Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 8
Topic: Goodbye, Columbus! Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4826
Posted: 30 July 2020 at 12:39pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Jim: My statement is that "The threat of ending slavery helped push America
into that war, so it could win and end this "threat"

You take issue with my statement. But your evidence is that some claim the
1619 Project overstates their case and the project creator had to "walk back"
the claim from "all colonies" to "some colonies".

How is some of the U.S. fighting to preserve slavery somehow NOT the U.S.
fighting to preserve slavery? If, for the sake of argument, we all agree it is
"some colonies" -- then... what? Andy thinks the Revolutionary war was partly
fought to free the slaves and that's what set me off. You seem to be on "his
side." If not, then what are you saying?

Your claim re: Rutledge is totally false. Rutledge refers to the Dunmore
proclamation of Nov 1775. The war was not for independence until 1776 and
getting the South to join that cause was difficult and, Rutledge points out,
triggered by Dunmore.

So we have this very quote from North Carolina's George Rutledge, signer of
the Declaration and future Governor of that Southern state. But you want
people to take a Washington Examiner hit-piece on the 1619 project as more
primary than that? Not out here in the real world.

So, the people of the time say the Revolutionary war was fought to preserve
slavery. The evidence shows that Britain offered to end it, but was defeated
and slavery continued and the only thing you marginally establish is that the
1619 Project may have overstated their case in a technical sense.

Huzzah.

Edited by Mark Haslett on 30 July 2020 at 12:51pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13314
Posted: 30 July 2020 at 2:04pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply


 QUOTE:
Weren't there 6 studies done across 4 different countries?

More.


 QUOTE:
Isn't a potential cure worth considering?

Yes.


 QUOTE:
Why are their findings the exact opposite of what the FDA is now saying?  Why did the FDA approve it and then revoke it?  I mean, did they not do any testing or confirmation before approving?

The FDA did not approve it. They granted an Emergency Use Authorization, which allows the use of unapproved drugs in emergency situations. They revoked it because proper clinical trials were showing that at best it did nothing and at worst it was causing cardiac issues in patients.


 QUOTE:
Do you feel there is no merit in the studies because of the one person involved?  Do all the doctors in the group all believe all the claims put in the journal over the years?  Are they always wrong or are there examples of things they got right too?

I wasn't speaking to the merit of the studies; I was speaking to the AAPS's advocacy of them. They are not a scientific or medical advocacy group; they are a political organization of conservative doctors. And it's obvious in the instances I cited that they placed politics over science.

As for the studies themselves, taking the Henry Ford Health System study for example:

- That study was observational, not a controlled trial
- It was not a blind trial
- The patients selected for treatment were not randomized, the hydroxychloroquine + azithroymycin treatment was reserved for patients with minimal cardiac risk factors
- The study did not control for steroid use, and according to their data, the patients in the HCQ and HCQ + AZ groups were administered steroids at twice the rate that the no medicine and AZ only groups did. This is important because recent studies have shown that the steroid dexamethasone does have a benefit for severely ill COVID patients.
- The study excluded 267 patients who had not been discharged. If those patients were not discharged because they were still sick after receiving treatment, that skews the data


Meanwhile, the controlled clinical trials had to stop because of safety issues.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Bob Simko
Byrne Robotics Security

Negative Mod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5818
Posted: 30 July 2020 at 8:16pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Weren't there 6 studies done across 4 different countries? Isn't a potential
cure worth considering? Why are their findings the exact opposite of what the
FDA is now saying? Why did the FDA approve it and then revoke it? I mean,
did they not do any testing or confirmation before approving?

Do you feel there is no merit in the studies because of the one person
involved? Do all the doctors in the group all believe all the claims put in the
journal over the years? Are they always wrong or are there examples of things
they got right too?
****************************

There's no merit in them because from a scientific design and research
method they're complete shit.

