Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
indydave

Audacious! "Show meet someone who believes in Noah's ark and..."

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, StormanNorman said:

Trump already has his share of accusations...

And those accusers have had plenty of airtime in the media. And he has been asked about them many times. But no one seems to want to ask Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, indydave said:

And those accusers have had plenty of airtime in the media. And he has been asked about them many times. But no one seems to want to ask Biden.

Can't help you there; you do have Fox News on your side...and they are as big as anyone....have them give it a go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StormanNorman said:

Can't help you there; you do have Fox News on your side...and they are as big as anyone....have them give it a go...

Aw come on... You can't honestly think that the media is 50-50 can you? At best it's 90-10. The media has had its go at Trump and he is still standing. Now it's Biden's turn.

Was Trump ever accused of RAPING A SUBORDINATE? A voluntary mistress is still immoral, but rape is a MAJOR CRIME.

Of course Democrats showed they are willing to overlook accusations of rape and other S@xual abuse... regarding Bill Clinton. Hillary takes the cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StormanNorman said:

Can't help you there; you do have Fox News on your side...and they are as big as anyone....have them give it a go...

He will NEVER allow Fox to interview him...and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, indydave said:

Aw come on... You can't honestly think that the media is 50-50 can you? At best it's 90-10. The media has had its go at Trump and he is still standing. Now it's Biden's turn.

Was Trump ever accused of RAPING A SUBORDINATE? A voluntary mistress is still immoral, but rape is a MAJOR CRIME.

Of course Democrats showed they are willing to overlook accusations of rape and other S@xual abuse... regarding Bill Clinton. Hillary takes the cake.

No, it's not 50/50...but Fox is still pretty big.  We'll see how it goes.  Personally, I feel any allegation of S@xual misconduct should be taken seriously...independent of political affiliation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, indydave said:

He will NEVER allow Fox to interview him...and you know it.

No, what I meant is that Fox could do the investigative journalism....interview her, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, StormanNorman said:

No, what I meant is that Fox could do the investigative journalism....interview her, etc.

She supposedly is an ardent Democrat who won't vote Trump. My guess is they have already tried hard to get her but she won't be interviewed. I think she is hoping Biden will drop out and that will allow Bernie to get it. I think if it gets really hot for Biden, he probably will drop out or claim he has some medical problem...to save face. There probably is some backdoor conversation to that effect going on right now anyway. Probably they are trying to finangle things so that it is someone besides Sanders. Maybe all of these recent endorsements are the payoff back Biden demanded, so he would look good, before he exits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 10:29 PM, piasan said:

The more recent, and much larger study was done by the VA.  It included 368 patients.  The death rate for hydroxychloroquine was 27.8%; hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin was 22.1%; and for neither of them it was only 11.4%. (Source:  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v2 )

So this study has been called "a sham."

Infectious disease expert Dr. Stephen Smith told "The Ingraham Angle" Monday night that a study published last week indicating the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit for coronavirus patients in U.S. veterans hospitals was a "sham."

"I've no idea why [University of Virginia School of Medicine opthamology professor Dr. Jayakrishna Ambati] delved into this study, which isn't a study. It's a sham," Smith said. "I can't believe anyone took this seriously. There's not one dosage listed, cumulative or daily, of hydroxychloriquine or arithromicin. And people call this a study.... It's not a study at all. It doesn't even list the doses. They are all trained in ophthalmology.... I can't believe anyone took this seriously.... it's a shame on UVA, that UVA allows this to be even called a study."

 

As of Saturday, (French infectious disease expert - Indy) Dr. Raoult had given the medication, often in association with an antibiotic, to more than 2,400 people sickened by the coronavirus, according to a tally released by the Marseille hospital where he works. Ten of those patients have died. Dr. Raoult recommends administering the drug at an early stage, before Covid-19 causes serious damage to patients’ lungs.

Indy- I'd say a mortality rate of 10 out of 2400 is pretty excellent! Especially if the med is given only to fairly sick patients, not just those testing positive. He published a study of 1061 patients and writes "waiting too long for a double-blind study seems immoral to us and in contradiction with the Hippocratic oath which states that a doctor must do as much as possibleto treat patients according to the available knowledge in the field."

