Yeah, it seems to be painful when anybody brings reality into the discussion. You trot out this "right-wing" bogyman and tar anyone with the label as soon as they attempt to.
"Left" is not what you think it is. You're not even close.
Printable View
Yeah, it seems to be painful when anybody brings reality into the discussion. You trot out this "right-wing" bogyman and tar anyone with the label as soon as they attempt to.
"Left" is not what you think it is. You're not even close.
It's a horseshoe, anyways. Once you get far enough out in either direction, they start to resemble one another. They aren't exactly the same, so it isn't a circle, but the far left and far right are a whole lot closer together than they'd like to admit. It's generally just a question of who they advocate violence against.
I call someone right-winged when someone acts like the sterotypical right wing; something you display plenty of. This isn't crazy right-winged, this is based off people who are considered paragons of right-wing like Ben Shapiro.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Even your last post shows you're pro-nationalism and anti-globalism. You also demonstrate that you are anti-environment in the sense that you believe the rules put in place are useless as all they do is drive competition outside of the country. I'm sure Shaggy has more information on the anti-environment actions going on than I am.
I can throw the same thing back at you: as soon as someone mentions you're expressing right-wing ideas, you instantly label them as faux left; hilariously you believe anyone who doesn't align with your idea of left, is fake. Why are you so insulted that someone would consider you right-winged? You take it as an insult, but it is literally just a different opinion. Sure, there are some pretty specific right-winged ideas that annoy the hell out of me (like your constant flame-baiting), but I don't hate you for it, like you act like you hate anyone who is not your idea of left.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I'm also curious, can you enlighten to me what I believe left is? Aparently I'm not aware of what I believe, but you are. Please show me examples of me stating what being left means and how it isn't what left truly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
The problem is that the extremes are extremely extereme nowadays, but even slight off centre becomes extreme. As exeplified by Dil, he literally hates people on the left and has stated as such with malicious statements likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
He is literally thriving on people being angry that someone with political ideas they don't agree with got elected. He loves that people are pissed off that someone got elected that they feel hurts their country; he doesn't believe it is good enough to be happy his politician got elected, he will only be happy when others suffer.Quote:
Can't wait for the Election Night fun as the fake mental breakdowns in the media are staged again.
Note*: when I say dil believes, I am basing it on his posts in threads like this one where he relishes the fact that people are angry about something. If he doesn't believe it, I haven't seen anything posted to sway me otherwise.
I'm thoroughly convinced dilettante is playing with us to get reactions. Any attempts to answer his political posts in a serious way will just get you more of the same. Just like he mentions; he like to see liberals heads explode :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
I think he'd prefer to see ALL heads explode, he just has an easier time of it with some than with others. That's fine with me, too. At some point, I feel you get the right to be a curmudgeon, as long as that's not ALL you are, and it's not all he is.
I'm guessing it's because this is so often a precursor to calling someone extreme right winged and that, in turn, is so often a precursor to dismissing their opinions entirely. I don't particularly get the impression that's what you were trying to do but it's a pretty standard progression for debates on the internet and it tracks with what you said here:-Quote:
Why are you so insulted that someone would consider you right-winged?
Honestly, most debate on the internet (and increasingly bleeding in to real life) has become so toxic as to be mostly pointless. Anyone who has an opinion that disagrees with a reader's is immediately dismissed as either stupid or evil which means that ever expressing an opinion has become a losing tactic - much better to simply attack the opinions others have proffered. Both the right and the left are guilty of this.Quote:
The problem is that the extremes are extremely extereme nowadays, but even slight off centre becomes extreme.
As for Dil, I think he's an arch-prince of the above principle and I honestly don't know what his politics are. I've seen him express both right and left wing opinions and I suspect he sees himself as a pragmatist rather than left or right. Personally I'd say he leans more to nihilism, though, given the propensity to attack opinions rather than express them.
Basically it comes down to people dragging topics off into their personal political biases. It doesn't help when those biases are so laughably wrong-headed they must be challenged. Particularly when they cluster into a bludgeon in favor of wrong-headedness.
