Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The editors of the New England Journal of Medicine have published an editorial condemning the Trump administration's handling of the Covid epidemic:

Dying in a Leadership Vacuum

I haven't read past the first few paragraphs yet.

Ellen

Phony CDC statistics strike again.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Verified is a funny word , nowadays, perhaps always, but definitely nowadays.

The single greatest advance in medicine was the germ theory of disease. It's precursor was smallpox vaccination. There is no handling flu with vaccine, just the pretense, but the pretense is a ho

Indeed. I may be skeptical about aspects of the story, but not the story itself.

Posted Images

Pretty sure they said the establishment bureaucracies would have done better if they had not been eviscerated by bad orange man , coupled to the fact that the federal government doesn’t have the same power as the CCP does in China , which makes China way better , way better. And vote Biden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

And....Polly meltdown in 3...2...1...

TG,

This is the problem with people who get wedded to all-or-nothing positions when the situation is not all-or-nothing.

I'm not talking about moral equivalence. Some things are black and while. (Mass killing, slavery, destroying the achievements of others for nothing but the thrill, mutilating people on purpose with no extenuating circumstances, etc.)

But in cases where there are still a lot of unknowns, meaning knowledge based on observation, not dogma, there are far better chances of arriving at a correct evaluation from looking at a problem from different angles than from holding onto a certainty where no certain knowledge is yet possible.

In Polly's case, she morphed from thinking the people behind some vaccines are evil (and I believe they are) to thinking ALL vaccines and their makers are evil. Moreover, anyone who says otherwise is a [fill in the blank with your favorite insult and expletive]. :) 

I've seen this among some of the autism people Kat interacts with at times. This form of thinking happened with Glenn Beck. It happened the the ARI folks long ago. It happened right here on OL recently with Jon. And on and on.

When a person gets triggered by hatred, they get irrational and do crazy shit.

I think we have to trust our eyes and our own minds. In the case of COVID-19, If a new med comes out, I am no expert on it and anyone demanding I think this way or that about it is no expert either. Not even the actual experts are experts on everything about it.

So what do I suggest we do? I say use common sense. See if people who use the new med get fucked or get better. That's a pretty good indication of how to choose. Also, if you get a case of COVID-19 and it looks like you are quickly spiraling down to your demise and the doctor says this will help you, since you are fucked anyway, I say go with it. :) What's there to lose in that situation? 

I would not be happy if President Trump makes a law requiring everyone take this medication or any medication, for that matter, but I'm sure glad he's working on getting some new meds like Regeneron, vaccines, etc., out there.

People similar to the way Polly is right not, once they have crossed a mental line in their thinking, and had their conclusions reinforced in their lizard brain with a little success audience-wise, they do not want alternatives to their convictions to exist at all.

Polly seems like she doesn't want stem cell stuff to exist, for example. And it's obvious that this is from a religious dogma she believes in, not scientific thinking, nor, incidentally, rational thinking.

Caution is one thing. Rational condemnation is one thing. Burning witches to the stake because the dogma says so is a completely different thing.

(This whole climate change debacle shows clearly that scientific thinking and rational thinking are not the same. Scientists always pretend they are, but scientific thinking and rational thinking are two very different disciplines. There are plenty of irrational scientists out there who do scientific thinking well. Bat-shit crazy ones, too. :) And, of course, there are some great rational scientists, too.)

btw - I still support Polly. She has an amazing mind and is one of the best dot-connectors of hidden elitist interconnections I have ever seen. I will still watch her videos. But I have my limits. If she goes off the deep end into sheer hatred of Trump (or whatever) all the time the way Glenn Beck did, she will lose me just like Beck did for years until he came to his senses.

For now, I think Polly received a slap in the face from reality and she didn't like it. Not one bit. And, as a tweet you posted shows, I don't think she is going to like the backlash from her fans, either.