Dr. Smith, "there is already plenty of evidence to suggest, not suggest, PROVE that treatment of this population with this combination regimen designed by Dr. Raoult and his colleagues works... The odds of that happening by CHANCE is 10e-27 or whatever. so we know the combination is changing the course of the disease. and we know now the French data are extremely strong. so you can't ethically deny that. What would you say to the patient's family?"

I referred you to this French study long ago with over a thousand participants and you blew it off. Instead you wanted us to rely on a sham study conducted by ophthalmologists and refuted by the director of the VA.

Trump was ON IT...and he clearly was justified in suggesting that this medication be considered. Part of his job is to lead our country out of despair with some degree of realistic hope. And hope was certainly justified in this case.

Any study does need volunteers to be willing to take the placebo and it is certainly heartening to know that Pi would volunteer for that if he gets sick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StormanNorman said:

Can't help you there; you do have Fox News on your side...and they are as big as anyone....have them give it a go...

"you do have Fox News on your side."

Have you watched Chris Wallace, Brent Bayer, Martha Mcallum, Neil Cavuto, Arthelle Neville lately,? LOL.. 

I'm glad they are on trump's side. Hate to think of they were his enemy.. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StormanNorman said:

No, it's not 50/50...but Fox is still pretty big.  We'll see how it goes.  Personally, I feel any allegation of S@xual misconduct should be taken seriously...independent of political affiliation...

"Personally, I feel any allegation of S@xual misconduct should be taken seriously...independent of political affiliation'

Good for you, but you would be in the 1% of Democrats that feel that way... The blatant hypocrisy is stunning to see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, indydave said:

Personally I think it should be fine to point out that an atheist or agnostic has a more difficult time in establishing morality. There are way more fuzzy lines for them. A Christian has an absolute authority with a revelation from deity to inform us what is moral or not. Of course we have some fuzzy lines also in trying to INTERPRET that revealed truth. I think I was able to get the point that BK was getting at, regarding being in the car. One has to merely decide whether adultery is taking place to know if it is sinful and able to condemn that person. It doesn't matter if his wife knows or if his wife is pregnant or if his wife has a baby. But in our human reasoning we might think that a father of a baby should have more concern for his wife. I don't know if God would see that as an aggravating factor. Sin is sin.

I certainly don't want to come across as defending the womanizing that I believe Trump did even if he denies some of them. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of some who were calling for Kavanaugh to take away his nomination, when the evidence against him was quite flimsy and yet regarding Biden the evidence seems to be stronger but that doesn't seem to bother Pi in the slightest. He just wants to say that Trump is a womanizer also. I don't know of accusations that Trump went after one of his staff members to the extent of raping her with his hand... And I consider it very significant that there were contemporaneous witnesses to what she said happened. Even though it cannot be used in court for the truth of the matter, it has weight anyway. I heard judge Jeanine Pirro saying this and she heard many cases in her court.

Where does God's morality come from? I don't mean to derail the thread, but something to think about.

As for the context of BK's question, I think it was a clear deflection from the point SN was making. We can't mount a good defense for Trump's adultery or why we are so enamored with him despite his major flaws that we preach against, so just go with the old 'atheists can't comment on morality' tactic. IMO, it is a tactic Christians use when they know they don't have a good response.

As for the Republican support for Trump in general, especially his support from conservative Christian circles, it does seem rather hypocritical. For my entire life, until Trump took over the Republican party, Republicans proudly called themselves the "family values" party. They even impeached a previous President for having an affair and lying about it. Trump comes along, has multiple wives, cheats on them with p*rn stars including when his baby was just born, commits felonies to cover up his affairs for the campaign, and the "family values" party just shrugs their shoulders saying "I don't care".

To be fair, you could make a similar argument against Biden from the left. The Democrats say they are the "pro women" party, and it doesn't sound all that pro women to try and sweep under the rug serious allegations that are credible enough to investigate. And, of course, there is a hypocrisy with Kavanaugh as well. Kavanaugh s*xually assaulted someone in high school, and for that he shouldn't be on SCOTUS, but Biden s*xually assaults someone as a US Senator and we are going to promote him to POTUS. Tribal logic at its finest.