I get plenty of PMs from members giving me 👍 for speaking up. Many of them have to be careful due to workplace cancel culture and/or just don't want to waste time engaging with people afraid of reality.
lol Dilettante, hero of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
But you never actually challenge anything. You never post anything of substance, just a snarky remark. Why don't you actually post your opinion instead of just bashing others'?Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
You haven't posted anything that is slightly controversial or could get them in trouble, so I'm not sure what you mean. I work for a university where if I state my opinion on certain topics I've literally been told I would be fired on the spot; I know what it is like to live in cancel culture. Hot topics right now are anything related to gender and if someone says something is racist, it is racist; there is no debating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
If you had brought something like that up, I could understand, but these people that are PMing you just sound like people that don't know enough about a topic to hold up to debate: easier to live in an echo chamber only private messaging people with your same beliefs, then actually have them challenged.
Other than dreammanor (and maybe Tyson... he gets pretty heated, but still don't think he crosses the line), I haven't seen anyone berate someone for having a different opinion on these forums. They've challenged them, disagreed with them, but the only person I've seen actively belittle anyone is you with a lot of your comments.
Cancel culture goes far beyond the norm. We've had people quit the forum for getting a detailed answer to a programming question when all they wanted was a yes or no. You just never really know what is over the line for any given person.
There's certainly a liberal bias in this forum for two reasons:
1) Much of the world is to the left of the US.
2) Those with liberal views speak up more on here.
As far as I can tell, Dil is against: Anything that sucks. Unfortunately, EVERY policy sucks in some way. Whether we recognize the suck ahead of time, or find out the suck later, every policy sucks in some way. That makes it far easier to find the suck than the good, because the former is always there.
I remember asking my mother about why a certain bad corner on a road wasn't fixed. She pointed out that studies have shown that fixing an area with lots of accidents doesn't tend to reduce accidents, it just spreads them out more. Bad roads make people drive slower, so there are less accidents. Improve a road, and people will decrease their attentiveness and increase their speed until the average number of accidents returns to the acceptable level. So...do you fix roads, knowing that it won't change the number of accidents? It's not an easy question. That's what makes public policy so darn difficult. There's ALWAYS going to be something to criticize, no matter what action you take or don't take. Therefore, being against things is always the safer position, cause you'll never be wrong.
I don't know, that sounds very much Switzerland like. Maybe that's be cause your a moderator. I can't hardly see any clear concrete policies on any side, at least not ones that are being strictly followed. Wish we would stop saying things like the far right or far left policies are ruining the country. Name names, name provable actions. Hold actual people accountable for actual deeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
btw - SH, noticed you were absent for several days. Did you go on your work trip to the back country? If so, hope it went well.
Yeah, I was off wandering through the wilderness for a couple weeks. There was a point where I noticed that both forearms were entirely coated in blood, while both legs were also bleeding, but had been washed off. The first few days involved fighting through lots of brush with lots of thorns. Whole lot of roses growing in the back country. I encountered a trio of bears, as well, but they weren't together and none of them were just right.
Most of them vote just right. Something to do with the right to bear arms.Quote:
I encountered a trio of bears, as well, but they weren't together and none of them were just right.
It's not about the challenge, though, it's the failure to propose any kind of alternative. Without that the challenge has no value.Quote:
It doesn't help when those biases are so laughably wrong-headed they must be challenged
Funny enough that is another major trait the American right exhibits -- but at least they're aware of it. Once again I have to use Ben Shapiro as an example as I've been watching more of him lately, but even he states that the right has a major problem with only being negative, but never actually proposing a solution or working towards a difference. They complain about things other parties are doing to try and fix problems they see with the system, but never have an alternative to offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The right to arm bears? Yeah, they do support that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
However, I was able to definitively ascertain that bears DO crap in the woods....repeatedly and sometimes excessively.
That sucks. I've always loved camping and fishing but there are a lot of things out there that aren't very human friendly.Quote:
Yeah, I was off wandering through the wilderness for a couple weeks. There was a point where I noticed that both forearms were entirely coated in blood, while both legs were also bleeding, but had been washed off. The first few days involved fighting through lots of brush with lots of thorns. Whole lot of roses growing in the back country. I encountered a trio of bears, as well, but they weren't together and none of them were just right.
