OT 100% NOT the Official Off-Topic/Politics/Corona Thread

[Italian Arkie]

Dicktales, here's one of the guys I want to dominate but you want to hold hands with and sing Kumbaya.

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/0...ekends-protest-violence/#.XtjW5NRgVm8.twitter

Looks like a white nationalist to me.

I'd have no problem locking these guys up. Trump instead is focusing on photo ops and aggressively removing peaceful protesters. Why don't you post about that any?

 

[eezycheez]

You should read Dan Crenshaw's new book, Fortitude. It's not really a political book - more of a life skills, self-improvement text - but he does use a few examples of current events to illustrate some of his points. One of them is a discussion of some of the Obama-era EPA regulations that were rolled back. Like you said, it's not as simple as one would think. Crenshaw offers a very good explanation of how the regulations in question could actually be hindering environmental progress.

I have already discussed some of that on here. On another note, I was looking to see if Crenshaw had made any comments on the idea of using active military forces for the protests/riots but haven't found anything.

 

[DirkPiggler]

I have already discussed some of that on here. On another note, I was looking to see if Crenshaw had made any comments on the idea of using active military forces for the protests/riots but haven't found anything.

I think he's smart enough to keep his mouth shut in this situation. He doesn't need to alienate the hardcore Trump people, but also doesn't want to step in shit like Tom Cotton did with his calls for the 82nd and 101st to be deployed.

 

[HTHog]

Trump instead is focusing on photo ops and aggressively removing peaceful protesters. Why don't you post about that any?

love it when dicktales goes soft.

 

[eezycheez]

In other words, in the interest of being able to quickly publish a very large study, these two research groups relied on an outside service to compile all of their patient data and then the researchers analyzed it as opposed to the researchers collecting all of the data from multiple hospitals in multiple countries on their own - a very time-consuming process. Since the studies were published, there have been a lot of red flags raised about this data and the private company that collected and compiled it.

Does this mean hydroxycholoroquine is safe and effective or that the research methods from these two papers are specifically in question?

 

[HTHog]

Does this mean hydroxycholoroquine is safe and effective or that the research methods from these two papers are specifically in question?

holy shixt you want him to write it out in crayon for you?

 

[eezycheez]

holy shixt you want him to write it out in crayon for you?

Yeah, I knew you were waiting for a chance to quote me. It's pretty hilarious how much you reek of desperation.

 

[Dormac]

Shit, I was hoping to get in here before someone put this out there. Let me give a little context, if I may.
I had a long conversation last night with a good friend and fellow immunologist about this. Is this bad. Yeah it is. Two studies, one in The Lancet and one in The New England Journal of Medicine used data from an independent data analysis group that we are all going to be hearing a lot more about in the coming days, Surgisphere. The Lancet paper looked at the benefit of HCQ +/- azithromycin in the treatment of COVID19. It found no benefit. It was also the paper that pointed out the supposedly significantly increased risks of cardiac arrhythmia when using HCQ for treatment of COVID19. This is by far the more problematic of the two studies involved as it concluded not only no benefit, but significantly increased risk. The NEJM paper looked at the potential risks of patients on ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers - ARBs (like lisinopril and valsartan- a couple of the most commonly prescribed blood pressure medications), and concluded that while underlying cardiovascular disease was indeed a risk for severe disease, ACEi and ARB's did not pose an increased risk. After publication, several red flags were noted in the data (which as I said was provided by this independent group) from both studies and both journals issued what is called an "Expression of Concern" with the studies. Each will review the data provided and decide whether to retract the articles completely or amend their findings.

The authors of both studies, as well as the doctors assigned to "peer review" these studies are certainly at fault here. While I find it quite difficult to believe that both the authors and reviewers had any nefarious intent in mind, I know that many will see it that way unfortunately and I can understand why. One thing I would say is that I have been a reviewer multiple times over the course of my career and have recommended and not recommended many articles for publication. When you are asked to review a paper prior to publication, you know who the authors are, but there is no written or oral communication between the reviewer and the author. The author is not provided the names of who will be reviewing the paper. Also there are multiple reviewers and each is at a different institution. So even if the authors did have nefarious intent, it would not be possible to get "in cahoots" with reviewers to push the study and thus the nefarious intent towards publication. But yeah, at least at the current time, pre-publication peer review appears to have failed. Who knows the reason why, though the pressure to get any and all information out as quickly as possible when the virus is concerned undoubtedly played a role. The other group that has a LOT of questions to answer is this data analysis group Surgisphere. If there is an intent to mislead, that is the most logical place to point the finger. I don't know much about them or what there potential motivation for providing sketchy data might be.

