes of hate.

The Lancet letter was published, that means they think this letter worthy of everyone reading and considering.
The letter used standard battlefield statistics and calculated a conservative number of likely deaths.

Nothing you say discounts that this may be the most realistic estimate of the total killed by zionists.
If you want to know the real number you'll have to support a ceasefire and allowing all aid and humanitarian help into Gaza.

But you won't, you just back genocide on Palestinians.
Healthy people don't back genocide.

 

[Frankfooter]

So he is still lying about saying it is according to Lancet even though it has been shown multiple times that this is a misrepresentation, basically a lie.

When you flat out provide a link to Lancet and cut and paste their explanation and someone keeps posting it, it must be one of two things
1: He is so consumed with hate that he doesn't give a fuck, as long as it furthers in his mind the extermination of the Jews in the middle east much like how his neo Nazi fellow travelers repeat the same lies and bullshit no matter how often it is debunked.
2: He is fundamentally retarded and unable to understand something very simple.

I am pretty sure it's 1, but maybe with some 2 thrown in. Considering how many times he makes bad argumentation even when he has been instructed like for example when you accuse his terrorist buddies of something he counters often not with some sort of rebuttal but with some other attack, which does nothing to disprove the initial claim.

And before anyone loses their shit about insult, there is no other inference that can be made from his continued lies when it's been debunked clearly and without question... by LANCET


I also notice skimming that he makes reference to the pope aka King of the Pedos. Charming. I guess any ally in his campaign of hate.

Nothing you have posted has discounted the estimate published by the Lancet.
Nothing.

That stands as the most reasonable estimate to date.
If its true, would that even change your support of the Israeli genocide?
Nope.

If its false you are still ok with killing 40,000, 16,000 of whom are children.
That's who you are, someone who is ok with killing 16,000 children based on their race.

 

[Vinson]

Islamic migrants go nuts in water park

Attacks on staff, Muslim clothing that breaks the rules, insults… the mayor forced to temporarily close a small water playground in Eaunes, France


Bad news for bathers. The commune of Eaunes in the Haute-Garonne department has been forced to close its new water playground, reports Actu. The municipal council announced that the site would have to be closed on Wednesday August 14 and Thursday August 15 due to the ‘current weather conditions and inappropriate behaviour and aggression towards staff’. Holidaymakers who wanted to cool off there would exceptionally not have access. (…) Le JDD

(…) closed its doors for 48 hours due to disorderly behaviour. Some visitors did not abide by the rules. The mayor agreed to close again (…).

Since the opening of this water playground in 2021, which is free and open to the public, the number of disorderly acts has steadily increased. The mayor denounces ‘people who come from outside the municipality, why not, but they should stick to the rules!’ (…).

He points the finger at visitors who enjoy the pleasures of water and splashing around dressed from head to toe.

‘That’s unhygienic and against the rules. I also think I recognise religious clothing, which goes against our principle of secularism. That’s intolerable,’ says the mayor of Eaunes, almost getting angry. He also can’t stand it when people attack his staff, ‘often young people of good will’, as he says. These young people also try to enforce compliance with the age limit of three years.

It’s complicated,’ says Erine, ’parents sometimes bathe their children in their own nappies. If you point this out to them, they sometimes get very angry. By the time tempers have calmed down, the temporary closure order will have had its effect. The reopening day this Friday went smoothly. Let’s hope it stays that way… La Dépêche

Agressions : une aire de jeux aquatiques fermée en Haute-Garonne

La maire d’Eaunes, en Haute-Garonne, a décidé de fermer son aire de jeux aquatiques le mercredi 14 août et jusqu’au jeudi 15 août, après une série d’incidents. De nombreux manquements au règlement du lieu et des violences à répétition ont été constatés.

www.lejdd.fr

 

[shack]

A racial supremacist declares Lancet is ridiculously flawed.
Just another day on terb

More lies. I said that the study is flawed, not the Lancet. The Lancet is reputable as demonstrated by their approach of making no statements whatsoever in regards to this study. They allowed the letter sent to them to be printed, full stop. In no way did they vouch for the study or its' contents.