Good job, your next assignment is to find out if "Is the Pope Catholic". This could be more dangerous than dealing with bears.Quote:
However, I was able to definitively ascertain that bears DO crap in the woods....repeatedly and sometimes excessively.
I bought a pound of mixed seed for sprouting, but I had rotten luck with it. Two tries, let it go over a week each time: failed, failed. Worse yet these seeds got so mucilaginous that the regular rinsing process was a nightmare. They clogged the screens with their gluey mess.
Then I read the description in more detail:
Well they know about the problem after all. But I still wanted to sprout them, not grow microgreens. That's a great way to go too, but it takes up more space and normally involves dirt you need to keep replacing.Quote:
Garden Cress Seed, Purple Triton Radish, Curled Mustard, Turnip & Arugula Microgreen Seeds combine to form one of the spiciest microgreen mixes ever!
This mix is for growing MICROGREENS only (planted in a tray). This is NOT a sprouting mix for jars or sprouters.
Then I found this product:
It is made of "hydrophobic" food-grade polypropylene.
The bottom green piece is basically a cup, the top green piece is a cup with tiny holes around the outside bottom. The 4 "clear" pieces are trays where you put the seeds, with a pattern molded into the bottom and tiny holes around the edge.
Add seed, stack it all up, pour water in the top. Dump water from the bottom cup after it percolates through. Rotate the clear trays.
This worked great for my "unsproutable" seed. In 3 days I harvested after letting the sprouts green up in the sun for a couple of hours. Immeasurably better than regular sprouting jars. I'll keep those for things like Mung Beans which do well there. I have nearly 5 pounds of those to go through yet.
BTW: You can store the seed in the freezer. I just use an outer zip-type freezer bag around the zip-bags they come in to help limit additional drying.
I've seen some shallow terracotta sprouting trays as well, but again they need a lot of space and can tend to grow molds. The glass and plastic alternatives clean and sterilize more easily. You can even add a little bleach to the water if you rinse well after, but I usually use a rinse basin of water with some hydrogen peroxide and let things sit in that a while.
So if you want to do some tiny-gardening for fresh produce (Winter is coming) something like this product might be worth the investment. For a bigger household, you can stack the clear trays about 10 high according to the manual.
Think of it as one more thing to do while more or less home for the pandemic.
Sprouts can be crammed into your gob, put on burgers or other sandwiches, dressed as a salad, or added to salads. They even work in soups if you harvest them early before they get long. I've even fried them up mixed with shredded potatoes.
and you didn't try to do a selfie ? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
No, the right for bears to have arms. Without them, how are they supposed to give hugs?Quote:
The right to arm bears?
Yeah, we have several State and Federal wilderness parks and forests that post some serious signs about bear encounters and how to deal with them at various points of entry. Just black bears, but those can be pretty dangerous creatures as things go here. A smaller range of those lands have signage covering the hazards of moose or elk encounters like I saw in Ontario's Provincial Parks years ago.
At least we don't have those "Don't stray off the path. Rattlesnakes!" signs I've seen in the mountains in California and Arizona. Reminds me of a day trip to the observatory on Mt. Palomar during a conference in San Diego. Saw a cougar through the fog as I went up.
I don't get out west a lot, so that's probably more widespread. I've mostly stuck to tourist trails in places like Grand Canyon, Vermilion Cliffs, and Bryce Canyon since I was with a non-hiker companion those trips. Most girls only like it just so rough, so to speak. Old enough now I don't even own a pair of legitimate hikers or moderate climbers in good condition anyway. My old shoes have become kind of "petrified" from sitting in storage, as have my cross-country ski boots and gloves.
Get out there into the world more while you are young.
Your bears are likely a bit more dangerous than ours are (except for the occasional griz). Ours know their place: Right beside the mashed potatoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Black bears generally aren't all that dangerous, but if they are used to people, things can change pretty quickly. However, in all my years, I've had more 'interestintg' encounters with moose than with all other wild animals combined. Those suckers are big, curious, well armed, and about as unpredictable as us humans. Even the ones accompanied by flying squirrels can't be totally trusted.