My sincere hope is that the (much deserved) outcry surrounding these two studies doesn't extend to other studies. Sure, we want to make sure that what gets reported in the medical literature is analyzed for validity. But at a time when a large portion of our population is already losing faith in the medical field and in research science, the last thing we need is more doubt cast upon us and a further erosion of trust in science. I just hope that each study can be looked at and judged on it's own merit and not simply dismissed as "lies and fake news" because of what is happening with these two studies. The NEJM has a long track record as the most reputable medical journal in the world. This certainly has the potential to be a black eye for it though. The Lancet definitely has a bit of a checkered past, most notably the publication of the Wakefield vaccines and autism study, whose data was of course proven to be entirely falsified by it's authors.

Anyway, I'm sorry for the novel i just wrote and I am sorry I had to write it, but I felt it was important to say.

Sadly many will use this incident or incidents similar to it to try and paint a broad stroke across the entire process which is wrong. The same thing happens in a lot of thing but most recently the law enforcement situation. Bad acts perpetrated by a few unfortunately cast doubt against the majority.

 

[HTHog]

Yeah, I knew you were waiting for a chance to quote me. It's pretty hilarious how much you reek of desperation.

bustin balls dude, relax

 

[Italian Arkie]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...en-destroying-protesters-supplies/3135539001/

Asheville PD destroying supplies from a medical tent. Pretty pathetic.

""Because water bottles, in particular, have been continuously used over the last three nights, officers destroyed them," Zack said. "Officers also searched for potentially dangerous objects, such as explosives.""



Ah yes, I normally keep my explosives in my medical tent next to the water bottles.

 

[PorkshankRedemption]

Can you dumb this down a bit, or a lot.

A data company, Surgisphere, supposedly compiled all of the research for HCl from many different countries.

People saw some of the data, specifically the Australian data and said, "that makes no sense."

Someone approached the company about the issue and they went, "oops." And changed the data to "Asia."

Problem is, people in Australia never talked to these guys. I get what you're saying @mcbmd, but there's literally no way around this. They made up data to support a narrative they wanted: Trump wrong. Otherwise, why would you create data that is positive? I'd understand if you just threw in a few thousand false negatives to show that your study was "robust," but to do so in the false positive says you have malicious intent.

Not sure how you can argue that isn't true.

 

[HogPocket9455]

@jdr0269 it says you’ve quoted me. But I see nothing. I can only assume you’ve made a serious error and have attempted to fix it.

 

[Mhhoover92]

@jdr0269 it says you’ve quoted me. But I see nothing. I can only assume you’ve made a serious error and have attempted to fix it.

Count yourself lucky

 

[mcbmd]

A data company, Surgisphere, supposedly compiled all of the research for HCl from many different countries.

People saw some of the data, specifically the Australian data and said, "that makes no sense."

Someone approached the company about the issue and they went, "oops." And changed the data to "Asia."

Problem is, people in Australia never talked to these guys. I get what you're saying @mcbmd, but there's literally no way around this. They made up data to support a narrative they wanted: Trump wrong. Otherwise, why would you create data that is positive? I'd understand if you just threw in a few thousand false negatives to show that your study was "robust," but to do so in the false positive says you have malicious intent.

Not sure how you can argue that isn't true.

Oh I don't disagree. I said it earlier, Surgisphere has a TON of questions to answer and that's where I point the blame. That is the common denominator in both problematic studies.

 

[PorkshankRedemption]

Oh I don't disagree. I said it earlier, Surgisphere has a TON of questions to answer and that's where I point the blame. That is the common denominator in both problematic studies.

It's already been answered for them.

They lied, posted data that was used to say: "HCl bad for heart, don't use." Peer reviewed studies used this data to write a paper and the WHO decided to end their HCl trials because of it.

