Latest Comments by MunoRN

MunoRN 32,106 Views

Joined Nov 18, '10. Posts: 7,593 (69% Liked) Likes: 18,439

Sorted By Last Comment (Max 500)
  • 3

    Quote from AndyB
    Lots of words in a desperate attempt to explain away a sampling of +15 percent oversampling of Democrats on some polls.
    That actually doesn't refer to "over-sampling" of democrats in polls because that isn't what over-sampling is. When polls show higher proportion of Clinton and/or Democratic supporters it because that's the result of the poll.

    What you're describing is like arguing that if Trump were to win the election by 15% of the electoral votes, that he didn't really win, the election just over-sampled Trump supporters.

  • 6

    Quote from MassED
    Old news, MunoRN, these people have been debunked for the liars these women are....he's now saying those accused him he will sue. Great!
    Quote from MassED
    except BILL RAPED WOMEN. Cannot compare, as much as you libbies try.

    Quote from MassED
    have you been around for any of these stories from the women? That have been ongoing for years against Bill? These women, unlike those that are falsely accusing Trump, didn't just POP out of no where 3 weeks before an election.... so obvious!
    The recent string of allegations are not the first for Trump, and the allegations against Bill Clinton also came out when he was a prime political target, so we're still talking about essentially identical circumstances; someone who's been accused of sexual misconduct/assault by various women, none of the claims have been proven, where the person denies the allegations. In one case you describe this set of circumstances as "debunked", in another you describe them has having "raped". Those are two completely opposite descriptions that appear solely based on partisan bias.

  • 6
    macawake, elkpark, herring_RN, and 3 others like this.

    Quote from AndyB
    U.K. Bookmakers See Surge of Bets on a Donald Trump Victory—Just Like Brexit

    65% of all bets on the market have backed Trump to win the U.S. presidential election

    Donald Trump Bets Increase Just Like Brexit: Bookmakers
    I think you're misunderstanding that to mean that 65% of people making bets think Trump is going to win, even though what it says is that the odds are so against Trump winning, that betting on him makes for a more exciting bet. Gamblers aren't generally gambling as a conservative way of managing their portfolios, they want the excitement of possibly winning on a long shot, which is what makes Trump a popular bet.

    Trump currently looks to be about 140 electoral votes behind, which means he would have flip not just one or two states are currently leaning Clinton, but a whole string of them, which is pretty unlikely.

  • 3
    CryssyD, elkpark, and herring_RN like this.

    I'm not sure what you think statistical "over-sampling" is, or exactly how you see it as some sort of nefarious thing, maybe you could explain what connections your making. Beyond that, I'm not sure how you think intentionally making their polling data less accurate would give a campaign an advantage, or if you think they are trying to manipulate external polls to make them seem farther ahead than they actually are would benefit them, since that's usually a disadvantage, there are multiple layers of your argument that make no sense.

    "Over-sampling", which is pretty clearly explained in your link that you don't seem to have read, is a pretty common methodology used to increase the reliability of a subset of data. Basically, it involves zooming in on a small but important subset of what you're studying.

    For example, if you're polling a general population with a sample size of 1,000 then small subgroups within that population might only have sample size of 20, for instance. There's not a lot of reliability with a polling sample size of 20, so if the data for that particular demographic is pivotal, you can make that data more accurate by increasing the sample size of that subgroup, finding the more accurate percentage who support your candidate, and then plugging that percentage back into your aggregate data. You might find that using the non-over-sampled data of a subgroup that 12 out of 20 (60%) of the subgroup supports your candidate. Using a larger sample size, that percentage might turn out to be only 40%, so then support for the candidate in that subgroup would change to 40%, or 8 out of the 20 sampled, in the aggregate data.

  • 5

    Quote from tntrn
    Really, everybody who thinks she is not a vile person in her interactions with other humans should reserve that judgment until after they have read Crisis of Character. She has quite a potty mouth, for starters.
    While Crisis of Character might be entertaining, it should be pointed out that it is essentially fiction. According to the secret service, the author did not have any direct access to the Clintons and would not have had first hand knowledge of anything written in the book. His classification was as an administrative worker, and therefore was subject to strict separation from the Clintons.
    Secret Service veterans denounce anti-Clinton tell-all book - POLITICO

    Aside from that I don't really care if a politician has a "potty mouth", I'm more concerned with the substance of what someone says.

  • 5

    Quote from MassED
    Old news, MunoRN, these people have been debunked for the liars these women are....he's now saying those accused him he will sue. Great!
    He's denied the allegations if that's what you mean by "debunked". There are a number of women, going back to the 80's, who have accused him of sexual assault, which has never been proven or disproven through some sort of solid evidence. It's the same level of evidence we have for saying Bill Clinton has sexually assaulted women so I would assume you also believe that his sexual assault claims have also been "Debunked"?