So I say let's chalk this outburst up to spunk for now. I don't want to see her lose her spunk. I like it that's she's pissed. I hope she stays pissed, too--but at the right people. Anger flares up at times and burns the wrong people. That's just the nature of it. So, at this point, I make a little flexibility for this in judging her.

Michael

 

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

I haven't read past the first few paragraphs yet.

Ellen,

It doesn't look to be worth your time.

You will never get that time back and you run the risk of accepting the stupid--a little more--as the same thing as your smarts by reading it.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

It doesn't look to be worth your time.

You will never get that time back and you run the risk of accepting the stupid--a little more--as the same thing as your smarts by reading it.

:)

Michael

What stupid is it you think I'm accepting?

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

What stupid is it you think I'm accepting?

Ellen

Ellen,

Accepting is the wrong idea. (My bad for using that word.)

Having your intelligence sucked out of you against your will is more like it.

This is a riff off an old joke or put down.

And now the joke got spoiled from my inartful expression. What's worse, it will get even more spoiled from having to explain it.

sigh... oh well... 

Here's the joke as a typical put-down.

Person B explains something.

Person A says to Person B: You call that an explanation? I am stupider for having listened to you.

:) 

This joke was also used in famous Adam Sandler movie (Billy Madison) where the climax is a game show for super-high stakes.

Madison (Sandler), who is not too bright, answers a question given to him about how the industrial revolution changed the modern novel. After Madison's answer, the host, deadpan, says the following.

To wit:

Quote

Mr. Madison, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard.

At no point in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. 

Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.

I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

:) 

I was basically saying, from reading the part you put up from The New England Journal of Medicine, that it is so incredibly stupid, you (and everyone) gets dumber if you read it.

It's a quip. I set it up all wrong.

Drat!

:) 

(btw - Despite the fizzle, I still think it's funny... :) )

Michael

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

Phony CDC statistics strike again.

--Brant

Typical, all of science and medicine has been compromised by a single, unquestioned ethics: government owns your bodies and you are responsible for others' bodies. When a govt. doesn't do enough fast enough - perhaps from a semblance of recognizing citizens' self-responsibility and individual liberty, these people stick the knife in and 'politicize' what's not their business to do.

Altruism 101. One's life belongs to the Other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anthony said:

Typical, all of science and medicine has been compromised by a single, unquestioned ethics: government owns your bodies and you are responsible for others' bodies.

Anthony,

And more.

When government pays the scientists, government owns the scientists. They will do whatever it wants.

When the government is good, the scientists are good. When the government is bad, the scientists are bad.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

.. When the government is bad.. the scientists that are recognized are the scientists that are allowed to be recognized along with 'their' science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tmj said:

.. When the government is bad.. the scientists that are recognized are the scientists that are allowed to be recognized along with 'their' science.

T,

There's that, too.

Suppression of scientists who still have a conscience instead of a callous where that used to be.

One of the areas where people, especially the bad guys, hate President Trump the most is that he screws around with their money.

Even when he took out the ISIS caliphate, the first thing he did was cut off their money. Obama & Co. didn't do that. They did the opposite.

Ditto for that stupid Iran deal. He cut their money. Obama & Co. didn't do that. They did the opposite. 

The first step in defeating evil should be to cut off its resources. Duh... But our former leaders have been hell-bent on funding evil. Why? They were both stupid and they got a cut.

I think a lot of scientists--especially the establishment suck-ups--are afraid President Trump is going to screw around with their money. They don't care about whether they are serving evil. They just want their money. And for the really bad ones, especially at universities, are the most afraid. That's one of the reasons they hate him so much.

And they are right.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, anthony said:

Of interest to you Mike. Not all of them, as I said, a minority with integrity:

Tony,

Obviously, I agree:

18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... scientists who still have a conscience...

:)

But don't forget, many scientists change with the political wind. The establishment cartel used to be the government and now the Trump approach people are moving in.

As a general rule, when government funds science, ideologically, scientists move to where the money is.