Yeah, right! I have yet to find a rattlesnake that can read a sign. Or maybe they just refuse to obey them. They're at least as likely to be on the trail as anywhere else. That sign is probably to keep people from doing anything TOO stupid.Quote:
At least we don't have those "Don't stray off the path. Rattlesnakes!" signs I've seen in the mountains in California and Arizona. Reminds me of a day trip to the observatory on Mt. Palomar during a conference in San Diego.
That's awesome. I've seen a total of four in my life. Three were one family that crossed the road in front of my car, while the fourth was a Florida panther in the Everglades.Quote:
Saw a cougar through the fog as I went up.
My goal is to average 100 miles per year, counting only trips of 100 miles or longer. At this point, I don't have to hike again till I'm somewhere in my 80s, but I really don't want to count on hiking once I get to that age, so I'm stockpiling as best I can.Quote:
Get out there into the world more while you are young.
I've been looking for a source for sprouts. Supermarkets simply stopped selling sprouts. Must have been some e. coli scare, or something like that. Somebody told me once, I just don't remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
So, what's that product called? I might have to get one. My garden has provided me with several meals and even more side dishes, this year. Feeling pretty good about it, though I have some improvements to make. Getting some fresh sprouts in winter would be pretty nice.
This one is called "Kitchen Crop VKP1200" but there are probably similar items out there.
Local grocery stores are offering online order delivery for half price right now. Suggests a decline in volume to me, or renewed pressure to avoid going in there personally.
Last time I stocked up I went in myself but at 6AM when they first opened. Shelves restocked and fewer other customers, maybe time for ventilation to reduce the floating SARS-CoV-2 concentration in the air after previous 12AM closing.
Was planning to do so again tomorrow. Online shopping is a nuisance and I hate the resulting texting back and forth: "They're out of X, can I substitute Y? Or do you have a Z alternative?"
Even after half-price you throw in a tip and you have 10% or more overhead. I'm cheap, the store is close by, gas is cheap, and I get 40MPG. I don't have to pay $10 or more driving to buy $100 of groceries myself and I tip better than $5 anyway.
This shopper/deliverer gig seems awful to me. Even if people are generous tippers they can't be making more than $15-$20 an hour on $100 orders and they are out and about and at risk all day. I've talked to a few who love it, some probably get the feels from providing a service too (yep, I believe there ARE good people). But man. I hope most of their clients appreciate them and treat them well.
I am not sure that true anymore, so many places are divided, Europe as a whole is to the left of the US but there is a lot of nuance by country and even inside a country.Quote:
Cancel culture goes far beyond the norm. We've had people quit the forum for getting a detailed answer to a programming question when all they wanted was a yes or no. You just never really know what is over the line for any given person.
There's certainly a liberal bias in this forum for two reasons:
1) Much of the world is to the left of the US.
2) Those with liberal views speak up more on here.
As far as I can tell, Dil is against: Anything that sucks.
The UK is to the left of the US but its still conservative, its just that me and FD are more liberal and probably speak up more in this thread than most. The cities are probably more liberal than the towns and the countryside which seems to me something that is true in many places around the world.
Dil from what i can tell because he doesn't say it outright wouldn't describe himself as right wing, but he hates the US left more than the US right. I know more about what Dill doesn't like and believe in than what he does.
I don't think it's just us two skewing the optics. I feel like there's a correlation between "programmers" and the liberalism. in fact, I increasingly think I'm quite conservative for a programmer but I'm sure I'd still qualify as liberal against the population as a whole. Or maybe it's just living in Brizzle that's throwing my perception off. It's by far the most left leaning place I've ever lived.Quote:
its just that me and FD are more liberal
Funny how hard cancel culture wants to label everyone, put them into boxes. Helps prevent the polluting force of thought and ideas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48xii7ndcg
There are no thoughts and ideas. That's just the club people use to suggest that only their side thinks. It's not true. Neither side really thinks. This site has some pretty smart people, but there has not been an original idea expressed on here that I am aware of. Partly, that's because this is not the place to write your original thesis. If you can't express your point in a few sentences, don't bother. That means that everybody is pretty much recycling. They likely do hold those views, but others before them have expressed the same.