I think the Republicans have a legitimate point there. Unfortunately, it is kind of overshadowed with Trump. Biden has one allegation of S@xual assault against him, albeit a particularly bad one involving rape in which people say the victim confided in them at the time. However, Trump has around two dozen women complaining about S@xual assault, including a rape in which two friends of the victim said she confided in them at the time as well.

As for Kavanaugh serving on the bench, I don't think it is really appropriate to go all the way back to what he did in high school and say he is unfit to serve because of that. However, I do not think he should be on the bench due to the way he acted during his hearing/job interview. Childishly responding to questions with, "have you?" Lying about what certain phrases mean, like devil's triangle. I don't think he respects the system enough to be honored with a SCOTUS position.

This doesn't go against his personal character, but I found it extremely odd when he started crying while reminiscing about lifting weights at his friend's house. Or when he started crying over calendars. It makes me wonder if he has the emotional fortitude necessary to competently do his job.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2020 at 11:00 PM, indydave said:

So instead of just being constantly critical of Trump, can you tell us when YOU think each of the governors should open up their state to try to get things back to normal?

On 4/27/2020 at 5:37 PM, piasan said:

How about when their state meets the CDC criteria announced by Trump?  AFAIK, none of the states that are easing restrictions meet the criteria.  Especially the two week trend of declining cases.

Is it too much to think Trump might speak out about some of those other states like he did Georgia?   (Note:   I've already given him credit for that.)

On 4/28/2020 at 10:39 PM, indydave said:

So can I take it to mean that if he speaks up against a state that does NOT open up when the CDC guidelines say they could, that you will have no problem with him doing that? Or will that be him behaving like a tyrant dictator again in your head?

 

 

I have no problem with him speaking up against states that do NOT open up when the CDC guidelines say they could.  Can you give any examples? 

On the other hand, he SHOULD  ... no....   MUST ...speak up against states that open BEFORE they meet the CDC .... no ..... HIS .... guidelines.  That would be ALL of them.  In fact, Trump is actually encouraging states to open even though they don't yet meet the criteria HE put forward to do so.

So ..... IIRC it was on Thursday, that Trump announced new CDC guidelines for re-opening the country.  By Sunday numerous states have announced they will reopen in violation of a key requirement.  By Monday, Trump, the LEADER of the nation; LEADER of the Republican party; and SPONSOR of the guidelines was encouraging this dangerous behavior.

Earlier, when I commented on this I mentioned my fear that Trump is not serious about the guidelines.  His actions this week strongly suggest he's listening to business, not science.

It doesn't get much better when the leader of Trump's Coronovirus Task Force, Vice-President Mike Pence shows up at the Mayo clinic and REFUSES to wear a mask per hospital requirements.   That's another example of Trump administration "leadership."

 

On 4/27/2020 at 5:37 PM, piasan said:

If Trump doesn't speak up when a state reopens in violation of the guidelines he presented, does Trump have some responsibility if there's a "flare-up?"

On 4/28/2020 at 10:39 PM, indydave said:

It isn't heads I win tails you lose. Either it is the governor's who bear the responsibility and the credit or blame... OR it isn't. Trump has provided guidelines and it is in the hands of the governors to do what they think is best. Trump has said that if a state goes way out of line they will speak up harshly but unless it is extreme they won't.  . That seems to me to be a very good way to handle it.  It isn't all Trump's decision to make.

 

So Trump has said the states can violate the guidelines HE announced and he won't speak up unless they do it "too much" but he is not responsible at all.

That seems to me a very good way to needlessly kill tens of thousand of people.

This is a time and place for LEADERSHIP.  The kind demonstrated by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt .... not washing his hands like Pontius Pilate. 

These are mostly Republican states Trump is the leader of both the nation AND the party.

When a state violates the guidelines Trump has endorsed he should be the leader he claims to be; mount the "Bully Pulpit" of Theodore Roosevelt; explain what the science says we need to do and convince the public like Reagan.  THAT"S what leaders do ... convince people to follow, even when it might not be in their self-interest.

Failure to at least make the attempt will make him complicit in the consequences.

 

On 4/28/2020 at 10:39 PM, indydave said:

 You just can't take yes for an answer! You would be howling and complaining if Trump was being more of a strong arm leader, but when he backs off and lets the states decide about opening up, then it appears you want to be on his back for NOT having more of a strong arm approach!