Government money is really good at funding altruism and making a difference. And at funding sudden integrity.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,

In the science world, it's even worse than what we are talking about, though. And it has been for a long time.

It's the issue of socialism among scientists (and outright communism in some cases for that matter).

Look at this quick clip with Ted Turner and Carl Sagan.

TED TURNER: Are you a socialist?

CARL SAGAN: Well... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah yes I am...

:)

In the condescending pseudo-wisdom of Sagan: "We are using money for the wrong stuff."

In other words, Sagan wanted, nay demanded in understated seething outrage, to use YOUR money for what HE considered to be the right stuff.

Not his money (which he wanted to keep).

Your money.

Don't think he was a fluke. People like him are all around the scientific community.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I was basically saying, from reading the part you put up from The New England Journal of Medicine, that it is so incredibly stupid, you (and everyone) gets dumber if you read it.

It's a quip. I set it up all wrong.

Drat!

:) 

(btw - Despite the fizzle, I still think it's funny... :) )

Michael

Um. (Haha?)

Concerning your advice that I not bother to read it, however, considering the discussions and machinations I'm involved in, the editorial is certain to be talked about and I'd be remiss and at a disadvantage if I didn't read it.  

I have read it at this point.  Basically, it says, Orange Man - who isn't actually named in the piece - and other, likewise unnamed, "current political leaders" very, very bad. "We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs," the article concludes.

Judging from things I hear from doctors and virologists I know, the net effect might be more a boomerang and undercut NEJM's prestige.  "They're in China's pocket" is an expectable verdict.  Actually, I've heard that even before the editorial.  On the other hand, there will be those vociferously agreeing.  The ones whose funds are threatened.

Ellen

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

Um. (Haha?)

Concerning your advice that I not bother to read it...

Ellen,

I told you the joke was spoiled.

:)

As to my "advice," that was not advice. That was play advice as part of the quip.

In my entire history, have I ever seriously advised someone to not read something because it would be bad for them? Part of my ongoing theme is to look at everything and think for yourself. I've done that for years.

My history should count for something...

Besides...

A is A.

Quip is Quip.

Blown Joke is Blown Joke.

Nothing more.

It's the Law of Identity.

:)

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 3:45 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I have read it at this point.  Basically, it says, Orange Man - who isn't actually named in the piece - and other, likewise unnamed, "current political leaders" very, very bad. "We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs," the article concludes.

Judging from things I hear from doctors and virologists I know, the net effect might be more a boomerang and undercut NEJM's prestige.  "They're in China's pocket" is an expectable verdict.  Actually, I've heard that even before the editorial.  On the other hand, there will be those vociferously agreeing.  The ones whose funds are threatened.

Ellen,

Scott Adams just dealt with this in the video below. And it weds nicely with your view. It starts at 57:42.

For the time being, here is the raw transcript from Google so I don't have to look it up again. I don't have time to clean up the transcript right now, but I will do it later in this very post. 

(LATER EDIT: Done.)

I do want to mention that Scott, like me, thinks the New England Journal of Medicine was stupid. Not just evil. Stupid.

Quote

In related news, in an unprecedented move, it's been called, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine have publicly condemned the Trump administration for their COVID pandemic response and calling for the the current US leadership to be voted out of office.

That's pretty unprecedented, because it's a medical organization and they don't usually--maybe never--have gotten involved in politics. 

But, in their opinion, the treatment of the the medical part of his job, if you will the pandemic, that according to them, he's botched it so badly he should be voted out of office, and they should break their long-standing tradition to make that case. 

Here's what I get out of this. This is exactly why you can't let doctors make decisions. This [he shows the paper]... This is exactly why you shouldn't listen to doctors on big political decisions. 

Now, should you listen to your doctor about a medical decision? Sure. Of course. Of course you listen to your doctor on a medical decision. 

Is the pandemic handling a medical decision? Nope. Nope. It's a very big decision. It's a national decision. It's a national defense decision. It's an economic decision. It's a mental health, it's a physical health, it's a medical decision [sic]. It's a lot of things. It's not a medical decision. 

