Absolutely, that's just, like, my opinion, man. It holds no sway over others, who cares what a newt thinks?

I don't think it's a certainty that the GHSB would have prevented all deaths, or even avoided the pandemic, just likely, but that's enough to assign blame imo, and usually under the law too. There's zero chance he would be prosecuted, so it's all academic.

You have a link for the Lancet study? I would be interested to find what they include as "Trump's policies" and what isn't considered. Edit:Derp....I scrolled up and see you already posted it, thanks.
Even 40% is over 200000 deaths in his lap. That's 200000 more than are acceptable.

You could say that about climate change, and in a rational world it would be true, but that <3% are used to justify nearly 50% of policy and nearly all opposition to progress, so yeah, it does still matter.

I respect you too, and you're welcome to your opinion, but when you say I can't lay blame where I think it belongs, I feel obligated to explain how I came to my opinion.

Absolutely on Bob. It's infantile and ignorant at best, and a cynical lie aimed at the gullible.

What we are still talking about is your opinion. You feel that him removing the GHSB led to all of the pandemic deaths. I understand that and you have the right to have that opinion.

I am going off the report that was made by the Lancet Journal. The Lancet is one of the two oldest, most respected and most widely read medical journals in the world. They were established in 1823 and are ranked often first or second among general-interest medical journals by their “impact factor,” the frequency with which their studies are cited in other research.

They said 40% and that is also influenced by the state our health system was already in when he became President.

I will give you an analogy. If 97% of the world's climate scientists believe that, based on science, we have man made climate change, it really doesn't matter what the opinions of the other 3% are. We have man made climate change.

I respect you, but I disagree with your opinion. OTOH, I agree that Bob is an ass for even posting this. Trump fucked up and arguing it is pointless at this time.

The EU has open borders and free travel amongst the various nations if you are a citizen of a member nation. I will agree our per capita death rate is higher, but still (based on the well researched Lancet study) you cannot lay more than about 40% of the deaths at Trump's feet. I don't deny he could have handled the pandemic much better, but it has been some time since we have had a pandemic on this level. Multiple leaders have handled it differently and time will eventually label them for the history aspect of it.

I go by the facts. Not conjecture, and not opinion. I also don't consider Birx to be even remotely a good source since she rode down the trail willy nilly with the same person you are blaming all the deaths on. I will never trust or vote for Trump again, but you cannot lay the percentage you are proposing on him solely. Just like we cannot move Biden to almighty status for his handling of the situation when he is currently running a similar death rate on par with the same time last year, WHILE having massive vaccination.

Has he made steps that have helped? Certainly and I would say he is definitely doing a better job than Trump, but by your own admission almost anyone could. The fact of the matter is, as I said last year, you cannot fight a pandemic like this without having the martial law like power China had or being in a situation to isolate yourself from outside contact.

I don't disagree that Trump could have handled many aspects of the pandemic better, but I think your numbers are a bit off.

One, because with the lack of a vaccine, experts are unsure of how many of the deaths can be laid specifically at Trump's feet. In other words, they are unable to put a solid number to how many would have died had he done anything different. It certainly would not be 80-90%, that is a nearly unproveable claim in the face of no vaccine being available. The closest estimate is from the Lancet Commision, which suggests that 40% could be Trump's fault, along with four decades of "long-standing flaws in US economic, health, and social policy" that compounded inefficiencies in the country's public-health systems before the pandemic. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/fulltext

If you look at statistics, Biden's administration was running at similar death numbers than Trump's for a couple of months after he took office. They only began to decline rapidly since the vaccine became more available. Vaccine availability is more of a factor of how fast the companies were able to make the vaccine, versus anything Biden could have done. His contribution, if you will, is primarily not stockpiling a reserve and sending it out as fast as possible. The current death rate is running about the same as from May 2020 to November 2020. The winter surge was about as bad as everyone expected.

Here is a link that shows the deaths on a timeline. Select "deaths' instead of "cases". https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/01/coronavirus-covid-live-updates-us/

You didn't dispute their science, did you? Are you pretending this was reviewed by outside scientists who aren't card carrying vegan zealots...or even by non contributors to the paper they've presented? Do you know who funded it, since that does matter? Any meat producers among them?
You know they neglected to include a list of possible conflicts of interest the authors had, too. Could that be because the vast majority made/make their living selling veganism in one way or another?

I gave specific points of contention with specific details of eat lancet including it's scientific validity, with specific data you failed to address at all.

I'm just pointing out the deficiencies in your movement's new attempt at science...it may have some good points none the less.

I'm much less concerned with the messenger than the science. Veganism pushes out these new claims so often that it takes an army to keep up with debunking them, it's no surprise some soldiers are less than perfect, I don't know these two enough to care....but do you contradict their article's scientific points, ignoring the authors likely bias?