Well, he doesn't seem to be able to figure out if he has the authority or not.  But even if he does not have the authority, he has a RESPONSIBILITY for the safety of the American people he cannot abdicate.

You want to call him a "General" and leader.  His leadership doesn't come close to that displayed by real leaders.  It's much more like what one would expect of the highest rank Trump ever achieved..... Prep School Cadet Captain.  Next higher rank .....

RECRUIT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"Personally, I feel any allegation of S@xual misconduct should be taken seriously...independent of political affiliation'

Good for you, but you would be in the 1% of Democrats that feel that way... The blatant hypocrisy is stunning to see.  

Yeah, except I'm not a Democrat.....never have been....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goku said:

Where does God's morality come from? I don't mean to derail the thread, but something to think about.

God's morality comes from His own nature which depends on a good understanding of the term, "universe", being both, "united" and, "diverse". God's attributes can be shown to all be united and work together as one which is why the bible sometimes says, "the Lord is one", and why Jesus said He is "one with the Father".

God's attributes compliment each other meaning the fruit of the spirit of God directly flow from God upon their immediately natural outflow from that perfect character. Love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, self control, selflessness, etc....

This pertains to morality though it might not seem explicit. Why? Because does a rapist have, "self control?" Does a person with road rage have, "patience"? Is a violent person, "gentle"? Does a person with, "love" do despicable things such as abuse children?

Beware the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma if that's what you were implying which is what atheists classically imply;

Far be it for me to, "continually" blow my own logic trumpet, so I'll instead blow a chessmasters; (Sarfati)

Quote

J. Sarfati phd:However the true God of the Bible is infinitely more powerful and knowledgeable. Indeed, He is totally sovereign, and perfect goodness is an essential part of His character, not something outside Him.

Thus the dilemma can be shown to be a false one. God indeed commands things which are good, but the reason they are good is because they reflect God’s own nature. So the goodness does not come ultimately from God’s commandments, but from His nature, which then results in good commandments. As Steve Lovell concluded in ‘C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma’ (2002):

‘The commands of an omniscient, loving, generous, merciful, patient and truthful Being would not be issued without reason, and that since these characteristics are essential to God, His commands possess a strong modal status. It was also observed that God’s possession of these attributes is sufficient to give significant content to God’s goodness.’

Indeed, the Euthyphro Dilemma can be turned around on atheists: Do you approve of an action because it is good, or is it good because you approve of it? If the latter, then your moral standard seems to be subjective and arbitrary, so you complain about God’s alleged arbitrariness. And if the former, then you are back to explaining where this objective moral standard comes from

I presume you were merely asking Christians for their answer for where morality stems. As far as I know there isn't any fault in Sarfati's reasoning, here is the link;

https://creation.com/what-is-good-answering-euthyphro-dilemma

Conclusion: I don't really think it's a contentious issue anyway Goku to be honest, it's more of a definition-thing. It's simply obvious that under atheism it's overt implications lead to morality being relative and not truly existent except to the individual and those who agree with the individual, and with Christianity it's obvious that morality will not be relative because the commands will be coming from an all-knowing God Who therefore knows why His commands are correct morality. 

So really that is just the difference in our worldview because of those two different ways of thinking. 

I think it is fair to say that if you, "do terribly immoral things like abuse or whatever, you don't know the Lord." (because you can't do that with the love of God. If a small child hurts her knee tears almost come to my eyes, but do you think this occurs for someone that would abuse a child?)

So then it is the love of God which is the chief of all the fruit of the spirit. As it says, "God is love". Those motivated by love are not motivated by evil. 

But it doesn't then follow that you can say, "if you don't know the Lord then you do terribly immoral things."

Most atheists don't do terribly immoral things on that scale, which is why I deem it unfair to bring atheism into the argument about the politician's character because character changes from person to person even among atheists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2020 at 9:29 PM, piasan said:

The more recent, and much larger study was done by the VA.  It included 368 patients.  The death rate for hydroxychloroquine was 27.8%; hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin was 22.1%; and for neither of them it was only 11.4%. (Source:  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v2 )

11 hours ago, indydave said:

So this study has been called "a sham."

Infectious disease expert Dr. Stephen Smith told "The Ingraham Angle" Monday night that a study published last week indicating the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit for coronavirus patients in U.S. veterans hospitals was a "sham.".....

