I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Since you brought up vaccines, do think they were developed and tested using science?
Yes and No. They tested them, but were they (the manufacturer) always honest about the side effects? I would say no. With so many drugs on the market stating that they are safe using poor-quality data presentation, people believe them. Years later, we find out that they purposely misled people with BS studies. Overall, I think most vaccines are good and use good science before rolling them out to the public. Pharmaceutical companies lie all the time for the sake of making a profit, we should never blindly trust what they tell us when it benefits them not to be truthful. Informed consent is not real when the data is not real. Skepticism is a good thing, and science should be questioned and tested again and again. Good ideas don't require lies and force, they should give real data so people can make informed decisions.
if you can't question it, it's probably not good and they know it.
A 2020 paper that sparked widespread enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment was retracted today, following years of campaigning by scientists who alleged the research contained major scientific flaws and may have breached ethics regulations. The paper was pulled because of ethical concerns and methodological problems, according to a retraction notice.
The paper in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (IJAA), led by Philippe Gautret of the Hospital Institute of Marseille Mediterranean Infection (IHU), claimed that treatment with hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug, reduced virus levels in samples from COVID-19 patients, and that the drug was even more effective if used alongside the antibiotic azithromycin. Then–IHU Director Didier Raoult, the paper's senior author, enthused about the promise of the drug on social media and TV, leading to a wave of hype, including from then–U.S. President Donald Trump.
But scientists immediately raised concerns about the paper, noting the sample size of only 36 patients and the unusually short peer-review time: The paper was submitted on 16 March 2020 and published 4 days later. On 24 March, scientific integrity consultant Elisabeth Bik noted on her blog that six patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine had been dropped from the study—one of whom had died, and three of whom had transferred to intensive care—which potentially skewed the results in the drug's favor. Larger, more rigorous trials carried out later in 2020 showed hydroxychloroquine did not benefit COVID-19 patients.
Coincidentally, I took my first covid vaccine December 18, 2020 four years ago today. I'm thankful for the many people that trialed it prior to me getting it. So far so good. Two years later I got mildly sick from covid (my one and only time so far).
I just read that there are 6.7 billion prescriptions written every year.
For the most part the public is trustful of their doctors and the pharmaceutical industry otherwise why so many prescriptions being taken without much thought?
The public is fickle, they take so many prescriptions without question. For example Ozempic which has only been approved since 2017 but about 13% of us have taken this or a class of this drug, despite known and published side effects and perhaps some unknown ones down the road. Doesn't matter, they want that drug and don't give it much thought.
Around here, at least during the covid years they wanted the parasitic drug Ivermectin for covid and trusted nothing else, including evidenced based practice, because some podcaster said it worked. But god forbid they take a vaccine that over a billion people have taken safely.
At the end of the day, I believe left to their own devices drugs companies, food companies and industry in general would care about the bottom line more than public good, which is why there are regulations and consumer advocacy. Which is why there is an FDA (which now apparently isn't to be trusted either). Which is why courts hold them accountable for off label claims, fraud, kickbacks and product liability.
I definitely believe that looking at science and viewing business with skepticism is a good thing, but the whole "I did my research....." movement with all the false claims out there, even those coming from our politicians (who aren't doctors or scientists) is a bit disturbing.
Yes and No. They tested them, but were they (the manufacturer) always honest about the side effects? I would say no. With so many drugs on the market stating that they are safe using poor-quality data presentation, people believe them. Years later, we find out that they purposely misled people with BS studies. Overall, I think most vaccines are good and use good science before rolling them out to the public. Pharmaceutical companies lie all the time for the sake of making a profit, we should never blindly trust what they tell us when it benefits them not to be truthful. Informed consent is not real when the data is not real. Skepticism is a good thing, and science should be questioned and tested again and again. Good ideas don't require lies and force, they should give real data so people can make informed decisions.
if you can't question it, it's probably not good and they know it.
Pretty sure the fundamental process of the scientific method includes skepticism and questioning data.
This is how we have the medical technology today. Only until recently this was readily accepted until people started getting chastised for questioning medical science.
I read an interesting observation on another social media site yesterday. Trump spent years saying Obama was actually born in Africa. But now, he is relying on someone actually born in Africa to advise him.
I read an interesting observation on another social media site yesterday. Trump spent years saying Obama was actually born in Africa. But now, he is relying on someone actually born in Africa to advise him.
Ironic.
Perhaps because Elon is not running for president which requires a natural born citizenship?
Your comment suggest that Trump has said or you assume he hates everyone from. In which he has never said.
I read an interesting observation on another social media site yesterday. Trump spent years saying Obama was actually born in Africa. But now, he is relying on someone actually born in Africa to advise him.
Ironic.
We should have seen the writing on the wall back then that he made up stuff and then convinced a whole lot of people of the lie that Obama wasn't a legitimate American-born President a lie. People were saying "just look at his name...he's muslim". To this day people still believe he isn't American born and are saying that Trump won his third election.
The whole scene was a disgrace and an embarrassment. Now he's President.
You can suggest and assume all you want.
why do you think Trump includes Obama's middle name every time? Clarity?
His disdain for Obama was personal and legendary. Not just because he was a Democrat and a liberal in my opinion but on a deeper level. Yet Obama invited him to the White House after Trump beat Clinton, whom he actively campaigned against and offered a smooth transition.
But I wouldn't takeaway from your tongue-in-cheek post that Trump "hates everyone from" (I presume the poster left out Africa).
Copied from truth Social. Is he saying Panama should give back the canal?
Quote
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Panama Canal is considered a VITAL National Asset for the United States, due to its critical role to America's Economy and National Security. A secure Panama Canal is crucial for U.S. Commerce, and rapid deployment of the Navy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and drastically cuts shipping times to U.S. ports. The United States is the Number One user of the Canal, with over 70 percent of all transits heading to, or from, U.S. ports. Considered one of the Wonders of the Modern World, the Panama Canal opened for business 110 years ago, and was built at HUGE cost to the United States in lives and treasure - 38,000 American men died from infected mosquitos in the jungles during construction. Teddy Roosevelt was President of the United States at the time of its building, and understood the strength of Naval Power and Trade. When President Jimmy Carter foolishly gave it away, for One Dollar, during his term in Office, it was solely for Panama to manage, not China, or anyone else. It was likewise not given for Panama to charge the United States, its Navy, and corporations, doing business within our Country, exorbitant prices and rates of passage. Our Navy and Commerce have been treated in a very unfair and injudicious way. The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, especially knowing the extraordinary generosity that has been bestowed to Panama by the U.S. This complete "rip-off" of our Country will immediately stop....
His disdain for Obama was personal and legendary. Not just because he was a Democrat and a liberal in my opinion but on a deeper level. Yet Obama invited him to the White House after Trump beat Clinton, whom he actively campaigned against and offered a smooth transition.
But I wouldn't takeaway from your tongue-in-cheek post that Trump "hates everyone from" (I presume the poster left out Africa).
Katrina_24
8 Posts
Yes and No. They tested them, but were they (the manufacturer) always honest about the side effects? I would say no. With so many drugs on the market stating that they are safe using poor-quality data presentation, people believe them. Years later, we find out that they purposely misled people with BS studies. Overall, I think most vaccines are good and use good science before rolling them out to the public. Pharmaceutical companies lie all the time for the sake of making a profit, we should never blindly trust what they tell us when it benefits them not to be truthful. Informed consent is not real when the data is not real. Skepticism is a good thing, and science should be questioned and tested again and again. Good ideas don't require lies and force, they should give real data so people can make informed decisions.
if you can't question it, it's probably not good and they know it.