All that said, I don't disagree that red meat once a week is a decent limit, or that less sugar and processed grain would be even more beneficial to average people's health (not everyone)...and that's far from suggesting veganism...but those three suggestions seem to be the main takeaways from the synopsis I've read, but the devil is in the details, which seem to need serious work.

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

Yes, I was wondering when you would trot out Hooker's paper and the 'CDC whistleblower" bit. You see, in the lack of clear scientific fact, conspiracy theorists tend to grab whatever they can to prove that they are right. I'll dissect your attempt right now.

First, Hooker's paper was covering the data involving African-American children with supposed predilection towards autism. The sample size was small, the math was ludicrous, and he incorrectly analyzed a cohort study. Because of the NUMEROUS failures to appropriately conduct a true scientific study, his paper was retracted. So, when exposed to the light, his theory was decidedly lacking in content and was canned.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/journal-takes-down-autism-vaccine-paper-pending-investigation/

This incompetent study was the result, allegedly, of discussions between Hooker and a senior psychologist at the CDC named William Thompson. Hooker then teamed up with Andrew Wakefield to cherry pick bits to make it sound as though Thompson were confessing to some horrible crime of data manipulation to hide this “bombshell” result reported by Wakefield. Thus was born the “CDC whistleblower".

In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. He is a now doing everything he can to prove his theories, like possibly illegal recording of conversations, so that he can regain some credibility. The guy is a hack.

Thompson has admitted to being prone to anxiety disorders, being delusional, and has shown that he is more scared of being 'the bad guy' then doing his job. His career is pretty much finished at the CDC, because he has shown that he will waffle if confronted by angry people who can't understand science. I feel sorry for him, but he has issues.

So, now we can address your link. A congressman, not a scientist, has received information from people who have been laughed out of the scientific community for multiple reasons. He sees buzzwords and decides to get ahead of the bandwagon, calling for further investigation and research. I can, of course, show you knee-jerk reactions by multiple members of congress similar to this, like Ted Cruz calling for immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood over the recent videos. You know, the ones that were chopped and spliced together to make it sound like PP was selling aborted babies? Do you see a pattern with the chop and splice for sensationalism? I hope you do.

In other words, you don't have any scientific facts. Like all anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, you rely on a few items that seem to tie together to form a true fact, but they don't. When confronted with this, you will say that it's all big pharma and money trails, etc. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? It's like saying that the the earth was created 9000 years ago...because RELIGION!

Btw, if you want to place your trust in politicians trying to be scientists, I leave you with this gem from former congressman Paul Broun.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

Understood, and to be fair, the fact that the Lancet (one of the most esteemed medical publications on the planet) got suckered in really leaves the door open for laypeople who have very little medical knowledge to accept these things hook, line and sinker.

When you compound that with historical mishaps such as thalidomide, agent orange and asbestos, or even the big health push away from red meat/fats to a mainly carb based diet (hullo diabetes!), a fair amount of skepticism is understandable.

I've moderated my criticism of anti-vaxxers considerably over the years because of that. There will always be hardline true believers, but most people are acting out of a combination of fear of big pharma (not unjustified) and side effects for their kids. Watching a family member drowning on their own mucous tends to bring things in to perspective, if a little late... = (

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

I could be wrong on that I'm looking into it but "Cannabis is ranked one of the least harmful drugs by a study published in the UK medical journal, The Lancet" As shown in the following graph. You'll notice tobacco is significantly higher on the scale. Graph Here

[edit] ok there are about 100 chemical compounds in cannabis however most of them are responsible for the fragrance/aroma of the plant they're also naturally occurring and not additives. When I was talking about the chemicals in cigarettes I was mainly referring to additive chemicals and known poisons that are added in for supposed flavor, like ammonia and cyanide.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Auger8:
Cigarettes have something like 300 chemicals in them that's where the cancer causing agents come from not the tar, marijuana has like 3 THC, Chlorophyll(planet matter), and actually that's all I can think of so I guess it's just 2. Anyway I'd choose marijuana any day over something that has cyanide in it to give it flavor wouldn't you?

complete bullshit. Cannabis has hundreds of cannabinoids/chemicals in it.

>> ^grinter:

What is Adam Savage doing there?
..also, why are they encouraging hands only CPR instead of chest compression with ventilation?
(c'mon I'm sure someone here knows).



Chest-compression-only versus standard CPR

On a side note Ken Jeong is a Medical Doctor

Ugh! Cato institute Bullshit.