As of Saturday, (French infectious disease expert - Indy) Dr. Raoult had given the medication, often in association with an antibiotic, to more than 2,400 people sickened by the coronavirus, according to a tally released by the Marseille hospital where he works. Ten of those patients have died. Dr. Raoult recommends administering the drug at an early stage, before Covid-19 causes serious damage to patients’ lungs.

Indy- I'd say a mortality rate of 10 out of 2400 is pretty excellent! Especially if the med is given only to fairly sick patients, not just those testing positive.

 

All of that is, of course, new information.  Results like that normally lead to termination of the study and IMMEDIATE implementation of the treatment.

 

11 hours ago, indydave said:

I referred you to this French study long ago with over a thousand participants and you blew it off. Instead you wanted us to rely on a sham study conducted by ophthalmologists and refuted by the director of the VA.

I didn't ask you to rely on anything.  What I said was that the VA study was a better fit for *MY* demographic.  Specifically, I expect their study to have a disproportionate ratio of (high risk) old (high risk) men.  This means their result is probably more inclusive of *MY* risk factors and more representative of results *I* could expect than a more random study would be.  For that reason *I* would rely on that study.

If you have risk factors for a disease, wouldn't you be more interested in a study that had more people with your risk factors than a study of the general population?

 

11 hours ago, indydave said:

Trump was ON IT...and he clearly was justified in suggesting that this medication be considered. Part of his job is to lead our country out of despair with some degree of realistic hope. And hope was certainly justified in this case.

You don't seem to understand ... when the president says things people often go overboard.  You saw it first hand with the disinfectant comment.  The mere suggestion from the president that it might be helpful to investigate something dangerous sent people to the emergency room.

The President of the United States should not promote unproven medical treatments.

 

11 hours ago, indydave said:

Any study does need volunteers to be willing to take the placebo and it is certainly heartening to know that Pi would volunteer for that if he gets sick!

First, I'm going to point out I've corrected you multiple times on this.  Considering some of the medical information we've shared with each other (privately) this correction shouldn't be necessary once .... let alone a half dozen times.

If I were sick and there were an experimental drug available I would discuss the situation and the options with my doctor and make my decision based on the best information available at that time.  Isn't that what you would do?

One more thing .... if you volunteer for the study, you still have a 50% chance of getting the placebo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Goku said:

This doesn't go against his personal character, but I found it extremely odd when he started crying while reminiscing about lifting weights at his friend's house. Or when he started crying over calendars. It makes me wonder if he has the emotional fortitude necessary to competently do his job.

I'd like to see you bear up under that kind of attack with more grace and stalwart strength than he did. Some people come close to tears easier than others. I'm not so sure that is a sign of weakness, as you seem to imply.

My point was to show the hypocrisy of pi's comment. Even though Kavanaugh denied everything, he expects Kavanaugh to make an admission and apologize. This, after TONS of investigation of him. If Pi is going to be fair there should be tons of investigation of Biden and then even if Biden denies it, he should be expected to apologize and admit that he did it. But of course pi is not going to apply his standard for Kavanaugh to Biden. How does that make any sense to you? Pi has a test now to show that his comment about Kavanaugh was not motivated out of nothing more than pure political hatred for Trump and anything related to opposing abortion. So far he is flunking the test.

A large part of the question about Bible believers who have supported Trump revolves around whether or not human lives are being murdered by the thousands everyday with the support of one party, and the other party strongly opposes that. And Trump determined early on that if he was elected he would be willing to appoint Supreme Court Justices who would be much more likely to side against those murders. It also is much about the concept of forgiveness and redemption. Having voluntary affairs in your past involving unfaithfulness against your wife is much different than the kind of accusation made now against Biden. I have not heard of something similar against Trump. Plus there is the hypocrisy factor with Biden. Previously everyone has known that Trump was a womanizer in his past. In an election, you basically have a choice between two options. Given that a large percentage of politicians are involved in being unfaithful to their wives, that pretty much cancels out and you then want to examine their policies. That is why evangelicals strongly support Trump. If I had a realistic chance of voting for Pence instead of Trump and winning against the party of abortion, I most certainly would have preferred that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, piasan said:

THAT"S what leaders do ... convince people to follow, even when it might not be in their self-interest.

