• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trump hatred

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"There is a hatred of Donald Trump that is so spectacularly irrational that a lot, millions of people, are rooting for hydroxychloroquine not to work. In other words it is better that people die than Donald Trump be right. That is how deep the hatred of Donald Trump is. It is sick! The people who have this hatred think they're healthy and they think they're moral. They are sick. You can oppose him, you can vote for the other party, you can vote for his opponent; you can work against him but to hate him to that extent is sick. It is morally sick and psychologically sick and this is the smoking gun. Had this been touted by doctor Fauci or had this been touted by Barack Obama or any Democrat for that matter people would have been going crazy to show that it works. That's how much he is hated ." --Dennis Prager
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Name three.
Pick any reporter from CNN, MSMB, New York Times, Washington Post, etc., Pick the folks who published the fake study. Pick the folks who ran with the fake data, and continue to repeat it even though it has been discredited.

It really isn’t hard to see if you are not blinded by hatred for POT$S.

peace to you
 

Scarlett O.

Moderator
Moderator
He is hated. That's true. Hatred for presidents has been growing. Just my opinion.

Bill Clinton - the more shenanigans he pulled and the more exalted by his wife - hatred for him grew an grew.

George Bush - He was called "retard" and more before he was even elected. The hatred level for him was way more than for Bill Clinton. It grew incessantly.

Barak Obama - If we will all be honest, a few hated him because he was black. He was not a good president in terms of looking out and seeking the best for this nation. He never seemed to love this nation. The hatred level for him sky-rocketed and made the hatred for George Bush look like a love fest.

Donald Trump - This is probably the most hated president the United States has seen. People who hate him are at stroke level and the hatred for Trump makes the hatred for Obama.....forgotten

Do you see a pattern here!?

I do.

It's not the presidents nor their flaws. It's the devil in the hearts of the people. Hatred in general is spewing out more and more every day.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
If you are interested in medical information instead of poliical information about hydroxychloroquine and covid19:
The American Cardiology Association references the findings of a retrospective study that did not use the fraudulent Surgisphere data.
Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Azithromycin for COVID-19 - American College of Cardiology

We are still waiting for a randomized control trial that shows positive effect and I personally would love that to occur. As yet we still only have anecdotal evidence.


Also I posted this in another thread that explains the Surgisphere fraud.
Recommendations/Restrictions of different drug regulatory organizations for various countries

Countries that do not recommend/banned the use of hydroxychloroquine for Covid19 outside of clinical trials
Australia TGA
NZ - PHARMAC
Health Canada
UK - MHRA
France - MSH - previously allowed in hospitalized patients
Italy - MoH - previously allowed for off label use

Countries that do not recommend the use of hydroxycholoroquine for Covid19 outside of hospitalized patients and clinical trials
United States - FDA

Countries that have approved hydroxychloroquine for Covid19
India ICMR
 

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
If you are interested in medical information instead of poliical information about hydroxychloroquine and covid19:
...
I assume that was a typo and not a reference to the multitudinous lies of the political world, which seems almost indistinguishable from the "medical" in this pandemic.

I'd like to see a valid explanation for the evident Lancet fraud. How could it be that such a well-respected peer-reviewed publication allowed itself to be so easily manipulated in an obviously highly charged political atmosphere when good information on COVID-19 was so desperately needed but so sorely lacking, and especially regarding the use of this particular drug?
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Science : Who’s to blame? These three scientists are at the heart of the Surgisphere COVID-19 scandal
Guardian : Covid-19 studies based on flawed Surgisphere data force medical journals to review processes

None of the peer reviewers who examined a questionable study on the impact of blood pressure medications on Covid-19 saw the raw data behind the findings before it was approved for publication in world-renowned medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was based on a massive dataset supposedly gathered from hospitals worldwide by a US company called Surgisphere, but a Guardian investigation has since revealed the database to be seriously flawed. The revelation, combined with concerns highlighted by scientists worldwide about the data, prompted the journal to retract the study. The Lancet, another leading medical journal, also published a study based on the Surgisphere database.
...
The publication and retraction of the studies in renowned medical journals has reignited concerns in the research community about the rigour of peer review. Peer review is where scientists evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work to identify any issues before it is published in industry journals. This process is designed to prevent weak studies and their findings from being published by journals, which is important because what appears in leading medical journals often changes health and medical guidelines for patients.
...
The New England Journal of Medicine spokeswoman said following the Surgisphere paper retraction earlier in June, the journal completed an internal review of the editorial process. She said the Surgisphere study “received excellent peer reviews, and the reviewers raised relevant questions about the work”.

“We learned two things from this review that will result in changes to our process,” she said.

“We have limited experience with reviewing or publishing studies like this one, which used a large database based on electronic medical records. The reviewers and editors asked the authors questions about the data sources and data validity. The editors accepted the authors’ responses, rather than asking for help from reviewers with expertise in this type of data. In the future, our review process of big data research will include reviewers with such specific expertise.”

The journal is now in the process of assessing existing guidelines for the conduct and reporting of research on big data, and is also developing internal policies for reviewing and reporting these articles.

The Lancet did not provide as much detail when asked the same questions by the Guardian about how the Surgisphere hydroxychloroquine study passed peer review, and whether the incident would trigger a review of the process. It was the Lancet that under the same editor, Richard Horton, published a fraudulent study linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine with autism. In 2010, 12 years after the paper was first published, the Lancet retracted the paper. The author of the paper, Dr Andrew Wakefield, was also banned from practising medicine in the UK due to his fraudulent work.

The latest retraction from the journal has left researchers and the public questioning whether the peer review process and editorial policies are rigorous enough.

The peer review process did fail us this time. There is no such thing as a perfect process to prevent fraud from being published. But it does appear that in the rush to publish data for Covid19, people took shortcuts in the review process and were trusting of answers given when they shouldn't have been. There is still no evidence of any political motiviations, just fraud from Surgisphere for reputation and profit.

The peer review process requires an element of trust and that trust was violated and rightly many journals are reviewing their processes. The NEJM is blaming the use of big data which is a new field and not having the right systems in place to detect anomalies in the data. Everyone in the scientific and medical fields are upset with Surgisphere and the folks involved in these papers. The damage it has done to the field of medical research will be far reaching. There is now a shadow on so much legitimate research because of these 2 papers that were based on fraud.

Just like the only paper to ever show a link between vaccines and autism was a case of fraud from the researcher who subsequently had his license revoked. He falsified data, and had several conflicts of interest. Sometimes it can be very hard to detect fraud until other studies show that the data was wrong. In Wakefield's case, the damage was done as we see now with the antivax movement how many decades later and many children suffering and dying because of it.

The silver lining of the Surgisphere case is that it didn't take 12 years to discover the fraud and retract the papers like Wakefield's case.



As to whether hydroxychloroquine works in Covid19, if there was a significant effect, you would not expect every retrospective paper that studies it to be fraudulent and show no effect. There are limitations to retrospective studies, because of selection criteria that are removed when you have randomized control trials so we await those results still.

Saying that everyone in the world reasearching hydroxychloroquine and Covid19, all of whom would love to be a world famous researcher that finds a legitimate treatment option for covid19 are falsifying data just to spite Trump is so ridiculous I don't undestand why it needs to be explained.
 

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
Science : Who’s to blame? These three scientists are at the heart of the Surgisphere COVID-19 scandal
Guardian : Covid-19 studies based on flawed Surgisphere data force medical journals to review processes



The peer review process did fail us this time. There is no such thing as a perfect process to prevent fraud from being published. But it does appear that in the rush to publish data for Covid19, people took shortcuts in the review process and were trusting of answers given when they shouldn't have been. There is still no evidence of any political motiviations, just fraud from Surgisphere for reputation and profit.

The peer review process requires an element of trust and that trust was violated and rightly many journals are reviewing their processes. The NEJM is blaming the use of big data which is a new field and not having the right systems in place to detect anomalies in the data. Everyone in the scientific and medical fields are upset with Surgisphere and the folks involved in these papers. The damage it has done to the field of medical research will be far reaching. There is now a shadow on so much legitimate research because of these 2 papers that were based on fraud.

Just like the only paper to ever show a link between vaccines and autism was a case of fraud from the researcher who subsequently had his license revoked. He falsified data, and had several conflicts of interest. Sometimes it can be very hard to detect fraud until other studies show that the data was wrong. In Wakefield's case, the damage was done as we see now with the antivax movement how many decades later and many children suffering and dying because of it.