To be sure, I don't object to that. What I object to is suggesting that the other side doesn't think. That's true, of course, but you should also include the recognition that your side doesn't, either.
Wait, what? That seems like a very hipsterish statement. "I was into this BEFORE it was cool.. you guys don't understand what it's really about!" "Wait, you were into it before I was? Well you clearly don't understand where it came from". There is literally nothing anyone can say that will prove you're not some unique snowflake that is so unique you don't fit into any category.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Literally any opinion you have puts you into some kind of box. If you believe a certain thing, you will naturally fall in with those that believe a certain thing. As Shaggy said, your thoughts aren't original. You're preprogrammed the same way the rest of us are. Where you were raised, who your parents are, what income bracket you come from, even where your ancestors came from all have influences on who and what you are.
If you express an opinion you automatically get put in a box; saying "no I'm not!" doesn't change that fact. The fact that you have other people PMing you praising how brave you are, shows you are in a grouping with them in at least some sense and some of your characterists will match theirs.
If you exhibit signs of being right-winged, you move toward that spectrum. If you exhibit enough of them, you become "labelled" right-winged. Does that mean you have all the same opinions as everyone else right-winged? Only someone very dilusional and ignorant would think simply being called "right-winged" would mean that.
You act like you want an open exchange of ideas, but do everything you can to shut down a conversation. You'll either post nonsense, some diatribe about some random topic, or just stop responding. As shown as your last couple video responses.
People make comments about there being no debate anymore, but then people like Jordan Petersen or Joe Rogan specifically sits down with people of varying opinions and have discussions about their differing beliefs. You post one-liners to prove how on the edgy you are, while never having any substance to any topic.
I think you may have coined one, there. Might have to borrow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
I think the PMs only acknowledge standing up to the mob, nothing more. There are laws against the level of bullying being attempted here by that mob.
Except nobody's trying to cancel you. Quite the opposite in fact. We're begging you to tell us what you actually support. The only time you've come close to that (at least, that I can remember) is when you said support for corona tests and treatment should come through Medicaid rather than insurance companies and I agreed with you.Quote:
Funny how hard cancel culture wants to label everyone
lol I totally meant to do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
So questioning what you believe and statements you make is bullying? No wonder you don't believe that debate exists.. if someone says something to offend you, you feel you're being bullied.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
No one here is trying to cancel you, no one here is trying to make you out to be something evil, no one here is trying to do anything but get you to elaborate on your positions because you feel they're superior enough to be snarky when someone else posts their opinion. Maybe you feel your positions are too horrible to share? Maybe the lack of will to post anything shows you don't actually feel very strongly about your opinions at all?
Totally of the topic...
I'm from a part of Ohio that is pretty flat. I was talking to someone from out west and he scoffed when I said Ohio is flat. He said it is so flat where he comes from he watched his dog run away for two days :p
Out west, in this case, must mean "a bit west of Ohio", cause this far west, you can't watch your dog run away for that long....a wolf will get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Maybe the guy had a really slow dog. Though there are stretches of Nevada or Arizona desert that very flat for many miles. Strange to drive across, some hills might look 30min away but 2hrs later they still look the same distance away. California central valley is pretty flat but it's full of cities, farms/ranches and people. Can't see very far.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBn4e69tGlg
"Low-dose hydroxychloroquine does seem to have benefits."
So you're using this doctor who you respect (as shown by you linking several of his videos.. and don't get me wrong, I watch most of his videos as well) has just now stated that in specific scenarios for specific patients "Low-dose hydroxychloroquine does seem to have benefits." -- still very carefully worded.
He stated this today. And I presume (based on all your other posts, and the fact you highlighted the hydroxychloroquine comment specifically in your post) you're using this to try and poke at those who stated that Trump should not have recommended it's use.
This doctor did not feel comfortable stating this information until, again, today. Do you see how some people may have jumped on Trump recommending it nearly 5 months ago, before any real testing had been done?
Some fools will use this to throw out "See! Trump was right and we should have listened to him!," whereas most will (hopefully) look at it as "it was still unsafe and very irresponsible for the president to recommend a drug that had not been tested properly."
With a quick Google search, you can find 5 papers showing that hydroxychloroquine does more harm than good treating COVID19, and you can find 5 showing that it helps. It has been this way for months now.
Maybe I'm reading too much into your post, but too many of your posts are meant to try to throw shade at those who don't agree with your point of view, without any actual discussion, that I'm assuming your intent is the same it has been in the past.
If you've paid attention he's been looking into this for quite a while.
The problem is that the media and much of the medical establishment has been doing everything in their power to discount the usefulness of this drug, citing fateful negative studies while releasing few details.
Now more details have finally been made available in just the last week or so. If you watch this video beyond the intro you can see Dr. Campbell get more and more mystified and frustrated by the horribly flawed trials that seemed totally bent on discrediting the drug, at the cost of lives in the process through overdosing.
The open question is why these bizarre tests were done on human subjects. It is hard to conceive of any answer but "politics," though if there is another we ought to know about it.
Even now definitive answers remain elusive.
Yes, but he hasn't stated (although he claims he never states anything) his conclusion until now. It shows he was being safe and felt it was irresponsible to state something until he had all the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I did watch the entire video and that is your conclusion, not his. He is mystified why the large doses were used, but never once said the studies were bent on discrediting the drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
It also seems suspect he has all this time to look into HCQ, but no time to look into why the studies possibly used a larger dosage. He doesn't even make an educated guess, which he does in a ton of his videos (like this one where he says he believes reinfection is unlikely, even though a study showed it can happen -- he is making an educated guess).
A quick Google and looking in the comments section of his post shows that the theraputic dosage of HCQ is 10mg/kg, so someone of around 200LB would receive 1000mg per dosage. He even states himself in the video that the standard dosage is 6.5mg/kg, which would means a 200LB person would be getting around 650mg, not 400. It seems he was focusing on preventative dosing, vs dosing done while someone actually has malaria, which is typically closer to 800mg.
While I agree it does seem strange that the studies he found went with higher dosages of a drug shown to have heart-related side-effects, I think it makes more sense to look into the WHY and other possiblities, than to jump to the conclusion that scientists from all over the world doctored their studies just to prove that "orange man bad."
So I don't see these tests as being bizarre. Obviously they've proven in the larger dosages that there are risks with HCQ, but with lower dosages it seems to do just fine. There is more than enough documentation on the drug to suggest that the dosages given were not some conspiracy to disprove the drug works.
Dosage amounts (they all list the same 800mg dosage for someone who has malaria, not preventative):
https://www.rxlist.com/plaquenil-drug.htm#dosage
https://www.drugs.com/dosage/hydroxychloroquine.html
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-sup...e/drg-20064216
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugs...045s047lbl.pdf
Here is the latest contribution from the Moron In Chief...and there are Americans that support him :confused:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-d...ry?id=72770704
even if it is stupid, predictably, it's a matter of policy coherence...
I just saw this poll on CNN...it is testing the waters for getting a Covid-19 vacination:
Get one ASAP 21%
Consider one but wait 58%
Never get one 21%
I'm in the "Consider one but wait" category. I'll need to see it in place for awhile. I realize that is counter to the greater good but I don't trust how Trump has replaced non-partisan leaders with his sycophants. He doesn't care about anyone but himself and has already proved he will sacrifice tens of thousands of Americans to get reelected. I don't trust the CDC, FDA, etc. in that context.
Personally I'd get one in a heart beat.
No offence, and you know I'm no bigger fan of Trump than you are, but that reads a little paranoid to me. What are you concerned he would do? I could see him pushing a non-effective vaccine for the PR but I struggle to think he'd roll out one that was actively harmful. He'd advocate it in his speeches but I doubt he'd actually roll out a program.
I'm concerned he'd do the same thing he did with Hydroxychloroquine and the plasma infusions...push unfounded drug cures on the American people. Look how he manipulates what our top science are saying. He gets the CDC to modify what they published to water it down. He had Hahn push convalescent plasma with bald faced lies and they had them back that off.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Now let's shift to the new book out "Rage" by Woodward. Trump was DELIBERATELY down played and lied about the virus when he knew how dangerous it was. He downplayed and lied about it through February. I don't think that is even "a little paranoid". He has already arguably killed tens of thousands of people to get reelected. What's a few million more to that pig of a man.
