Because Trump 2.0

[Stargrunt6]

41 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Perhaps having been raised in a medical family AND having worked in the industry itself for a time I have a more nuanced view of it all. 

I am reminded of when I was working for Dr Klein, cardiology was potentially great. But at the same time, we saw patient films where their cardiologist had put in 4-6 stents. Given Dr Klein's study data on restenosis was something like 20% chance for a given stent to have a re-occulsion at that juncture, the patients with 5-6 stents were GOING to have another occlusion. Doctors shotgunning what ever treatment at a patient because it's in their tool box is not always a good thing. It's as much art as science and many doctors and professionals are not very artistic. 

Like with anything, over use when it's not needed often manifests problems. Be it alcohol, vaccines, medication, anti-biotics, or what ever. 

And the medical profession is NOT good at self reflection, self awareness OR credulity in the face of utter or gross mistakes. 

Yeah the art of medicine died between insurance busybodies and litigious lawyers asking "umm, yeah sweetie do you have any studies backing that?"

[17thfabn]

58 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I have a gut feeling that the rise in autism is probably more related to shifts in diet and other environmental factors than vaccines. But the complexity of diet and other things going on with child development leave me wondering. It very well could be a little of column A and a little of column B. 

The biggest reason for an increase in  Autism is better diagnosis. I knew a person years ago who told me his soon was diagnosed with Asperger's. He was always a half bubble off. I realized that he also had Asperger's. Many adults are being diagnosed with autism when their children are diagnosed.

Kids that years ago were just thought of as being odd or more than a little off are now diagnosed with autism. Whether that is good or bad I'm not sure

Edited August 29 by 17thfabn

[R011]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

Seems like there was never a shortage of people running around with a claim to the throne. If they had too go with a Stuart, at   least tell him to shut up and just sit on his throne, parliament has the real power.

You gave the Stuart king power and he seeks revenge. Who could have seen that coming.

No one, except the few regicides who were still around, had any problems with revenge.  Charles II managed to do a good enough job that few were dissatisfied.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Mr King said:

After the clear evidence that the scientific and medical community are compromised from their actions during the covid epidemic and "vaccine" campaign, why would anyone ever put trust in them again? Especially trust in their promotion of other vaccines?

 

Sorry I am not taking serious the opinions of people who think this is reasonable

 

Sure, that's reasonable. If you're using a buffing machine and don't want bits of cotton fluff in your eyes/lungs and don't want to get the same cotton fluff in your eyes from the buffer or buffing compound. 

As PPE for an aerosolized respiratory virus, it's absurd. 

[rmgill]

50 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Yeah the art of medicine died between insurance busybodies and litigious lawyers asking "umm, yeah sweetie do you have any studies backing that?"

From what I saw at Emory, the amount of money that the drug reps throw at the doctors in the form of perks, gifts, trips and other gratuities, it is more a matter of conflicts of interest. Add to that, the pressure from federal agencies putting their fists on the scales of how the hospitals operate and all of the other pressures you note upon the administrators. 

One of the really SMART things they did at Emory and which I ran past my step father (who was an ID professor/Doctor) was the fact that the Cath lab and other procedural departments dispensed with the expense of washing scrubs in the hospital or by a contractor. The directive was made that staff should take their scrubs home and wash them at home. Carl thought that was absurd, but he was a long way to his retirement so had no influence at that juncture. He had been the infection control Officer at Emory Hospital for a time a decade before. 

That alone was absurd. But the fact that you see people wearing scrubs on the bus home or in restaurants to/from the hospital, how does that avoid cross contamination and assist in infection control? It doesn't. 

[Stargrunt6]

3 minutes ago, rmgill said:

From what I saw at Emory, the amount of money that the drug reps throw at the doctors in the form of perks, gifts, trips and other gratuities, it is more a matter of conflicts of interest. Add to that, the pressure from federal agencies putting their fists on the scales of how the hospitals operate and all of the other pressures you note upon the administrators. 

One of the really SMART things they did at Emory and which I ran past my step father (who was an ID professor/Doctor) was the fact that the Cath lab and other procedural departments dispensed with the expense of washing scrubs in the hospital or by a contractor. The directive was made that staff should take their scrubs home and wash them at home. Carl thought that was absurd, but he was a long way to his retirement so had no influence at that juncture. He had been the infection control Officer at Emory Hospital for a time a decade before. 

That alone was absurd. But the fact that you see people wearing scrubs on the bus home or in restaurants to/from the hospital, how does that avoid cross contamination and assist in infection control? It doesn't. 

They get so obsessed with cutting costs that they don't bother counting how much that will cost them in the future.  Staffing is one of the biggest expenses they cut, and it bites them in the behind with so many things.

You probably know this Ryan, but others might not. Samland tanknetters, google "Sunshine Act," and do a search for your doctor. You might be massively disappointed. 

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

Kids that years ago were just thought of as being odd or more than a little off are now diagnosed with autism. Whether that is good or bad I'm not sure

I blame Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise. Few people had even heard of Autism before Rain Man, by the summer of 1989 Autism was the new fad that had to be delt with.  Hard on the heals of Autism was ADHD, if your kid didn't have Autism he/she probably was ADHD and needed some doses of Ritalin to put them right.

[Tim Sielbeck]

TV shows and movies about autism and ADHD were all the rage in the '80s.

Edited August 30 by Tim Sielbeck

[Mr King]

I don't know if ADHD is real, but I can say that being put on Ritalin as an adult was a life changing experience for the better. I wish I had been put on it as a child. It would have closed some doors to me, but it would have significantly changed the trajectory of my life.

[Tim Sielbeck]

I didn’t realize Rain Man was made in ‘88.

[JWB]

I wonder how that will go over.

 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, JWB said:

I wonder how that will go over.

 

Probably changes nothing. Who else are pro lifers going to vote for?

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, JWB said:

I wonder how that will go over.

 

Better than a 36 week limit. 

[rmgill]

New Trump ad by RFK’s team. 
 

 

[Stargrunt6]

 

 

10 hours ago, Mr King said:

I don't know if ADHD is real, but I can say that being put on Ritalin as an adult was a life changing experience for the better. I wish I had been put on it as a child. It would have closed some doors to me, but it would have significantly changed the trajectory of my life.

It sure is

https://www.pathwaysneuropsychology.com/differences-brain-structure-children-adhd/amp/

It probably would have done similar for me as well. If not that then neurofeedback would have also done tremendously for me as well.

[Ivanhoe]

If Trump was as smart as he thinks he is, Vivek would be his campaign manager;

 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Vivek isn't wrong in this case but I'm not sure he's seasoned enough for campaign manager...

[DKTanker]

He doesn't need him to be the campaign manager but, a strategist might be useful. 

[Josh]

5 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

He doesn't need him to be the campaign manager but, a strategist might be useful. 

Probably more of an influencer/blogger surrogate. Having a pithy post on Twitter does not a strategist make. But it’s not like Trump listens to his strategists anyway.

[Skywalkre]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

But it’s not like Trump listens to his strategists anyway.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure his people aren't telling him to flip-flop on the FL abortion issue like he apparently did this evening.  We hear so much about Harris' and her supposed inconsistencies, I can't wait to hear folks lament Trump not having an idea what his actual position is on this one (that was sarcasm... I know none of his supporters care about that).

Oh, and I also forgot about his supposed promise that anyone who wants IVF will have it paid for by the government.  Umm... IVF is hella expensive ($12k-$20k per cycle).  I'd really love to know how the hell he'll pay for that.

The reality is for both issues it's clear he doesn't know wtf he stands for... he'll just say anything to hopefully get elected.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 8/29/2024 at 3:47 PM, 17thfabn said:

Two things I've never understood about British history:

Why if the British decided if they needed a king, why they picked one of the Stuarts, seeing how much trouble they had caused. There were times where a new royal line was established in the past. If they were going to go with a Stuart, why they didn't pass a law saying they were going to be a figure head, Parliament was supreme. 

Why QE II named her eldest son Charles with the horrible history of that name for British royalty.  And why Chuckie didn't change his name when he assumed the throne. A king Arthur or Alfred would be nice.

You could say why pick a Plantagenet, since Richard I was never in the country, and John was so bloody terrible. Because they had the franchise, for want of a better word. And as we saw, there were limits, as they eventually found with Richard II. The same was true of the Stuarts. But we would probably have had a Stuart still, if Queen Anne had produced anything but rabbits. And in truth, both Charles II when he wasnt whoring, and Queen Anne, when she wasnt seducing her maid, seem to have been reasonably competant monarchs. Or at least, there was no successful foreign invasions, which is better than what came before.

Well when you think of it, Charles is just the anglicisation of one of the most successful monarchs in European history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

It could have been worse, she could have called him John or Richard. The Richards I think were bloody awful monarchs, at least compared to their dad, a thoroughly decent monarch, when he wasnt murdering archbishops of canterbury. I guess the lesson is, pick a British monarchs name, you are going to piss off someone. Cant call him Edward, hammer of the scots. Cant call him James, papist. Cant call him John, starved people to death. Cant call him Richard, he kill Muslims. There is Henry, except VIII had multiple wives, half he executed. So....

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 8/29/2024 at 11:21 PM, R011 said:

No one, except the few regicides who were still around, had any problems with revenge.  Charles II managed to do a good enough job that few were dissatisfied.

There is a good case for saying the latter success of the RN, the rejuvination of the arts, even the modern face of London, all owes a lot to King Charles II. Other than providing an heir (or at least a legitimate one), I think he was a good king.

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I guess the lesson is, pick a British monarchs name, you are going to piss off someone.

King Ralph wasn't terrible. Not exactly stellar either, and slightly wobbly on the traditions thing, but overall he did not bugger it up, to paraphrase W. Churchill.

[Rick]

6 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure his people aren't telling him to flip-flop on the FL abortion issue like he apparently did this evening.  We hear so much about Harris' and her supposed inconsistencies, I can't wait to hear folks lament Trump not having an idea what his actual position is on this one (that was sarcasm... I know none of his supporters care about that).

Oh, and I also forgot about his supposed promise that anyone who wants IVF will have it paid for by the government.  Umm... IVF is hella expensive ($12k-$20k per cycle).  I'd really love to know how the hell he'll pay for that.

The reality is for both issues it's clear he doesn't know wtf he stands for... he'll just say anything to hopefully get elected.

Please let me modify this statement so it is 100% true instead of just partially true. "The reality is for both issues it's clear he/she doesn't know wtf he/she stands for... (he'll) they all just say anything to hopefully get elected."

Edited August 31 by Rick

[Stuart Galbraith]

52 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

King Ralph wasn't terrible. Not exactly stellar either, and slightly wobbly on the traditions thing, but overall he did not bugger it up, to paraphrase W. Churchill.

Im still far from convinced he didnt have a hand in the electrocution though. Thats Henry V levels of luck, and I dont tend to believe in those.