This demonstrates the stupidity of doctors as well as just about anything could. 

They have ignored the the economic part of the equation. That is stupid because they're at least smart enough to know they don't know that. Right? 

It'd be one thing if you didn't know what you don't know, but doctors are smart in general. Right? They're smart people. They're people with high IQ's. They know they don't know economics. And they know that that's the other part of the decision, and they have consciously decided to just ignore it. 

They know that freedom is the thing, and the people want it, and the people will willingly take a risk of dying to get it. Did they talk about freedom? Nope. Wasn't part of the conversation. 

So doctors, having a limited talent stack--meaning they could have all the talent in the world at doctoring--they know they don't have those other things. They know they don't speak for our freedom. They don't speak for your soul. They don't speak for your quality of life. They don't speak for the economy. They don't speak for national defense. 

But the president does. And the president took all of those things into consideration and made the decisions that he did. 

I believe he followed the medical decisions in every case, but I looked for a specific example because, obviously, if doctors are going to make such an unprecedented move, they're going to have to give the reasons. Right? 

So here are their reasons. For example, they say in their statement... for example, masks work. What? Was there a point when the president said masks don't work? The only point that happened is when the doctors told him to say that. That's the only time. The only time Trump said masks don't work is when doctors told him to say it. That's it. 

As soon as the doctors reversed, Fauci and the Surgeon General, etc., as soon as they reversed, Trump reversed, too. 

Now, he of course doesn't want to overdo the masks, but he always said they worked. He's always promoted them. He carries one in his pocket. So the first part is just not true. 

And then they say social distancing works. Was there ever a point where Trump said that doesn't work? No. These are just lies. [Does] quarantine in isolation work? Right? 

Again, there's nobody--including the president--who's ever said these things don't work. No. That's not true. There are citizens who say they don't work. But certainly not Trump. And this is amazing.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup Michael, Scott Adams is firm on the American/ individual/freedom/leader's role, and that scientists and MD's should never stray - in official capacity - outside their fields, into economics, ethics or politics, much less make arguments from authority (out of their areas) a la Carl Sagan, or that they need taking seriously. Most disappointing of the respectable New England Journal of Medicine that they'd make this nakedly obvious political ploy against the Trump Administration, close to the election. And I see similar propaganda from other once apolitical and great organs, like Nat Geo's magazine, the same social metaphysics and moral-political narratives coming down from their editorial policy, justified they believe, by Climate Change and now Covid. Everybody's suddenly a moral philosopher, not only stupid or evil, boring too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 8:11 PM, anthony said:

Everybody's suddenly a moral philosopher, not only stupid or evil, boring too.

Not good or a pro freedom notion? Notes from The New York Times today around 10am, October 10, 2020: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention drafted a sweeping order last month requiring all passengers and employees to wear masks on all forms of public and commercial transportation in the United States, but it was blocked by the White House, according to two federal health officials.

The order would have been the toughest federal mandate to date aimed at curbing the spread of the coronavirus, which continues to infect more than 40,000 Americans a day. The officials said that it was drafted under the agency’s “quarantine powers” and that it had the support of the secretary of health and human services, Alex M. Azar II, but the White House Coronavirus Task Force, led by Vice President Mike Pence, declined to even discuss it.

The two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment, said the order would have required face coverings on airplanes, trains, buses and subways, and in transit hubs such as airports, train stations and bus depots . . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Snopes:  What's True. During a Feb. 28, 2020, campaign rally in South Carolina, President Donald Trump likened the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the new coronavirus outbreak to their efforts to impeach him, saying "this is their new hoax." During the speech he also seemed to downplay the severity of the outbreak, comparing it to the common flu.

What's False. Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.

A quote from President Trump at a South Carolina rally on February 28, 2020. Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa, they can’t even count. No they can’t. They can’t count their votes.

One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will support Trump by voting in person, with my wife. But I do not agree with what he has done as regards The China black death.