And THAT'S what he DID WRT Georgia...but you just keep ramping up the vitriole. Damned if he does or doesn't to you.

 

11 hours ago, piasan said:

It doesn't get much better when the leader of Trump's Coronovirus Task Force, Vice-President Mike Pence shows up at the Mayo clinic and REFUSES to wear a mask per hospital requirements

Dr.s Fauci and Birx don't wear masks ever that I have seen. And you would have to point out to me that the new CDC guidelines for opening the country involve everyone wearing a mask. You just hate the Trump administration and so if you can ever point out something that might help to defeat them in November you are going to do that. For that reason no one should pay much attention to your criticisms.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, piasan said:

It doesn't get much better when the leader of Trump's Coronovirus Task Force, Vice-President Mike Pence shows up at the Mayo clinic and REFUSES to wear a mask per hospital requirements.   That's another example of Trump administration "leadership."

I will agree that Pence should have complied with the hospital requirements however the hospital must not have considered them to be absolute... since they decided to let him enter without one. And according to his wife today, Pence did not know of the hospital's requirement until later. And it is my understanding that Pence himself has changed his practice because he wore a mask at a GM facility today. I heard him give his reasoning for not wearing one and that was because he is tested frequently and that makes sense but I suppose there is some degree of setting an example. Frankly I don't believe when we are practicing social distancing that it makes sense to require masks and gloves. When Trump issued the guidelines in early April for reopening, I believe he specifically said that masks were voluntary and only recommended. Obviously this must be true because you rarely see someone, including the press corps, wearing a mask during a press briefing. Nor do they all wear them when they do street interviews. IT IS ALL ABOUT BASHING TRUMP ANY WAY POSSIBLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, piasan said:

First, I'm going to point out I've corrected you multiple times on this. 

I know however I keep seeing your inconsistency about this. Your actions speak much more loudly than your words of denial. You should try to get a more consistent position. You apparently think that when a doctor thinks it is appropriate then the medication should be used and that is all that Trump has said. There is very good evidence that it is helpful in the right circumstances. And thanks to Trump's recommendation/promotion and the EUA he issued, doctors have decided to use it much more frequently and that means he has probably helped to save lives. But you don't seem to care about that. All you care about is not relinquishing your precious hammer you want to keep unfairly using to bash Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, piasan said:

One more thing .... if you volunteer for the study, you still have a 50% chance of getting the placebo.

Actually I don't believe that is the case with this virus. I think only volunteers or doctors who have chosen to not prescribe it have been in the control group. It would certainly seem to be immoral to NOT give medicine to someone who could die if they don't receive it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, piasan said:

If I were sick and there were an experimental drug available I would discuss the situation and the options with my doctor and make my decision based on the best information available at that time.  Isn't that what you would do?

So if your doctor did not recommend it but then you said to him that you had heard it promoted by the president and it might be helpful... and that caused your doctor to say well I may not think it is helpful but it shouldn't do any harm and therefore I will prescribe it for you... and you took the medication, and you got better instead of dying...would you be grateful that Trump had promoted it for you to know about it and ask your doctor about it?

Or would you just keep bashing him?

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, piasan said:

What I said was that the VA study was a better fit for *MY* demographic.  Specifically, I expect their study to have a disproportionate ratio of (high risk) old (high risk) men.  This means their result is probably more inclusive of *MY* risk factors and more representative of results *I* could expect than a more random study would be.  For that reason *I* would rely on that study

I know you desperately would like to try to save face but you shouldn't do that by misrepresenting what you said. You did of course say that you felt the VA study was of a demographic more like your own, but you were NOT limiting your criticism of Trump just for those of your own age category and gender. You were critical of Trump recommending it to anyone... or more precisely to anyone's DOCTOR. Here are your words:

 

The more recent, and much larger study was done by the VA.  It included 368 patients.  The death rate for hydroxychloroquine was 27.8%; hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin was 22.1%; and for neither of them it was only 11.4%. (Source:  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v2 )

There's always a possibility that your brother-in-law survived DESPITE the hydroxychloroquine, not BECAUSE of it.  As it stands right now, with the much larger study of a demographic more like my own showing a death rate twice as high as no treatment at all, I'd be crazy to use the drug.  I'm still withholding a final decision on it until the double blind studies are completed, but it isn't looking good for this line of treatment.