I know a broken clock is right twice a day, and I agree he shouldn't have said anything about HCQ as early as he did, but he did turn out to be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I'm also always a little skeptical about stuff in a "tell-all" books... other than a potential lawsuit in the future, they can say whatever they want.
I agree that Trump would lie about a vacciene, but I think he would also pull some stunt like "The democrats are stopping it from being released!" until after the election, so it would look like he has a cure, but his enemy is stopping him... vote him in and he will make sure it gets to you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "but he did turn out to be right". The FDA revoked the Emergency Use Authorization. We ended up dumping it all on Brazil :pQuote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Maybe you are not aware of the latest "tell all" by Woodward. It just came out. It is Trump speaking, not some anonymous person. It was some nine hours of interviews over 18 or so meetings. He admits he knew how dangerous the virus was and deliberately down played it. He actually states that! Now seeing how it is coming directly from Trump it probably is mostly lies.Quote:
I'm also always a little skeptical about stuff in a "tell-all" books... other than a potential lawsuit in the future, they can say whatever they want.
I would wait a bit if I were you : https://translate.google.fr/translat...accin%2C112804Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
they are trying to get a vaccine as fast as they could and as everything done fast, the risk of something bad is higher. They are always side effects but you need time to detect them and evaluate them. the risk is that they don't take enough time
Nope, never heard of the new book, it was more of a general statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
However, FDA revoking it in the US does look bad, but the rest of the world is still using HCQ with success. Dil actually linked this video in another post I believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uzXHnUViro . Dr. Campbell has been pretty level headed since the beginning of the pandemic. He was definitely more doom and gloom in the beginning, but as more evidence has come up he has adjusted his views and admitted where he went wrong.
Relevant part is at 1:20, but he does give a breakdown in his notes.
If you are saying "but the rest of the world is still using HCQ with success" when it is used for the things it was developed for, I agree. I don't believe anyone but Trump, little Brazilian Trump, and republicans actually thinks it works for Covid-19.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Nope, he is showing their trials show that HCQ works for covid19. However, he does say he thinks it is odd that the US went with such high doses, and I don't agree with that. In the response I made to Dil I linked several sources showing that the amounts they gave them were completely normal for people, and that the low dosages are usually preventative.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
The video from 1:20 and on for only a few minutes does a better job explaining it than I can. Specifically he links:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...817?via%3Dihub
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S...534-8/fulltext
He doesn't deny the risks with HCQ, but he says they're so risky in the US because those tests went with too high of a dose.
Both of those have been discredited for one reason or another. I knew what was in them before I opened them. It may be the only two that people who push that drug can reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
Can you show me where they've been discredited? John usually talks about that if it has happened, but he hasn't. Not denying there are other studies that show differeing results, but most seem to use larger doses like this one: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
*edit* So doing some more digging, here are current papers citing the first paper I linked: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...15163/citedby/
Some of them do indeed find differing results, and some match the results, but I still can't find that the papers have been retracted or discredited.
Just look them up for yourself. Off the top of my head the European one was not peer reviewed and there was also something suspicious about the Ford one. If you really believe any serous medical institutions are pushing that drug you should really look into it - it just isn't true. It was just another Trump lie. Did you know that a Fox news corespondent convinced Trump to promote it? Just like his pillow guy friend is pushing oleander extract:Quote:
Originally Posted by kfcSmitty
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020...id-treatment#1
I have looked any can't find anything. At least not for the papers linked in his video... it hardly seems scientific to discredit all papers that show an outcome you don't agree with because other papers that showed the same result were discredited.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
I've literally taken the exact name and added "retracted" or "discredited" to it and nothing comes up that is relevant. I will, however, concede that the one paper at least is verified as not peer-reviewed yet, but that doesn't mean it's invalid; time will tell that.
Dr. Campbell said he would follow up when more information became available.