  • 4

    Quote from MassED
    see, and there is the spin. She said her dream, open borders.

    Nice try you all. Again, she said it, so take it from that horse's mouth.

    Any which way you slice it, she is slipping and's all weighing them down because their evil sordid ways are being exposed. No wiggling out of it. Learn to say President Trump.
    I'm not sure how what she actually said can be considered "spin". Given that the quote occurred at an event about trade, her full speech was about trade, she referenced trade literally one word before the quote you're referring to, and there are zero references to immigration in the context of the quote, why do you feel saying the quote was about immigration is accurate yet saying it was about trade is "spin"?

    Quote from MassED
    Any which way you slice it, she is slipping and's all weighing them down because their evil sordid ways are being exposed. No wiggling out of it. Learn to say President Trump.
    I'm not sure where you're getting that from. His chances of winning have dropped from around 18% to now 14%. He stands to do somewhat fairly in the popular election, but in the electoral college, which is how we elect presidents, the few swing states that he was close in have now swung to the Clinton side.

  • 3
    toomuchbaloney, elkpark, and heron like this.

    Quote from MassED
    so for arguments sake, do you know "if" he smooched anyone, that it was not mutual? You all are so quick to judge what no one even knows, it's stupid and reflects poorly on intellect. If one cannot reason that the weasels are pulling out the worst possible made up stories during the final stretch of the election, soley as a smear tactic to baselessly discredit someone, one cannot be expected to ever find reason.
    This shouldn't have to be explained, but it's not so much the "smooching" part that is offensive, it's the "grab them by the *****" part, and yes, doing such a thing to a non-consenting person is most definitely sexual assault.

    This is not typical guy talk, we might talk about sex or otherwise vulgar conversations, but boasting about your ability to sexually assault women isn't cool in any locker room, except for maybe a gym locker room that caters specifically to rapists.

    I think what makes these comments more concerning is that it occurs in the context of someone who has been accused of sexual assault many times, including a civil suit coming up in December for raping an underage girl at the home of Jeffrey Epstein.

    In the big picture, I don't think it should override his policy proposals or what he would do as president in general, the problem is he's made that a low priority in his campaign and instead tried to focus on who he is, which is now coming back to bite him, live by the sword, die by the sword.

  • 5

    Quote from MassED
    Just because you keep asking and people keep posting what she said from wikileaks, doesn't make the information any less real, yet you keep asking the same thing. It is everywhere, but I shall post it again.

    She said what she believes. Link, yet again, Hillary Clinton Defends Her 'Open Borders' Remark | The Daily Caller

    Fact-Check: Yes, Hillary Clinton Wants Open Borders - Breitbart

    This is what she believes, she said it, so that should be enough proof. I'm sure you will spin it into anything that works for you, but the rest of America knows she's full of it. She's trying to weasel out of it and spin it as though she meant "energy" she's a liar.
    At least according to the wikileaks release, she did use the phrase "open borders", but not in the way Trump and his supporters have characterized it. The context was very clear, she was referring to open borders in terms of trade and an energy market, there was no reference to amnesty for illegal immigrants or anything at all related to immigration.

    Here's the full quote;
    “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

  • 1
    elkpark likes this.

    Quote from AndyB
    Their desperation on trying to take Trump out proves that he is ahead. The polls are getting ridiculous by doing a huge oversampling of Democrats.

    This week’s polls’ internals...
    WaPo D+8
    Fox D+9
    NBC D+12
    Reuters D+15
    NBC/WSJ Poll D+18.9
    I thought this was a statistics joke when I first saw it, but I've noticed this is actually a thing among Trump supporters.

    Saying polls are oversampling Democrats is like saying if Trump wins that he didn't really win, the election just oversampled Trump supporters.

    Polling how many people support each candidate, as well as how many identify with each party, is what the polls are measuring. Not surprisingly, fewer people this election are saying they identify with either party, which is understandable. I'm a social libertarian/progressive and fiscal conservative, I've voted for republicans in the past but down ticket, there hasn't been much fiscal conservativism or social libertarianism to be found lately in the republican party.

  • 1
    HouTx likes this.

    I've only ever gotten report from the anesthesiologist, I'm not sure the OR nurses' report would be all that useful (no offense to OR nurses). What I need are general idea of what drips they've been requiring, any significant issues, etc. The doc shows up around the same time as the patient and that's where I get the details of what was done, getting that sort of information through what's more comparable to hearsay is just prone to errors.