When the enemy attacks, you don't go to war with soldiers who are more likely to shoot you than the enemy.

When Trump made his statements, there was nothing that works and his support of this treatment hasn't changed that.   But the President of the United States should stop supporting speculative treatments with (mostly) anecdotal evidence as "game changers."

Your TWS may make you think a treatment that is more than twice as likely to cause your death as doing noting is preferable to just waiting and hoping.  TDS doesn't cause that kind of disconnect with reality.

###

You said that there was nothing that works, and you didn't qualify that by age or by anything else. You even made the statement that the medication is more likely to kill you then to help you! You also previously said that the way it looked at that time to you, you would DECLINE it. You say here that you would be crazy to take it. NOW you are saying you would discuss it with your doctor and POSSIBLY TAKE IT. That means that my words AND PERHAPS TRUMP'S RECOMMENDATIONS have changed your opinion...RIGHT??? So thanks to Trump, perhaps your life could be saved, but even if that happened you would probably STILL not thank him. There are probably thousands of people, including the Democrat representative from Michigan, and perhaps including my sister's husband, who can thank Trump (in part) for their lives. But that would NEVER include you.

I wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Pi would probably miss what I just saw ON FOX I'll repeat what I heard the Democratic governor of New Jersey just now say about Trump's performance.

"I want to thank you for your enormous help in our darkest hour of need... We will be able to at least double our testing abilities that will allow us to much more aggressively and responsibly do the reopening that we all need to do. In our hour of need, whether it be ventilators, the army corps building our capacity, FEMA, our testing sites... We were at the edge and this is life and death stuff and we got them (ventilators). And we are forever thankful for that."

He and his state would have been SCREWED if Hillary or Biden were president!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh WOW... I didn't realize how serious things had gotten. Dr. Birx has decided to pull out the scarf heavy artillery today!

 

IMG_20200430_202356_813.jpg.095fda6a4e9d75e82924aa70d63c8f2f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://gellerreport.com/2020/04/association-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-hydroxychloroquine-does-help-91-of-coronavirus-patients-and-argue-we-should-not-wait-for-controlled-trials.html/

 

By Natalie Rahhal Acting Us Health Editor, , 29 April 2020

The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine has improved the survival and recovery odds for about 90 percent of patients treated with the controversial medication, a physicians group claims.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) presented data on 2,333 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine – including two supervised by Dr Oz – across the globe that shows 91.6 percent of those who got the drug fared better after treatment.

In a letter to Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, the group urged that doctors should not wait for results of gold standard tests of the drug to start using it in coronavirus patients and should instead base their use of it on reasonable interpretations of limited available data.

AAPS’s endorsement of the drug comes after a Veteran Affairs study of hydroxychloroquine found that those who took the drug were more likely to die, casting doubt over the potential treatment that President Trump has hailed a ‘game changer.’

 

The group of doctors dismissed those preliminary results, claiming that the 52 people who died were very sick, meaning their outcomes are ‘not indicative’ of hydroxychloroquine’s effects and that the drug would work better if used in patients with less critical illness.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons claimed in a letter to Arizona’s governor that hydroxychloroquine was more than 90% effective at treating more than 2,000 coronavirus patients – but their data is little more than a collection of anecdotal reports, including two patients treated by Dr Oz, and one report on a former NFL player

AAPS, which opposes what it refers to as healthcare ‘reform,’ including Medicare for All proposals, presents ‘information from some larger patient groups, alongside reports on single patients.

 

‘Waiting for fixed randomized controlled trials during a pandemic when time is of the essence, a Bayesian approach to the assessment of diagnostic and therapeutic probabilities is wise and efficient and will save time, money and lives if the physicians are given a chance to retain their autonomy and practice medicine to the best of their abilities,’ the group writes.

The Bayesian method, referred to multiple times throughout their letter is a statistical approach in which probabilities are assessed on a rolling basis, and a reasonable expectation is inferred based on the data at-hand.

 

In other words, the group says doctors shouldn’t wait for a large body of data to draw conclusions about whether or not hydroxychloroquine works and is safe, but assume that it is based on databases like theirs, which it says is regularly updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms