Objectively intelligent.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.oyez.org/justices/byron_r_white

Not to sound like Les over here, but you do not know a Supreme Court Justice's heart until they are there. Whizzer White was appointed by Kennedy. He didn't turn out hard core conservative, but did write to support anti-homosexual laws and dissented on Roe and Miranda. That was not what JFK envisioned, I'm sure.

I'm not sure. He seems to have arranged for at least one abortion, but that could have been situational. He was Roman Catholic, but certainly not dogmatic. Abortion wasn't an issue until the early 70's, so he never spoke to it. People want to attribute things to him that are not always accurate. For example, few remember he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which provided federal oversight to ensure that African Americans had the opportunity to vote free from intimidation or coercion. (It passed despite his opposition.)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Gorsuch affirmed SJ for me in the 10th Circuit in 2015. I knew he was a good egg then.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Early days, but so many of the people who loudly explained that the New York Times should be publishing alternative views like Tom Cotton's don't seem similarly upset that Trump is abusing the classification process and the DOJ to try to keep Bolton's book from being read. It's almost like the commitment to free speech and a robust marketplace of ideas is situational or something.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Early days, but so many of the people who loudly explained that the New York Times should be publishing alternative views like Tom Cotton's don't seem similarly upset that Trump is abusing the classification process and the DOJ to try to keep Bolton's book from being read. It's almost like the commitment to free speech and a robust marketplace of ideas is situational or something.

If this is aimed at me, I've been slammed with shit and haven't even read much about this Bolton book. (I detest Bolton, so he's rarely on my radar.)

Put me on the record as follows:

All Bolton wants to publish should be published, without edit. If Trump wants to fight/refute it, he must argue against it.

And if he can't handle Bolton, he's a moron. From a PR perspective, all one needs to say is "Warmonger, neocon, sour grapes, next question." Trump will of course fuck it up, being incapable of repeating such a simple message.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm old enough to remember way back when Sebby was talking up the benefits of Trump's wonder drug for Covid-19.



WaPo

Funny how they have to write the press release as if Trump is going to read it -- "no longer reasonable," as if it ever was.

I wasn't wrong. Nor was Icky, who knew people saved all but assuredly by the drug.

This disease won't be fully understood for a long time and the criteria on which this FDA opinion was offered might include the fact that other drugs are as effective but potentially less risky.

A victory lap on any therapy based on what the FDA says is wildly premature.

ETA: Here's the exact FDA language:

On June 15, 2020, based on FDA’s continued review of the scientific evidence available for hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) and chloroquine phosphate (CQ) to treat COVID-19, FDA has determined that the statutory criteria for EUA as outlined in Section 564(c)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are no longer met. Specifically, FDA has determined that CQ and HCQ are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use. This warrants revocation of the EUA for HCQ and CQ for the treatment of COVID-19.

CQ has caused heart issues. That's why HCQ was developed (it causes far fewer). Nevertheless, the FDA lumps them together, as though they have identical cardiac impacts.

The other consideration is, we can't tease out how many patients with covid given HCQ had heart issues because of the drug versus the disease. We're just now beginning to understand that this is a blood disease more than respiratory one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If this is aimed at me, I've been slammed with shit and haven't even read much about this Bolton book. (I detest Bolton, so he's rarely on my radar.)

Put me on the record as follows:

All Bolton wants to publish should be published, without edit. If Trump wants to fight/refute it, he must argue against it.

And if he can't handle Bolton, he's a moron. From a PR perspective, all one needs to say is "Warmonger, neocon, sour grapes, next question." Trump will of course fuck it up, being incapable of repeating such a simple message.

Wasn't aimed at you. Trump "must argue against it"? Sure, but the story is that he wants to sue his niece to suppress her book.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I wasn't wrong.

You said you spoke with four doctors friends who said the drugs worked. On that basis, you agreed that the drugs worked, and said that any argument saying the drugs might not work and that the risks of heart disease might outweigh any potential benefits was pure sophistry. You then said you spoke with another doctor and that you concluded that the risk of heart disease was “minimal” and a “rounding error.”

The FDA has now said the drugs are “unlikely to be effective” in treating COVID and that the risks of serious heart disease outweigh the potential benefits. So I totally get why you so can confidently state that you were not wrong.

As for your statement that Icky’s friend was “all but assuredly” saved by the drug, well I don’t whether or not he was or was not. And neither do you. The only difference is one of us is pretending that he knows. But I’ll never grow tired of all the amateur scientists and fake doctors talking out their asses. If people had only listened to you when you said that we would only have a few thousand deaths maximum, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Wasn't aimed at you. Trump "must argue against it"? Sure, but the story is that he wants to sue his niece to suppress her book.

He seems to hate the Bolton book. His lizard brain reaction is to try to stop it from coming out. This is failing, as even if he can hold it up, it will leak in dribs and drabs, which is probably worse for him.

So his next reaction to it must be either:

1. Ignore it; or,
2. Refute it/argue against it.

The former might work, but he's too dumb to attempt that. The latter is therefore his only course of response.