You always ask for proof when accused of lying. There are hundreds of examples and here's another one in black and white. You claim that I said the Lancet is flawed when I clearly said it was the study that was flawed. You might as well stop asking for proof. Dozens of people KNOW that you are a chronic, serial and pathological liar. You get called out by different people every day. The proof you ask for has been delivered in spades.

 

[shack]

The Lancet letter was published, that means they think this letter worthy of everyone reading and considering.
The letter used standard battlefield statistics and calculated a conservative number of likely deaths.

Nothing you say discounts that this may be the most realistic estimate of the total killed by zionists.
If you want to know the real number you'll have to support a ceasefire and allowing all aid and humanitarian help into Gaza.

But you won't, you just back genocide on Palestinians.
Healthy people don't back genocide.

Stop shitposting.

Everything you say has been debunked. Repeating lies is a Hitler/Nazi tactic.

 

[Klatuu]

Stop shitposting.

Everything you say has been debunked. Repeating lies is a Hitler/Nazi tactic.

Deflection

 

[Klatuu]

More lies. I said that the study is flawed, not the Lancet. The Lancet is reputable as demonstrated by their approach of making no statements whatsoever in regards to this study. They allowed the letter sent to them to be printed, full stop. In no way did they vouch for the study or its' contents.

You always ask for proof when accused of lying. There are hundreds of examples and here's another one in black and white. You claim that I said the Lancet is flawed when I clearly said it was the study that was flawed. You might as well stop asking for proof. Dozens of people KNOW that you are a chronic, serial and pathological liar. You get called out by different people every day. The proof you ask for has been delivered in spades.

The Lancet didn’t allow it to be printed, they chose to print it. Get in touch with reality, shazi.

 

[Valcazar]

So he is still lying about saying it is according to Lancet even though it has been shown multiple times that this is a misrepresentation, basically a lie.

The thing is, outside of editorials, nothing is "The Lancet says".

The Lancet is a research journal.

It takes submissions.
Correspondence is there for further discussion and commentary.

There was no research conducted by The Lancet.

There wasn't even any research conducted by the letter writers. (And the letter writers are quite clear about this.)
The letter writers are forwarding a plausible argument about the total deaths (direct and indirect) that could be attributed to the conflict.
It was also written in response to the Gaza Health Ministry changing the way it reports due to the problem in getting quality information. (It started reporting the number of unidentified bodies separately.)
People used the change to start to question the numbers, and the writers are arguing that the real numbers are probably higher.

It's a perfectly sound argument based on an educated guess from previous literature.
But it isn't "The Lancet says" and it isn't research or proof.

 

[NotADcotor]

It's a perfectly sound argument based on an educated guess from previous literature.
But it isn't "The Lancet says" and it isn't research or proof.

The funny thing is, all he has to do is say, according to a letter published by Lancet, it would be cromulent and true.

I don't know why he insists on going with this Lancet says lie. There is some serious special needs thinking going on to be presented with clear evidence that your comment is untrue and rather than make the most minor change to fix your claim to make it true [and they did print the letter] he instead double downs on a lie. That is Trumpian level dedication to being dishonest when you could be honest but just refuse to. Or he just doesn't understand what he did wrong, which is also Trumpian but in a different way.

Even if he changes, the damage to his credibility is done. Once someone is shown to be dishonest [and this isn't the first time] you should never trust them again.

 

[Frankfooter]

More lies. I said that the study is flawed, not the Lancet. The Lancet is reputable as demonstrated by their approach of making no statements whatsoever in regards to this study. They allowed the letter sent to them to be printed, full stop. In no way did they vouch for the study or its' contents.

You always ask for proof when accused of lying. There are hundreds of examples and here's another one in black and white. You claim that I said the Lancet is flawed when I clearly said it was the study that was flawed. You might as well stop asking for proof. Dozens of people KNOW that you are a chronic, serial and pathological liar. You get called out by different people every day. The proof you ask for has been delivered in spades.