Some links:
http://www.thelocal.se/32330/20110301/
Record growth in the fourth quarter while 2010 as a whole turned out to be the strongest year since 1970

http://www.thelocal.se/32390/20110304/
Can't have growth with high taxes and government involvement? 3.5% growth expected for 2011

http://www.thelocal.se/31544/20110120/
OECD compares strength of Swedish economy with Pippi Longstockings. GDP grew by 5.2 percent last year (2010)

http://www.thelocal.se/33842/20110518/
Sweden has fared well in a new ranking of the world's most competitive countries, climbing two spots into fourth place in a new ranking from the Swiss business school IMD.

http://www.thelocal.se/31016/20101222/
Sweden offers the best care and chance of survival against cancer in the Nordic countries, according to a new study published in The Lancet medical journal. However, we do have queues for optional surgeries and as in the US the amount of doctors being trained is kept artificially low so we have a lack of them (helps with keeping the wages high). Also paperwork. Tons and tons of paperwork for the doctors.

http://www.thelocal.se/33804/20110516/
If it is so bad for companies in Sweden why is Facebook putting down billions in SEK on a server park here? (Most of it in electricity though)

Linking to The Local because they have news from Sweden in ok English...

There's so much wharrgarbl going on in there I almost popped a blood vessel.

Contrary to the "Idiocracy" belief that our society is being "dumbed down", as it were (and, believe me, I still find myself saying this is the case) evidence suggests the opposite is the case. In first world nations across the globe intelligence quotients are rising (and plateauing in some cases, while minority's IQs are still rising), and belief in silly religions and superstitions are falling.

Yes there is Mercury in Thimersol, but it isn't the horrific kind.
Bad Mercury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury
Thimersol Mercury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylmercury

The key words there are "Bioaccumulate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulate

For a look at the whole "Vaccines/Thimersol causes Autism" wharrgarbl, I rebuke with a video I posted to the sift a while back: http://videosift.com/video/Do-Vaccines-Cause-Autism-A-Detailed-Examination

Oh, and hey! How about the fact that Dr. Wakefield, the father of the whole Vaccine/Autism debacle with his article published in The Lancet was discredited finally!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/02/and-now-the-antivax-failure-is-complete-the-lancet-withdraws-wakefields-paper/

As for the whole "Flouride" wharrgarbl I'd just recommend reading the Wiki's Article on Water Flouridation, in particular this section right around paragraph 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Ethics_and_politics

(Emphasis mine)

"Conspiracy theories involving fluoridation are common, and include claims that fluoridation was motivated by protecting the U.S. atomic bomb program from litigation, that (as famously parodied in the film Dr. Strangelove) it is part of a Communist or New World Order plot to take over the world, that it was pioneered by a German chemical company to make people submissive to those in power, that behind the scenes it is promoted by the sugary food or phosphate fertilizer or aluminum industries, or that it is a smokescreen to cover failure to provide dental care to the poor.[19] One such theory is that fluoridation was a public-relations ruse sponsored by fluoride polluters such as the aluminum maker Alcoa and the Manhattan Project, with conspirators that included industrialist Andrew Mellon and the Mellon Institute's researcher Gerald J. Cox, the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati, the Federal Security Agency's administrator Oscar R. Ewing, and public-relations strategist Edward Bernays.[84] Specific antifluoridation arguments change to match the spirit of the time.[85]"


The video is right; let's get the facts. And if your facts only support your "New World Order", "omfg they're trying to control our minds" nonsense, well then, those are your "facts". There's a funny thing about why smart people believe weird things; read about it in Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". It showed me the error of some of my foolish beliefs as well.

And I'm at the point where I wonder why I bother doing this, I'm talking to walls and making friends with no one. I guess I just care too much about seeing fear mongering bullshit like this peddled as if it has any rational backing whatsoever.

http://christophersisk.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/thestupiditburns.jpg

/downvote

>> ^anyprophet:
Now, about acupuncture. There is no evidence that it works as advertised. That is by redirecting qi at your meridians. In fact, there is ample evidence that these meridians were actually a very recent invention and a massive fraud. Any perceived effect acupuncture has is either coincidental or a placebo effect. Which is what many, many recent studies have shown.


"Recent examinations of Ötzi, a 5,000-year-old mummy found in the Alps, have identified over 50 tattoos on his body, some of which are located on acupuncture points that would today be used to treat certain ailments. Some scientists believe that this is evidence that practices similar to acupuncture were practiced elsewhere in Eurasia during the early Bronze Age. According to an article published in The Lancet by Dorfer et al., "We hypothesised that there might have been a medical system similar to acupuncture (Chinese Zhenjiu: needling and burning) that was practiced in Central Europe 5,200 years ago... A treatment modality similar to acupuncture thus appears to have been in use long before its previously known period of use in the medical tradition of ancient China. This raises the possibility of acupuncture having originated in the Eurasian continent at least 2000 years earlier than previously recognised."

I don't know about you, but pre-history doesn't indicate "recent" to me.



Again, I'm not saying it's a cure-all. I'm not saying that modern technology hasn't zeroed in on the real cause of many immediate problems, or ailments.

But I think to toss aside what is apparently a form of "healing" that predates our written history is more than a little smug.