People pointed out the issue, they lied again, and no one asked any questions.

Well, a few people asked questions and now it's coming out that their a fraud company.

The WHO is now restarting the HCl studies.

 

[HogPocket9455]

Count yourself lucky

I believe you’re still dead to me over your choice of mass produced pizza.

 

[Mhhoover92]

I believe you’re still dead to me over your choice of mass produced pizza.

Newman's Own frozen pizza is fire btw

 

[mcbmd]

Does this mean hydroxycholoroquine is safe and effective or that the research methods from these two papers are specifically in question?

I think the biggest question is why did this company provide really sketchy data. I don't have much fault with how the studies were done. The fault lies with the company providing the data, but ultimately the authors and reviewers of the study for not catching the inconsistencies in the data. So to answer the first part of your question, I still feel there is enough data out there from other studies for me to say that I do not believe that there is a role for the blanket use of hydroxychloroquine to either prevent or treat COVID19. Perhaps there are some individual cases where it could be beneficial. Hopefully the big SOLIDARITY trial will clear up some of the questions surrounding its efficacy. Study published in NEJM yesterday (which did NOT use this questionable Surgisphere group) showed no benefit in prevention of disease when patients with known COVID19 exposure were given hydroxycholoroquine. An observational study from NEJM was published in May using data from a single large hospital (New York Presbyterian) did not show that hydroxychloroquine significantly prevented patients from dying or going on the ventilator. Observational studies are good, but since they are going back and looking at what happened, there can be some confounding variables since whether someone did or did not get hydroxychloroquine was strictly up to the doctor treating them at the time.

 

[ArkansasNole]

*deflection* his loyalty is supposed to be to the constitution and the troops, not the deep state. He’s Benedict Arnold, who was also a great general and turned on George Washington. The irony.

Mattis is a pos for leaving a man behind and not supporting his colleague or the constitution. Piss on his grave.

This right here shows the level of devotion and unrelenting obession his strongest supporters have for Trump. They are willing to "piss on the grave" of an American hero. A man who has served this country for 40+ years because he dared to speak out against their idol. Another option would be "I respect General Mattis' service to this country but i disagree with his timing and content in the criticism of the president". But no, that would show a crack in their love for Trump so they revert to "pissing on the grave" of a man who has sacrificed more for this country than Trump could even imagine.

 

[mcbmd]

It's already been answered for them.

They lied, posted data that was used to say: "HCl bad for heart, don't use." Peer reviewed studies used this data to write a paper and the WHO decided to end their HCl trials because of it.

People pointed out the issue, they lied again, and no one asked any questions.

Well, a few people asked questions and now it's coming out that their a fraud company.

The WHO is now restarting the HCl studies.

I wonder what we will eventually learn about the people behind this mysterious Surgisphere group.

 

[Mhhoover92]

Ruh roh

 

[PorkshankRedemption]

I wonder what we will eventually learn about the people behind this mysterious Surgisphere group.

Just an assumption, but I assume it's a puppet company for a larger entity to never be named. No way a 6 person outfit gets that much pull.

The WHO is such a shitty organization. Glad we're in the process of removing ourselves from it. The more and more I read it looks like the next Internation Olympic Committee that's making decisions solely based upon the amount of money thrown at them behind closed doors.

 

[mcbmd]

Just an assumption, but I assume it's a puppet company for a larger entity to never be named. No way a 6 person outfit gets that much pull.

The WHO is such a shitty organization. Glad we're in the process of removing ourselves from it. The more and more I read it looks like the next Internation Olympic Committee that's making decisions solely based upon the amount of money thrown at them behind closed doors.

You could definitely be right. I'll say this, I bet Mandeep Mehra at Brigham and Women's really regrets not vetting the data collection group he chose to use for these studies.

 

[gscottar]

I'm not proud of it, but I'm at the point now where I assume that deficits and ongoing debt are here to stay until the country finally collapses under the weight of it all. Given that assumption, I prefer to keep more of what I have rather than sending it to a government that isn't going to spend wisely, regardless of which party is in power. I would gladly pay more taxes if the increase came with an ironclad assurance through constitutional amendment that the increase would go specifically to debt reduction.

I agree with most of this. I am very much in favor of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

I am not against all government spending. Things like public infrastructure, military, and public education are mostly good investments but a lot of spending is just waste.

Elected officials would pay more attention to the debt if the voters cared more about it but most citizens like the gravy but don't want to pay enough taxes for it. It is really our own fault we are in this kind of fiscal mess.

 

[PorkshankRedemption]

You could definitely be right. I'll say this, I bet Mandeep Mehra at Brigham and Women's really regrets not vetting the data collection group he chose to use for these studies.

It's insane. Brigham is a top tier program in the US. However, even the best are guilty of confirmation bias.

 

[eezycheez]

*deflection* his loyalty is supposed to be to the constitution and the troops, not the deep state. He’s Benedict Arnold, who was also a great general and turned on George Washington. The irony.

Who's the real Benedict Arnold here?

https://www.businessinsider.com/mattis-michael-flynn-improper-disclosures-2016-12

 

[minnesotahog]

This right here shows the level of devotion and unrelenting obession his strongest supporters have for Trump. They are willing to "piss on the grave" of an American hero. A man who has served this country for 40+ years because he dared to speak out against their idol. Another option would be "I respect General Mattis' service to this country but i disagree with his timing and content in the criticism of the president". But no, that would show a crack in their love for Trump so they revert to "pissing on the grave" of a man who has sacrificed more for this country than Trump could even imagine.

no different than the devout love for Dems and the Obama admin that setup a great hero named Michael Flynn cause he dared challenge the Obama administration policy towards Iran.

 

[HogPocket9455]

Ruh roh

View embedded media

View embedded media

I don’t doubt this. Only people that desperately want this to be a black versus white issue would be mad. Its not just blacks rioting and looting. It’s a lot of fücks that want to create chaos or anarchy. I hope they look as hard into the extremist groups on the other side as well. The violent nut job fringe needs to be identified and prosecuted regardless of political affiliation.

 

[gscottar]

This is about as conservative of a polling group as you will find and even they have Trump behind.

 

[Lefty8]

This right here shows the level of devotion and unrelenting obession his strongest supporters have for Trump. They are willing to "piss on the grave" of an American hero. A man who has served this country for 40+ years because he dared to speak out against their idol. Another option would be "I respect General Mattis' service to this country but i disagree with his timing and content in the criticism of the president". But no, that would show a crack in their love for Trump so they revert to "pissing on the grave" of a man who has sacrificed more for this country than Trump could even imagine.

You misspelled general Flynn

 

[RHS_Cyclone]

Did I read that @jdr0269 wants a state run media platform?

 

[HTHog]

Ruh roh

View embedded media

View embedded media

live look at dicktales after seeing this

 

[minnesotahog]

Who's the real Benedict Arnold here?

https://www.businessinsider.com/mattis-michael-flynn-improper-disclosures-2016-12

Flynn was smart enough to know who the back stabbers are. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-f...ents-show-fbi-tried-to-set-him-up-11588219544

 

[eezycheez]

Flynn was smart enough to know who the back stabbers are. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-f...ents-show-fbi-tried-to-set-him-up-11588219544

Of course his lawyers said that. Flynn’s history with Mattis goes back way further. You are just embarrassing yourself now. Your implication that Mattis is now a bad guy because he didn’t come out in support of Flynn is a complete joke. It’s sad really. The fact is you are just scrambling for an excuse to smear Mattis because he spoke out against Trump. It’s really that simple.

 

[Italian Arkie]

live look at dicktales after seeing this

The Trump administration always says they have "proof"... I'm still waiting on the proof on voter fraud.

I'll believe it when they actually come out with the evidence.

 

[PorkshankRedemption]

Did I read that @jdr0269 wants a state run media platform?

I know...I know...the CCP is a great example of a state run media platfrom.

But I also know that having a private owned entity running the news produces what the private owned entity wants: i.e., CNN obscures facts for views and Fox obscures facts for views. From the obfucsaction, we get morons quoting, tweeting, and believing the misinformation and/or half truths that are provided.

It would be nice if there was a singular entity that provided singularly facts. Nothing else. We have this type of entity for almost every other business in a successful democracy; however, we believe having a state run media outlet would destroy news.

The caviat is, all of the misinformation groups can still produce their propaganda...go for it...but by having a state run media outlet, they could have a barometer to go off of and/or a barometer to contradict. If their opinions are valid on the contradictions, it should immediately change the narrative of the state run media as it should have no bias. If it isn't, then the state run media should be able to produce facts to refute the comments.

Again, I'm not calling for a communist based propaganda machine; I'm calling for a standardized media outlet that one can turn to for, "just the facts, jack." Not "BLACK MAN TOUCHED BY WHITE MAN...click for story inside."

 

[Italian Arkie]

I know...I know...the CCP is a great example of a state run media platfrom.

But I also know that having a private owned entity running the news produces what the private owned entity wants: i.e., CNN obscures facts for views and Fox obscures facts for views. From the obfucsaction, we get morons quoting, tweeting, and believing the misinformation and/or half truths that are provided.

It would be nice if there was a singular entity that provided singularly facts. Nothing else. We have this type of entity for almost every other business in a successful democracy; however, we believe having a state run media outlet would destroy news.

The caviat is, all of the misinformation groups can still produce their propaganda...go for it...but by having a state run media outlet, they could have a barometer to go off of and/or a barometer to contradict. If their opinions are valid on the contradictions, it should immediately change the narrative of the state run media as it should have no bias. If it isn't, then the state run media should be able to produce facts to refute the comments.

Again, I'm not calling for a communist based propaganda machine; I'm calling for a standardized media outlet that one can turn to for, "just the facts, jack." Not "BLACK MAN TOUCHED BY WHITE MAN...click for story inside."

How does that work with state run media though. You think they are going to post facts that make the adminstration look bad?

Very unlikely.

 

[minnesotahog]

Of course his lawyers said that. Flynn’s history with Mattis goes back way further. You are just embarrassing yourself now. Your implication that Mattis is now a bad guy because he didn’t come out in support of Flynn is a complete joke. It’s sad really. The fact is you are just scrambling for an excuse to smear Mattis because he spoke out against Trump. It’s really that simple.

Mattis is a disgruntled employee that was fired speaks for itself. He’s doing a good enough job smearing his own reputation. He’s a lib hack, just like lying Col Vindman. You calling Flynn a liar when there’s 0 evidence to suggest that is you embarrassing yourself. But facts be damn because of blind loyalty. No smear y’all can come up with can take away Joe’s dementia and make him win in nov. MAGA

 

[Italian Arkie]

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...hurch/65-7e9a67c7-e40b-47a2-8060-3f7d908139dd

obviously planted there by antifa.

 

[majprescott45]

Ok, we can tally up how many of the Christian right leaders speak out against it. Right now I have the tally at 0 but would love to be proven wrong.

If you don't think clearing out a peaceful protest so the president could do a photo op/video of him with a bible in front of a church is not big deal, that is fine. Had he stood out there and said a prayer of unity and peace. A prayer for those affected by the pandemic, by the riots, by the looting, by the death. But he didn't do that. He used the bible and that church as a way to repair his broken ego from the story of him hiding in the bunker. That is a move of a small, broken man.

If I wasn't a religious person maybe I wouldn't find it a big deal either. Personally I find it highly offensive. It is just the way I was raised. But I am not sure you could ever convince me that a stunt like this would be defended by the Jerry Fallwell Jr's of the world had it been Mr Obama or even Mr Bush.

I am not hear to tell you that you need to feel it is a big deal. Or that you should not support Trump bc of it. What I am saying is that it is ok to say when a bullsh*t move is a bullsh*t move. You can still be a supporter of the president and call his ass out from time to time. I promise you that he doesn't have undying loyalty to you, so don't feel the need to have it for him.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...en-destroying-protesters-supplies/3135539001/

Asheville PD destroying supplies from a medical tent. Pretty pathetic.

""Because water bottles, in particular, have been continuously used over the last three nights, officers destroyed them," Zack said. "Officers also searched for potentially dangerous objects, such as explosives.""



Ah yes, I normally keep my explosives in my medical tent next to the water bottles.

"we had to destroy the city to save it" Battle of Hue City, 1968 Tet Offensive