The letter was considered worthy of publishing by the Lancet, Shazi.
Of course the Lancet doesn't do research, they are a journal that publishes research they consider important and solid.
According to this letter, considered worthy by the Lancet of publishing, they believe applying standard battlefield formula to the reported dead that it is likely that Israel has killed at least 186,000 Palestinians. This they believe cromulent and true.

To say that 'the Lancet says' implies an understanding that the Lancet doesn't do research but are a filter for good research, with thousands of submissions of which they publish that they think important, cromulent and true.

When I say 'the lancet says' its a shorthand that implies everyone knows what the Lancet is and what they do. This should be common knowledge and you shouldn't need to qualify it by saying 'the Lancet does not do research themselves, they select and publish the best work'. Saying that the Lancet says is saying this letter has been confirmed cromulent, true and important by one the most trusted medical journals in existence'

Our manifesto
Highest standards for medical science

The Lancet sets extremely high standards. We select only the best research papers for their quality of work and the progression they bring.
Improving lives is the only end goal

Too much research is done for research’s sake. We believe that improving lives is the only end goal and that research is only relevant when it has impact on human lives.
Increasing the social impact of science

We recognise that a great research paper is not enough and that it requires development, mobilisation, and exposure. So we promise to set agendas, create context, inform leaders, start debates, and advocate for the idea that research can and will make a difference.
A commitment to publishing excellence

• Publishing excellence: as trusted sources of information, the Lancet journals set extremely high standards for publishing, and we are committed to ensuring that our editorial processes meet our standards of excellence. Read our editorial policies.
• Journey of a paper: from peer review, through our in-house editing process, production, to publication and beyond, the entire Lancet team brings a wealth of expertise in scholarly publishing. Follow the journey of a paper.
• Peer review: peer review plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity of the scientific record. Our community of authors and external peer reviewers work in partnership with our expert editors to publish the best science to advance the health and wellbeing of people worldwide. Find out more about peer review at The Lancet Group.

 

[Frankfooter]

The thing is, outside of editorials, nothing is "The Lancet says".

The Lancet is a research journal.

It takes submissions.
Correspondence is there for further discussion and commentary.

There was no research conducted by The Lancet.

There wasn't even any research conducted by the letter writers. (And the letter writers are quite clear about this.)
The letter writers are forwarding a plausible argument about the total deaths (direct and indirect) that could be attributed to the conflict.
It was also written in response to the Gaza Health Ministry changing the way it reports due to the problem in getting quality information. (It started reporting the number of unidentified bodies separately.)
People used the change to start to question the numbers, and the writers are arguing that the real numbers are probably higher.

It's a perfectly sound argument based on an educated guess from previous literature.
But it isn't "The Lancet says" and it isn't research or proof.

Doesn't everyone know this?
Saying the 'Lancet says' is just saying that this letter has been vetted as cromulent and true by the one of the most trusted sources.

 

[Frankfooter]

Stop shitposting.

Everything you say has been debunked. Repeating lies is a Hitler/Nazi tactic.

You're repeating lies.

shack counter:
57 accusations of lying, 46 intentional misquotes (straw man arguments) - 0 proof

 

[Valcazar]

Doesn't everyone know this?
Saying the 'Lancet says' is just saying that this letter has been vetted as cromulent and true by the one of the most trusted sources.

There is no vetting of letters beyond the basic, "this is worth discussion or of interest to our readers".
They isn't any external peer review.

Outside of "these are scientists with credentials putting an opinion forward we think is worth discussion" there is no vetting at all.
Certainly not any statement by the Lancet that this is "true".

This is a letter to the editor.
Because it is a scientific journal, it is one that backs up its claims with references and explains its logic.
I was literally able to go to the source they referenced and find the table that gives rise to their comment that previous conflicts ended up with indirect deaths 3-15 times larger than the direct ones.
(And note, that article is from 2008.)

But also, people just don't say "The Lancet says", they cite the author or "a letter in The Lancet from Khatib, et. al" or what have you.

It's not really a major point, but it does come across as trying to imply there has been peer reviewed work determining the actual numbers and putting the institutional weight of the Lancet behind it when it is just correspondence.