The initial thoughts behind why HCQ might be an option was interesting and
worth initial discussion. Turns out it didn't work. And it has a bad habit of
causing fatal arrhythmias. Which azithromycin can do as well. Which isn't a
good combination. Especially when you look at the populations most likely to
have the worst COVID outcomes to begin with.

Long past time of moving on.

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Jim Burdo
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2020
Location: United States
Posts: 63
Posted: 31 July 2020 at 1:20am | IP Logged | 4 post reply


 QUOTE:
 Jim Burdo wrote:
The only election interference shown is Russia buying some Facebook ads.

I don't want to legislate the entire Impeachment of Trump here in this thread, but wow.  Seriously not their only interference.  Such a simplistic reading of the actual events as to be troubling to the extreme.

The impeachment was about Ukraine, not Russia. The Mueller report covered the Russian interference.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Oliver Denker
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 18 August 2018
Location: Germany
Posts: 106
Posted: 31 July 2020 at 3:56am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Columbus is now truly gone from this thread.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jim Burdo
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2020
Location: United States
Posts: 63
Posted: 31 July 2020 at 5:08am | IP Logged | 6 post reply

 Mark Haslett wrote:
Jim: My statement is that "The threat of ending slavery helped push America
into that war, so it could win and end this "threat"

You take issue with my statement. But your evidence is that some claim the
1619 Project overstates their case and the project creator had to "walk back"
the claim from "all colonies" to "some colonies".


Try reading it again. She backtracks from it being "the colonists" to "some colonists" (not colonies). I don't see how that is a hit piece, since they're just quoting her own words. I'm not on this Andy person's side, just the truth. 

Leftist historian Sean Wilentz has addressed the Rutledge quote. (It's South Carolina's John Rutledge BTW.) It in no way shows that the war was fought to preserve slavery. "Dunmore’s proclamation pointedly did not offer freedom “to any enslaved person who fled his plantation,” as Silverstein claimed. In declaring martial law in Virginia, the proclamation offered freedom only to those held by rebel slaveholders. Tory slaveholders could keep their enslaved people. " Dunsmore himself was an unapologetic slaveholder, before and after the war as the governor of Jamaica, trying to set up a cotton slavery regime. 

I was wrong about the year, but the point remains. Fighting had already started. The proclamation wasn't the cause of the rebellion, but a response to it. There was no offer to end slavery. If the British had won, it would have continued with fresh slaves from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4826
Posted: 31 July 2020 at 1:41pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Jim - Here's a quote from the article which you say is "just quoting her own
words" : "...the New York Times's correction leaves one with the distinct
impression that the paper’s admission of error was more or less forced. It
cannot go on simply dismissing critics as ignorant, possibly closeted racists
when one of those critics is its own fact-checker. At that point, they have to
own up to the mistake. Hence the resentful, mealy-mouthed correction."

That, fyi, is definitive "hit piece" language.

The distinction of before and after Dunmore is over "Independence" - what
moved the South and Rutledge to finally sign on? Could it have anything to do
with, as Rutledge wrote in his journal, that Dunmore was driving them away?
Could it have to do with the estimated 2/3 of S. Carolina's slaves who escaped
in its wake?

Many say yes. A few say no. You insist the TRUTH is "no" -- I would wonder
why?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3958
Posted: 01 August 2020 at 4:15am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

 Bob Simko wrote:
There's no merit in them because from a scientific design and research method they're complete shit.

We now know the Henry Ford Hospital study was a non-controlled, retroactive Cohort study where many of the people getting hydroxychloroquine were also receiving corticosteroids. Corticosteroids have been shown to help patients survive cases of advanced covid-19 disease. It’s as if the information about that study has been misrepresented to snare idiots that want to believe hydroxychloroquine is a cure.

Leftist historian? I think it is safe to trust what Rutledge wrote in his journal.


Edited by Eric Ladd on 01 August 2020 at 4:16am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

<< Prev Page of 8
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE