Liberal Forum

31stArrival » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

But you use his promise against him and anyone that voted for him. 

Cannonpointer » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

This is patently false. I voted for him.

I am not "using his promise against him." I am grading how well he has kept it. 

That's my job as a voter. You ought to know this. Do you feel no responsibility at all to follow up on the things that you help to cause?

Do better.
 

31stArrival » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

I wish you understood my thoughts about patents, maybe my last post shed some light on that.

Cannonpointer » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

I hope you mean IV drip. Feeding tube is **** caveman ****. Do you know how long it takes to starve? Or even do mild damage for want of food?

It's very sad for you that you do not understand the world that you live in.

There will NEVER be definitive proof of ANYTHING that does not profit big pharma, because under the law, "definitive proof" requires the gold standard of studies, involving thousands of people and double-blind methodology. These studies must not only be performed, but also independently replicated. This will cost millions of dollars. Water does not profit big pharma. So there is no incentive to acquire "definitive proof."

The way that we get knowledge of these things - not "definitive proof" under the law - is through clinical trials. But these do not involve many thousands of people, and they are not double blind. So the evidence is not considered strong enough to make claims. It isn't anecdotal per se, but it is of low evidentiary value. There are actual protocols for rating clinical evidence, so when I say it is of low evidentiary value, I am not making a personal judgment. I am pointing you to a standardized evaluation of the evidence under which the said evidence will receive the same grade from a thousand different investigators, whatever their biases.

And the way that we raise the value of such evidence is by collecting multiple clinical trials from multiple medical practices and collating the data in a meta-study. This method STILL does not meet the legal burden of "definitive proof." Because the big money boys want to OWN THAT DESIGNATION, as it locks out the competition. It guarantees to a precise certainty that if something cheap and easily acquired is found to be better than what they sell, no "definitive proof" of this will ever be available, and so anyone ballyhooing in favor of it will be subject to civil and criminal penalties. It protects their market.

I have seen the meta studies on the topic and I can tell you two things. One is that fasting with chemo is better than chemo alone. The other is that you are never, ever, ever going to see "definitive proof" of this fact.

JohnnyYou » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

I do value your opinion.  I will have to do a little more vetting.  Mrs is not going to believe it because you said so.

Docs said put the port in the stomach, pump the bottle of brown **** in the tummy.  One of the strategies that was stressed by the doctors is nourishment was pertinent for strength to handle the chemo and especially the upcoming radiation treatments to the throat.

We have at least coordinated the radiation treatments here on the Eastern Shore and the daily two hour commute to the Baltimore PTSD Zone will not be required.

Mrs best friend had cancer of the throat. She did everything she could to help her navigate the whitewater.  The Doctors wanted Proton Therapy but the insurance would not cover it. All that could be supported was the old fashioned burn baby burn zapper treatment.  It destroyed the tissue and she succumbed to complications. 

Concerning the Proton Therapy, there was an incredibly smart young man in the Nuclear Engineering Department who got through the Engineering and Medical Degree before I finished my Bachelors. SuperDuper smart..  I believe he went on to help develop the biologic target that would seek and attach to the cancer that would subsequently absorb the protons which pass through other tissue without the target, bringing precision to the radiation treatment process. I am sure Dr Moore is very very wealthy today.

Cannonpointer » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

 I did not read beyond the first sentence, As an operative practice, I stop reading when someone lies to me about me.

Indeed, one of my many aphorisms is this: "You can lie to me, or you can lie about me. But you cannot lie to me about me."
 

Cannonpointer » 45 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

45 minutes ago

I hope you mean IV drip. Feeding tube is **** caveman ****. Do you know how long it takes to starve? Or even do mild damage for want of food?

It's very sad for you that you do not understand the world that you live in.

There will NEVER be definitive proof of ANYTHING that does not profit big pharma, because under the law, "definitive proof" requires the gold standard of studies, involving thousands of people and double-blind methodology. These studies must not only be performed, but also independently replicated. This will cost millions of dollars. Water does not profit big pharma. So there is no incentive to acquire "definitive proof."

The way that we get knowledge of these things - not "definitive proof" under the law - is through clinical trials. But these do not involve many thousands of people, and they are not double blind. So the evidence is not considered strong enough to make claims. It isn't anecdotal per se, but it is of low evidentiary value. There are actual protocols for rating clinical evidence, so when I say it is of low evidentiary value, I am not making a personal judgment. I am pointing you to a standardized evaluation of the evidence under which the said evidence will receive the same grade from a thousand different investigators, whatever their biases.

And the way that we raise the value of such evidence is by collecting multiple clinical trials from multiple medical practices and collating the data in a meta-study. This method STILL does not meet the legal burden of "definitive proof." Because the big money boys want to OWN THAT DESIGNATION, as it locks out the competition. It guarantees to a precise certainty that if something cheap and easily acquired is found to be better than what they sell, no "definitive proof" of this will ever be available, and so anyone ballyhooing in favor of it will be subject to civil and criminal penalties. It protects their market.

I have seen the meta studies on the topic and I can tell you two things. One is that fasting with chemo is better than chemo alone. The other is that you are never, ever, ever going to see "definitive proof" of this fact.

JuCo 5 percenter... “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” LAVRENTIY BERIA "Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." brown's unheeded words of wisdom

Cannonpointer » Today, 3:13 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 3:13 am

I agree with every fact but not with the conclusion. 

At the same time, if I am being honest, I cannot argue with moral certainty that we deserve better. I give us the same grade - a D. 

It would be an F, but I give us one letter grade because we didn't vote for that thing the democ rats nominated coronated.

In memory of Pumpkins

Jantje_Smit » Today, 6:26 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:26 am

I don't live in the US so I look at it a bit differently but I still think you're too harsh on Trump, maybe your expectations of him making good on his promises were too high.. lol..nah, but it is a bit unfair to hold him to it, it is Trump after all.. how about a compromise and make it a C, it's only the first 100 days, let's see what happens in the next 100?