If the question is would Trump promote a vaccine that he new was harmful, that would depend on one thing. If he thought it would benefit him. If so, then absolutely. He's not going to promote a vaccine that is killing people the day after the take it, that wouldn't benefit him, but if the harmful effects aren't going to show up till after the election, he would promote it. If he cared about people living or dying then there wouldn't be 190,000+ virus deaths in the US. You still can't get prompt test or results, it take several days, at least where I live you can't. He actually promotes not wearing masks. He only cares about what he thinks benefits him, he doesn't give a damn if costs unnecessary deaths.
I can certainly see him promoting it if he thought it was good for his election prospects - at least, if we define promoting as crowing about it in speeches. What I can't see him doing is actually pushing it out through your medical system.
Mind you, I'm considering that through the lens of a UK style centralised NHS system where a single, government run provider is in absolute control of everything from end to end. Your system is a lot more privately driven than ours and I imagine that makes it a lot more fractured (fractured isn't the word I'm looking for but I can't think of a better one). My portrayal of Trump "pushing it out" may not really apply over there, I don't know.
What I mean is that, over here, a prime minister could, theoretically, drive through legislation that saw an untested and potentially dangerous drug actually being prescribed by GPs and/or used in hospitals etc. I couldn't see Trump actually doing that but, as I think about it, he probably doesn't have the power. I guess his power probably only extends to promoting a particular drug and applying pressure to testing organisations (e.g. the FDA) to approve it and I could certainly see him doing that. I'm not clear in exactly where his powers extend to in this context though.
On the Hydroxi thing, my (admittedly quite outdated) understanding of the situation is that there have been tests that show it helps and more tests that show it doesn't. Some of the ones that show it helps have been discredited (including the original high profile one which was carried by the people who hold the patent for it) but that's not to say that all positive tests have been discredited. At this point it can, at best, be viewed as an untested drug. On the flip side, we know that it has some extremely serious side effects when over dosed and that, in small doses, it does not appear to have any effect on the Corona virus. So if it's to be taken at the sorts of doses that are likely to work on Corona then it should only be done so under direct medical supervision.
Here's a really good paper on it. The summary points at the beginning are pretty clear and the discussion section is good to dig deeper into the conclusions if you don't have the time to read the whole thing in detail.
So I think Trump is morally wrong to be promoting the drug at this stage. It's untested, dangerous and probably ineffective outside of a strictly monitored environment. It may, in the future, turn out to be part of a cure at which point Trump will undoubtedly claim credit but he doesn't have access to some secret and credible source of information that would lead to his conclusions. He's simply taken a guess. Guess enough times and sooner or later you'll be correct. It's not a good basis for prescribing potentially dangerous drugs though.
Still, I've heard great things about injecting bleach...
That is so ludicrous it is funny...You are making unsubstantiated claims about a drug promoted by Fox news to a moronic president and say I'm on the wrong side. Just Google this:Quote:
it hardly seems scientific to discredit all papers that show an outcome you don't agree with because other papers that showed the same result were discredited
is Hydroxychloroquine effective for covid-19
And see what comes up. You might want to see if bleach helps while you are at it...that is another one of Trump's "cures". Maybe he got that one right too :rolleyes:
We should all be glad Trump is protecting us from the truth...If Americans would have known the facts we would have all panicked. It would have been a disaster of biblical proportions. We need a leader that saves us from pandemics without really letting us know how bad it is. I wish I could vote for him right now; I would sleep better.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54107677
Unsubstantiated? I literally linked 2 papers that show it has an effect, and a video to a repsected doctor giving his opinion on it and explaining why he believes the other studies were not successful, and Funky just posted another paper that shows the same results. No one is saying the average person should go out and get HCQ and take it on their own -- obviously it should be done under medical supervision, but to say it is completely unsubstantiated is just quite dishonest..Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
If you're worried I am agreeing with Trump, I am not. He should not have promoted it as he has, as it is still under testing, but there are tests showing that it is effective, at the right doses, to help those with COVID-19.
I also don't just Google these things.. that gets you news articles. I look at the abstracts of papers:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?a...=en&as_sdt=0,5
Most of those show either optimisim with the drug, or no results at all.
Simply saying "Google it" is not a defense of your position; you may think your position is beyond contestation, but that is rarely ever the fact.