myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Obama's Epic Failures
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 198, 199, 200
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18350

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My point exactly. Thanks for reinforcing it. Unlike you, I made no claims other than that "a qualified expert wrote an article." You, however, allege and claim that your facts, assumptions, and numbers trump hers. That's an almost infinite leap of credibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
My point exactly. Thanks for reinforcing it. Unlike you, I made no claims other than that "a qualified expert wrote an article." You, however, allege and claim that your facts, assumptions, and numbers trump hers. That's an almost infinite leap of credibility.


And yet, by your own account, when it comes to your own medical care, you have ignored the opinions of "qualified experts" and "allege and claim that your facts, assumptions, and numbers trump" theirs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18350

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not exactly. I pick my experts, based on the scientific evidence they cite. That evidence is not mine; it's theirs. I do so for many reasons, including:
• My life's at stake, and the $#!+ is hitting the fan.

• Oncologists who teach and wallow in the research have confirmed that I know more about the most relevant practical aspects of my cancer than most physicians and many oncologists do. And I should, simply because I've spent more time studying those aspects than most of them have. They may understand the chemistry and microbiology far better than I, but MANY of them pay little attention to stuff their PATIENTS care about.

• That's not an opinion; it's been proved many times even by the very research they cite and stated, by many of their more honest peers, and by doctors whose careers consist of fixing other doctors' mistakes.

• I'm not claiming without evidence that my chosen cancer treatment facts and choices are universally true (one patient's best treatment option may be very wrong for the next).

• OTOH, you, if I’m reading you right, are implying without solid evidence that you know more about labor cost estimates than does a retired chief economist of the Dept of Labor. I can’t say you’re wrong, but I CAN say I’m not convinced and do not care enough about it to wallow in it. I’m surely not going to quibble over the distinction between a new law and an adjustment to an old one. The effect is the same.

• I can cite thousands of peer-reviewed sources to back up my medical conclusions and findings, from the same body of research the world's physicians rely on for their "evidence-based medicine". The difference is that compared to most of the doctors I see, when it comes to the medical literature I'm more current, am more motivated, have more time to study what's most relevant to me, know more about my own life's priorities than anyone else on the planet, and was not taught BS* in medical school decades ago.

* (Obviously their med school learnin' is not all or even largely BS, but much has changed since today's practicing physicians took classes and MANY of them have not kept up, for many reasons. A simple list of the irrefutable errors I've caught doctors and nurses making just on me would fill a page, with several being potentially fatal and in my case one WILL be fatal.)

• Good oncologists don’t dictate treatments to their prostate cancer (that’s one of mine) patients. They present options, pros, and cons, and let the patients choose their poison. Any patient who gives a crap about his future owes it to himself to verify what he has been told, because far too many oncologists (and, in my experience alone, cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, PCPs, and more) are coasting through life unwilling to keep current with the research or verify the BS they are fed by pharmaceutical reps.

• Your timing is excellent, because I need this introspection to trust myself in case I have to challenge the Mayo Clinic next week on the most fundamental tenet in all of prostate cancer: that testosterone feeds it like gasoline on a fire. Too many oncologists are now using testosterone very successfully to KILL prostate cancer to ignore their very different hypothesis, and not only my 2016 WSing season but my very life could easily hinge on which side is right.

(Much of the above goes for many aspects of nutrition (a notorious gap in medical school curricula), cholesterol, exercise physiology, and other health-related topics, for the same reasons. Many WSers’ futures, like mine, will depend on choosing the right oncologist, cardiologist, surgeon, etc. and the right science.)

Realize, too, that I took the time to lift my hind leg and spray this on your screen as much for myself as to answer your legitimate question. It’s one of several important questions I ask myself almost daily as I study these topics (and, to a lesser degree because of priorities, politics and AGWA).
Examples:
• What are their (both sides') credentials, sources, biases, etc.

• Who’s right … the doctor I’m talking to or the ones who disagree?

• What’s the evidence? The logic? The science?

• Which doctors can and will answer legitimate, relevant questions or objections, and will research ideas she hasn’t encountered yet? My sharp new PCP recently challenged me* to list some books backing up some of my beliefs concerning the whole diet/cholesterol/heart disease causal hypothesis that doctors have been taught and are still teaching today as gospel. In minutes, from three full shelves on that general topic behind me, I listed 25 such books citing thousands of peer-reviewed publications highly critical of -- apparently even thoroughly disproving -- the entire hypothesis.

* That was one of the easier homework assignments I’ve ever had. Hint: IT AIN’T GOSPEL. It’s one damned bully’s baseless HYPOTHESIS, it’s full of holes you could drive a Pfizer or Merck ship full of harmful statins through, and it’s harming hundreds of millions of people as we type. That bully faked his data and sold it to Harvard/Walter Willett and the big health agencies 50 years ago, and it’s still being taught in most medical schools.

And as soon as I figure out this oncology controversy, my PCP tells me I need to go on a medication for which one book cites 500 peer reviewed studies proving it toxic. Many of you are taking it, as it’s the most widely prescribed drug class in at least the U.S. There’s even a powerful lobby to put it in your child’s drinking water. Will Obama comply? Will you let him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 8485

PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Realize, too, that I took the time to lift my hind leg and spray this on your screen as much for myself as to answer your legitimate question."


Could this be an offbeat attempt to inject some humor into his life or death struggle?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9707

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama has been wrong on the war on terror. This article by Andrew Bacevich is interesting. I'll post this teaser, which gets the overall strategic conundrum right:

Quote:
To appreciate the implications, consider the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terrorism. Today, nearly 15 years after it began, it continues with no end in sight. The inability of “the greatest fighting force the world has ever known” to bring that enterprise to a successful close would seem to require an explanation. Secretary Carter offers none. Nor does he even hazard a guess as to when, how, or at what cost the final victory will be gained. Instead, he gives such questions the widest possible berth. Indeed, he ignores them.

To be fair, on what has become the most pressing front of that larger struggle, the fight against the Islamic State, Carter has not been silent. Obama’s defense chief forthrightly defends an approach to dealing with ISIS that few outside the administration itself find defensible. Echoing the president, Secretary Carter vows to destroy the Islamic State. Yet the Pentagon’s evolving campaign, which he routinely endorses, combines the worst features of mission creep with gradual escalation. Operation Inherent Resolve, as it’s called, has been small ball all the way.

That Carter spends so much of his own time managing the campaign to defeat ISIS suggests a warped understanding of what a defense secretary exists to do. Yes, as an operational problem, ISIS poses real challenges. But those challenges are not overwhelming; we’re not talking about storming Festung Europa here. Given adequate resources, a reasonably competent staff-college graduate should be able to figure out how to prevail over an adversary that lacks an air force, possesses few modern weapons, and by relying on nihilistic violence alienates the population it presumes to govern.

Far more imposing than the operational challenge is the strategic one: addressing the conditions that give rise to entities like ISIS in the first place. Panicky Americans or demagogic presidential candidates may fancy that taking down this one organization is the key to restoring order in the Greater Middle East. Yet to nurse that fantasy is to ignore the lessons of the past 15 years, if not of the past century. Destroying ISIS is a worthy goal, but unless the underlying conditions are also addressed, doing so will merely pave the way for some successor group, likely to be just as vile. How to pre-empt the appearance of that successor—now that’s a conundrum worthy of a defense secretary’s attention.

Yet addressing that conundrum requires this admission: The problem that our ongoing war purports to be solving has no military solution; indeed, pressing for one only makes matters worse. Once heretical, these propositions today find increasing favor, even in some military quarters, and should provide the basis for a far-reaching policy reassessment.

The facts speak for themselves: The militarized approach conceived as a response to 9/11, back when illusions of US military supremacy ran rampant, has manifestly flopped. Yet even today, neither Secretary Carter nor any of his chief subordinates seem prepared to own up to this reality.


The article is here: http://www.thenation.com/article/who-runs-the-pentagon/

Of course, with a new military aircraft, there will be plenty of money for military contractors and investors in Virginia. It just won't help,.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 198, 199, 200
Page 200 of 200

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group