 

[shack]

The letter was considered worthy of publishing by the Lancet, Shazi.
Of course the Lancet doesn't do research, they are a journal that publishes research they consider important and solid.
According to this letter, considered worthy by the Lancet of publishing, they believe applying standard battlefield formula to the reported dead that it is likely that Israel has killed at least 186,000 Palestinians. This they believe cromulent and true.

To say that 'the Lancet says' implies an understanding that the Lancet doesn't do research but are a filter for good research, with thousands of submissions of which they publish that they think important, cromulent and true.

Stop trying to tell us what the Lancet is saying or implying. Read Valcazar's posts and stop spinning things.

When I say 'the lancet says' its a shorthand that implies everyone knows what the Lancet is and what they do. This should be common knowledge and you shouldn't need to qualify it by saying 'the Lancet does not do research themselves, they select and publish the best work'. Saying that the Lancet says is saying this letter has been confirmed cromulent, true and important by one the most trusted medical journals in existence'

Keep backtracking, spinning and playing semantics.

And when you say "the Lancet says", how do you spin that into meaning that Israel killed and is responsible for 186,000 when no blame was assigned by the Lancet and not even the authors. It was simply an attempt at a body count.

Good luck on that one.

 

[shack]

Frankfooter said:
Saying the 'Lancet says' is just saying that this letter has been vetted as cromulent and true by the one of the most trusted sources.

There is no vetting of letters

Keep trying Geno.

 

[Frankfooter]

There is no vetting of letters beyond the basic, "this is worth discussion or of interest to our readers".
They isn't any external peer review.

Outside of "these are scientists with credentials putting an opinion forward we think is worth discussion" there is no vetting at all.
Certainly not any statement by the Lancet that this is "true".

This is a letter to the editor.
Because it is a scientific journal, it is one that backs up its claims with references and explains its logic.
I was literally able to go to the source they referenced and find the table that gives rise to their comment that previous conflicts ended up with indirect deaths 3-15 times larger than the direct ones.
(And note, that article is from 2008.)

But also, people just don't say "The Lancet says", they cite the author or "a letter in The Lancet from Khatib, et. al" or what have you.

It's not really a major point, but it does come across as trying to imply there has been peer reviewed work determining the actual numbers and putting the institutional weight of the Lancet behind it when it is just correspondence.

Sure, if this were a debate between academics the language would be clearer and the references cited based on the understanding that the audience knows the references and format. Here on terb saying 'according to the Lancet' is stating that the Lancet thinks this letter important enough to publish.

This isn't a peer reviewed study, its a letter including Israeli authors stating that if you apply standard battlefield casualties to the situation in Gaza the number is likely > 186,000 dead. This is likely the best estimate at the true number of those killed by israel.

Even though its a 'letter' and not peer assessed they still accepted the submission and considered it worthy of print.

 

[Frankfooter]

Stop trying to tell us what the Lancet is saying or implying. Read Valcazar's posts and stop spinning things.


Keep backtracking, spinning and playing semantics.

And when you say "the Lancet says", how do you spin that into meaning that Israel killed and is responsible for 186,000 when no blame was assigned by the Lancet and not even the authors. It was simply an attempt at a body count.

Good luck on that one.

I read it, nothing valcazar has said disputes what I've been saying.
Unless you're really ignorant of the fact that the Lancet doesn't do research, you should understand what is meant by 'the Lancet says'.

Frankfooter said:
Saying the 'Lancet says' is just saying that this letter has been vetted as cromulent and true by the one of the most trusted sources.


Keep trying Geno.

You think the Lancet just publishes every letter they get?
Why don't you write them one then?

 

[Valcazar]

This isn't a peer reviewed study, its a letter including Israeli authors stating that if you apply standard battlefield casualties to the situation in Gaza the number is likely > 186,000 dead.

They are talking about indirect casualties in the letter, not battlefield casualties.

It is specifically not about battlefield casualties.

To quote the letter itself...

Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases.

They are talking about the eventual final death numbers after months and years once the shooting stops.