  • 8

    Quote from 777RN

    Thank you for refuting some of my points instead of completely ignoring them. I appreciate intellectual discourse and debate. Also, I agree that "the whole point of science is assuming we could always be wrong." So, although you oppose my viewpoints, we do have at least one speck of common ground.

    That said, every point made to refute the specifics you've chosen comes directly from the Web site. Skeptical Raptor is a misnomer at best. That site agrees with every conventional, mainstream position on issues of "science." Therefore, Skeptical Raptor (aka Michael Simpson) supports GMOs, pesticides, MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, and every other talking point from the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, while basically denouncing all herbal and natural supplements. If you were writing a paper for a nursing class, you could not cite Skeptical Raptor as a legitimate source.

    (To be fair, I am not suggesting that every source I have provided would be appropriate to cite in a nursing paper either; that would not be true. However, my original post contains links to a VARIETY OF SOURCES, not just one source that is grotesquely biased. Many of the documents I linked to come directly from the CDC and other governmental agencies, as well as many peer-reviewed journal articles. Incidentally such are articles are considered absolute gospel when they support vaccines, yet are almost categorically ignored or denied when they reveal legitimate concerns about them.)

    So, regarding the Skeptical Raptor, where's his skepticism? He has none; he is fully invested in the official narratives on all matters of "science." In my circles, Skeptical Raptor is well known to be a paid media shill for Big Pharma and biotech. Skeptical Raptor's site, almost in its entirety, shames and ridicules "science deniers" of all types with hyperbole and condescension.

    Here's what he said about Dr. Andrew Wakefield:
    a callous, narcissistic ex-physician who has an intense disregard for human life, specifically children. Known as one of the greatest scientific fraudsters of the last 100 years, he is the de facto demigod of the Evil Cult of Antivaccination. After his article claiming that MMR vaccine (for the prevention of measles, mumps and rubella) caused autism was retracted by the medical journal, Wakefield moved to Texas to plot his revenge on the world.

    Talk about media spin and talking points! Anyone who is honest and has done ANY research outside of what's said in the mainstream media knows that the above description is not only absolutely ridiculous (yes, I realize that Skeptical Raptor was attempting to be facetious and sarcastic, to some extent), but also patently false. Dr. Wakefield is fighting the good fight to share the truth ... and that's why the science gatekeepers are so afraid of him; his research revealed a truth that would have likely resulted in billions of dollars in losses for GlaxoSmithKline. So instead, the powers that be discredited him and destroyed his career.

    Again, I wholeheartedly support Dr. Andrew Wakefield and emphatically state that he is hero. For those willing to review additional information, please consider reading the chapter in Science For Sale that provides a concise explanation of the Wakefield case from another perspective or consider checking this out.

    Incidentally, almost every discussion forum site, especially ones with large followings, has media shills (paid or otherwise) whose job is topic or knowledge gatekeeping; i.e., to quell dissension on controversial scientific issues (usually by personally attacking and ridiculing the dissenters, while avoiding engagement on the issues they raise).

    Also, for those who say they ignore dissenters because they are simply too tired to rehash the same-old, same-old, you will need to replenish your energy stores. This issue is going to become a bigger, hotter, stinkier mess, as the public continues to wake up to the level of deception in the mainstream media (and other advertising-supported publications) and for reasons I have mentioned in other posts.


    “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche
    Andrew Wakefield produced a study that based on undeniable evidence was maliciously fraudulent. It was later revealed through an FOIA release that he was paid about $500,000 by a group of lawyers to produce a study providing a MMR-autism link. Wakefield altered the original results of his data, as proven by comparing the original data to the data in the study, and in the process subjected autistic children to unnecessary invasive tests including colonoscopies which served no scientific purpose. In other words, aside from simple dishonesty, he stuck objects up the rectums of autistic children for the sole purpose of notoriety and financial gain. "Hero" is certainly not the word I would use, while I the skepitcalraptor's description may not be how I would describe it, it's certainly much closer than "hero".

    You're free to disagree with the views and opinions of skepticalraptor, but it seems a bit silly to even indisputable facts the site might refer to are also false. The skepticalraptor link was just the first google result that referenced the overturning of the case that wasn't in Italian, there are other more mainstream journalistic sources you can refer to if you like: Italy fights vaccines fear – POLITICO

    You brought up "knowledge gatekeeping", which I would agree is a problem. Prominent sites that promote anti-vax/vax skpeticism such as heavily publicized the initial ruling, but made no mention of the ruling being overturned.