Some tough questions to ask and answer, for yourself. Did President Trump’s actions needlessly put his life in danger? Did President Trump’s actions needlessly put other’s lives in danger? Did his actions set a bad example? Are his plans and policies towards Covid-19 the best plans and policies? Has he listened to the scientists and his own, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar? Will he listen to the scientists now that he has survived? Has he changed his mind about anything as regards the coronavirus? Now that he is recovering, has he risked giving the coronavirus to White House staffers? Have his actions lessened his chances of reelection? Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Peter said:

I will support Trump by voting in person, with my wife. But I do not agree with what he has done as regards The China black death.

Some tough questions to ask and answer, for yourself. Did President Trump’s actions needlessly put his life in danger? Did President Trump’s actions needlessly put other’s lives in danger? Did his actions set a bad example? Are his plans and policies towards Covid-19 the best plans and policies? Has he listened to the scientists and his own, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar? Will he listen to the scientists now that he has survived? Has he changed his mind about anything as regards the coronavirus? Now that he is recovering, has he risked giving the coronavirus to White House staffers? Have his actions lessened his chances of reelection? Peter

Just stay in the basement...all of us...in a bubble...it's the only way to be sure...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 4:13 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For the time being, here is the raw transcript from Google so I don't have to look it up again. I don't have time to clean up the transcript right now, but I will do it later in this very post. 

Ellen,

I just finished it.

Click on the curved arrow at the top right of my quote and it will take you directly to the post.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

After it is developed and tested, when will the coronavirus vaccine be available to you? Who will administer the vaccine? I hope it is handed over to doctors and pharmacies.  Peter

Edited for brevity. From USA Today. Who will get the coronavirus vaccine as soon as it becomes available is starting to come into focus. A report released Friday breaks the U.S. population into four groups and assigns each a place in line. 

Not unexpectedly, people who risk their lives to care for those suffering from COVID-19 – the "jump start" group – will have first dibs, along with police, firefighters and paramedics . . . .  about 5% of the total U.S. population . . . . The panel's goal is to develop a rollout plan that maximizes the benefit to society by focusing on those at highest risk for severe illness or death from COVID-19 . . . . People in Phase 1a are critical to keeping the health care system functioning and are at high risk of exposure to sick patients. They’re also at higher risk of then transmitting the virus to others, including family members.

The second phase of vaccine distribution — Phase 1b — covers about 10% of the population. It includes people of all ages with underlying conditions like cancer, serious heart conditions, and sickle cell disease that put them at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease or death . . . . This group includes people with two or more chronic conditions that put them at higher risk, including kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity or diabetes. This phase also includes people 65 and older living in nursing homes, long-term care facilities, homeless shelters, group homes, prisons or jails. Phase 2 covers between 30% to 35% of people in United States. It includes teachers, school staff and childcare workers and critical workers in high-risk settings who can’t avoid high-risk exposure to COVID-19, such as those working in the food supply system and public transit. 

Also included are all people over 65, because they account for about 80% of all reported COVID-19 deaths. Additionally, those who have one underlying condition that puts them at moderately higher risk, as well as people in homeless shelters or group homes and staff who work in those settings will have access to vaccine in this stage. People under 65 who are in prisons, jails, and detention centers and staffers also are included.

Phase 3 covers between 40% and 45% of the population. It includes young adults and people who work in industries such as higher education, hotels, banks, exercise facilities and factories. Whether children are included in this group will depend if COVID-19 vaccines have been tested for safety and efficacy in younger age groups. 

Finally, Phase 4 will include everyone else residing in the U.S. who did not have access to the vaccine in prior phases, between 5% and 15% of the population. “In these uncertain and challenging times, the integrity of the COVID-19 vaccine development, allocation, and distribution processes will be critical to ensuring widespread access to vaccines that are safe and effective, and convincingly so for the public,” said National Academy of Medicine President Victor J. Dzau. 

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