As to his niece's book, he's doing exactly the same thing he's doing to Bolton. Unleash the lawyers, which will fail, and then flail against her most salacious accusations.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You said you spoke with four doctors friends who said the drugs worked. On that basis, you agreed that the drugs worked, and said that any argument saying the drugs might not work and that the risks of heart disease might outweigh any potential benefits was pure sophistry. You then said you spoke with another doctor and that you concluded that the risk of heart disease was “minimal” and a “rounding error.”

The FDA has now said the drugs are “unlikely to be effective” in treating COVID and that the risks of serious heart disease outweigh the potential benefits. So I totally get why you so can confidently state that you were not wrong.

As for your statement that Icky’s friend was “all but assuredly” saved by the drug, well I don’t whether or not he was or was not. And neither do you. The only difference is one of us is pretending that he knows. But I’ll never grow tired of all the amateur scientists and fake doctors talking out their asses. If people had only listened to you when you said that we would only have a few thousand deaths maximum, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

I do not have the full FDA study, nor do you. Neither you nor I know if the cardiac issues cited by the FDA accrued from Covid on its own, HCQ on its own, or a combination of the two. Nor do we know the comorbidities of the people who suffered the cardiac issues. If the "risk" of its use accrues from the fact that it strains the heart of a person with underlying heart disease, and the study was packed full of those, then you have a flawed data set.

How "risk" is calculated by the FDA is not defined in the press release.

Nor is how "benefit" is defined explained in the release. It could be that the drug does benefit healthy people, but the chance of it harming a much greater group of unhealthy people outweighs the benefit it provides to others.

I also notice the FDA does not say it does not work -- only that they deem it unlikely to work, and then in the next sentence state that it has "potential benefits."

It's a very sloppy release. Ty sees intent. I see ineptitude, with science, grammar, or perhaps both.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I wasn't wrong. Nor was Icky, who knew people saved all but assuredly by the drug.

Actually, the FDA said you were wrong.

ETA: Here's the exact FDA language:

On June 15, 2020, based on FDA’s continued review of the scientific evidence available for hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) and chloroquine phosphate (CQ) to treat COVID-19, FDA has determined that the statutory criteria for EUA as outlined in Section 564(c)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are no longer met. Specifically, FDA has determined that CQ and HCQ are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use. This warrants revocation of the EUA for HCQ and CQ for the treatment of COVID-19.

Other than that you were wrong, you were completely right, of course.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's a very sloppy release. Ty sees intent.

No, my only point was that instead of acknowledging that there was never any medical basis for their position and that they were taking it only to please the President, they put in the words "no longer" to suggest that something had changed, surely to defend themselves from Presidential rage. That's how things work when the government is more focused on satisfying the narcissistic impulses of the President than on policy and outcomes for the public.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do not have the full FDA study, nor do you. Neither you nor I know if the cardiac issues cited by the FDA accrued from Covid on its own, HCQ on its own, or a combination of the two. Nor do we know the comorbidities of the people who suffered the cardiac issues. If the "risk" of its use accrues from the fact that it strains the heart of a person with underlying heart disease, and the study was packed full of those, then you have a flawed data set.

How "risk" is calculated by the FDA is not defined in the press release.

Nor is how "benefit" is defined explained in the release. It could be that the drug does benefit healthy people, but the chance of it harming a much greater group of unhealthy people outweighs the benefit it provides to others.

I also notice the FDA does not say it does not work -- only that they deem it unlikely to work, and then in the next sentence state that it has "potential benefits."

It's a very sloppy release. Ty sees intent. I see ineptitude, with science, grammar, or perhaps both.

I'm sure the FDA never thought of any of those issues. You should write them.

You can come up with all the metaphysical doubts about the validity of the FDA study. My point was merely that this was a funny dialogue:

You: I talked to some doctors and the drugs work. In fact, any argument that risk of the harms from the drugs might outweigh the benefits is pure sophistry.

Ty (months later): The FDA did a study and concluded the drugs are unlikely to work, and that the risk of harms, including serious cardiac illness, from the drugs outweighs any potential benefits.

You: I was right!!!

I'll also note that your probing skepticism of the FDA study (some of which may be valid -- as you note, we don't know a lot), is in striking contrast to your willingness, based on one post from a lawyer on an internet chatting board who said that he knew some other guy that was really sick, took the drug, and got better, that the drugs not only "all but assuredly" were the cause of this guy's cure, but that they were generally effective as cures for COVID.

[Hank Chinaski]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sp...id=hplocalnews

No police=shootings.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I'm sure the FDA never thought of any of those issues. You should write them.

PLF (usually): The Trump administration is inept.

PLF (this time): I'm sure the FDA is doing a great job!

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

PLF (usually): The Trump administration is inept.

PLF (this time): I'm sure the FDA is doing a great job!

I didn’t say that and I don’t know how well the current FDA is operating as compared with past FDAs, but I’m still willing to go with what they say over the speculative theories (even when couched as virtual certainties) of a pretend scientist on a lawyer chatting board who has a few doctor friends. But I remain open to persuasion.