    I do appreciate your use of sources, but many of your claims and implications aren't in any way supported by the sources you refer to. For instance, in your original post you referred to the CDC's list of vaccine ingredients as describing these ingredients as "questionable or toxic", even though the CDC reference does not support this claim. Take formaldehyde for instance, which has been used in vaccines but at no where near "toxic" levels. Formaldehyde is produced naturally in the body, and each day your body produces 120 times the amount of formaldehyde that's found in a vaccine dose. A pear contains 600 times the amount of formaldehyde found in a vaccine dose.

    I agree with your general premise, that we need to be vigilante about scrutinizing everything people claim to be true because it might be a scam or otherwise bogus, and I agree that Andrew Wakefield is an example of truth overcoming misinformation, I disagree about whether or not Wakefield represents truth or misinformation.

  • 7
    macawake, herring_RN, elkpark, and 4 others like this.

    Quote from 777RN
    Spidey's mom:

    With all due respect, none of the posters who have criticized or ridiculed me in this post have offered ANY logic, reason, or scientific research to refute my arguments. Instead, they have simply parroted the mainstream media talking points that "vaccines are safe and effective" and that "there's no legitimate debate on vaccines, case closed." No one from your perspective has debated or truly discussed anything. Repeating the same thing over and over is not providing logic, reason, or scientific research; it's adhering to dogma. Yes, the "usual suspects" to whom you refer have taken me on, but primarily only with insults and ridicule.

    Meanwhile, they have completely ignored the very long list of concerns presented in my posts, similar to how the mainstream media in this country often does a complete blackout of certain stories in order to prevent placing such topics in the spotlight of public scrutiny. In relation to vaccines, two (of many) examples of US mainstream media (MSM) blackouts are:

    That decision was overturned once it was revealed that an 'expert' witness was relaying the results of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent reseach: Italian MMR autism decision overturned–Skeptical Raptor


    This has been widely reported and is the main argument of the movie "Vaxxed". The study in question excluded data where there was not sufficient documentation to include them in the study, pretty standard research protocol. This data was then 'reanalyzed' by a man named Brian Hooker who supposedly found a link between MMR and autism in the excluded data, which was then published in a journal called Translational Neurodegeneration, without adequately peer reviewing his analysis. Once public, numerous errors in his analysis methods were pointed out, resulting in the journal retracting the article.

    Quote from 777RN
    Don't those seem like newsworthy stories? Or is it more important to report on Brad and Angelina's impending divorce?

    It's far too easy to slap the "anti-vaxx" and "anti-vaccine" label ....
    I'm all for vigorous critical evaluation of anything science claims to be true, that's the whole point of science is assuming we always could be wrong.

    In the case of Andrew Wakefield and much of the anti-vax/vax skeptic movement, this vigorous critical evaluation consistently shows these claims and arguments to be bunk. Andrew Wakefield famously wrote a study claiming an MMR-autism link which turned out to be totally made up, and in the process he subjected children to various unnecessary invasive procedures, which I would argue makes him a pretty horrible person. But aside from that there is the bigger problem that his general claims don't hold up to basic scientific scrutiny.

    In terms of safety, vaccines are far safer in terms of risk benefit than commonly used medications. They save lives and prevent harm at rates in the millions, yet the risks are relatively few. The suggestion that vaccines do more harm than good is exactly the type of bogus claims that a responsible society points out.

  • 3
    Kitiger, BrendanO, and chare like this.

    Tegaderm is an occlusive dressing that allows for osmotic transfer of moisture and gasses through the dressing. It is "breathable", but does not actually allow for the free flow of air through the dressing, so for the purpose of preventing air embolism through an intact tract and open insertion site it is occlusive.

    There is little true evidence on the subject, recommendations are based on 'expert' opinion which varies widely on this subject. The INS recommends using a petrolatum based ointment on/in the insertion site to prevent air embolism, opposing opinions point out that all petrolatum products carry an FDA warning that they should never be placed over an open wound or tract to a vein or artery, there have been reports of petrolatum emboli that have entered the vascular system through a central line insertion site, with at least on case resulting in death, so the balance of the evidence would appear to oppose putting ointment directly on, and therefore into, an insertion site.

  • 8
    macawake, Elvish, herring_RN, and 5 others like this.

    Quote from MassED
    How is this not a problem for you HRC supporters? It is just be beyond me that this is cast aside, disregarded, ignored, when she broke the law, not just that, but jeopardized, willfully, national security.
    You seem to view anyone who doesn't follow the 'Trump is infallible' and 'Clinton is pure evil' storylines to be a Clinton supporter. I am not and have never been a Hillary Clinton supporter, I am a big fan of a truthful depiction of reality, particularly when it comes to deciding who should be president.