There are a lot of people here that offer reasonable,...

There are a lot of people here that offer reasonable, challenging information. The problem a lot of us have with a few is that they lean so heavy to a bias that they repeat disinformation to the point of absurdity.

One individual was arguing that 40 million was counted twice in a report about a year back. When it was highlighted that he was confusing 2 figures that happen to be the same number he doubled down on his seemingly willful error.

The basis of many arguments from another user is that MSB has mistyped, or misspoke something, and then takes that tangent to the extreme. One example is that they argued MSB must have been confused by in vivo vs in vitro. With the argument then being something to the effect of "because it's in vitro the data is meaningless". They've gone at far saying other users have also mistyped.

Another user you referenced periodically cited an expert panel round-table that ad-hoc discussed a presentation on the Dream-Hf trial. In short the panel did not know what to make of the trial results. That didn't stop the Doc repeatedly claiming something to the effect of "they said the trial was a failure." of course he would never link the video that is at odds with their words. I note that the disinformation only stopped when the panel chair who happen to be the editor in chief of JACC happen to publish the paper on dream hf.

I'm all for a discussion but the years of relentless and blatant efforts to spread disinformation is going to leave a bitter taste in the mouths user actually trying to discuss here. And I do mean disinformation in the sense that false information is purposefully shared.