The silver lining of the Surgisphere case is that it didn't take 12 years to discover the fraud and retract the papers like Wakefield's case.



As to whether hydroxychloroquine works in Covid19, if there was a significant effect, you would not expect every retrospective paper that studies it to be fraudulent and show no effect. There are limitations to retrospective studies, because of selection criteria that are removed when you have randomized control trials so we await those results still.

Saying that everyone in the world reasearching hydroxychloroquine and Covid19, all of whom would love to be a world famous researcher that finds a legitimate treatment option for covid19 are falsifying data just to spite Trump is so ridiculous I don't undestand why it needs to be explained.
But there appears to have been no real peer review. Trusting without doing the simplest verifying is not bona fide. And no silver lining, as it took mere days to expose, meaning it was too easy to get right. This looks like gross journalistic medical malpractice, much worse than mere criminal negligence.

Claiming no signs of political motivation in the wake of this when the political and medical impacts were both so well-known and so obviously important—a pandemic where people are dying in large numbers—sounds like obfuscation.

You can be sure their shamefully lazy efforts and all attempts at trying to minimize them and their effects will now haunt the medical profession for a very long time indeed.
 

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
He is hated. That's true. Hatred for presidents has been growing. Just my opinion.

Bill Clinton - the more shenanigans he pulled and the more exalted by his wife - hatred for him grew an grew.

George Bush - He was called "retard" and more before he was even elected. The hatred level for him was way more than for Bill Clinton. It grew incessantly.

Barak Obama - If we will all be honest, a few hated him because he was black. He was not a good president in terms of looking out and seeking the best for this nation. He never seemed to love this nation. The hatred level for him sky-rocketed and made the hatred for George Bush look like a love fest.

Donald Trump - This is probably the most hated president the United States has seen. People who hate him are at stroke level and the hatred for Trump makes the hatred for Obama.....forgotten

Do you see a pattern here!?

I do.

It's not the presidents nor their flaws. It's the devil in the hearts of the people. Hatred in general is spewing out more and more every day.
My perception is a bit different. The media tends to lean quite left, and did so in the case of all these presidents. And they wield great influence.

Clinton was loved and exonerated by the Dem media, though he helped with his "family values" escape clause. They were always "dumbing down" on Bush, but couldn't quite deny his going after Sadam Hussein in the wake of 9/11 with Osama bin Laden on the loose. They practically worshipped Obama as messiah and king, especially at the beginning, but also despite his terrible presidency because it was wonderful to them, and they still love the guy.

When Trump came along, he was still a media darling until he gained so much traction that he became a threat. Then the claws came out, the fangs, the knives, daggers, and swords, and then the big guns. With murder in their hearts and on their minds, they pulled out all the stops. Hillary, who had committed untold crimes, was treated with kid gloves and could do no wrong. But these villains have falsely vilified Trump almost every way imaginable.

The point is that while people have been divided over these presidents close to 50-50, despite the professional rhetoric of the MSM, most of the MSM have not been. It always showed, but much more so with Trump. So, yes, I see a definite pattern.

Trump came on the heels of their demigod, a populist intent on reversing course and actually doing good for America, and has made no apologies for it. Of course the Dem MSM hate him, and all the more because their anti-America agenda has been exposed, along with their underhanded "fake news" tactics.

I take it personally, because they seem willing to destroy anyone for power, and to use that power to destroy the country. Not to mention that they stir up hatred among the populace, but that has a lot to do with the related influence from academia and entertainment. Pointing these things out are now falsely labeled hate.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Pick any reporter from CNN, MSMB, New York Times, Washington Post, etc., Pick the folks who published the fake study. Pick the folks who ran with the fake data, and continue to repeat it even though it has been discredited.

It really isn’t hard to see if you are not blinded by hatred for POT$S.

peace to you
This really seems to be a spiritual issue, as the Kingdom of darkness really come out now in open!
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
......people took shortcuts in the review process and were trusting of answers given when they shouldn't have been. There is still no evidence of any political motiviations, just fraud from Surgisphere for reputation and profit.....
No political motivation? Really? How does producing a fraudulent medical study enhance reputation or profit? Why risk good name and reputation and profit?

Only one answer makes sense. Their hatred for Tr:mp made them lose their minds. Collectively, that went stark raving mad and decided to risk everything just to oppose the Pr$s on this issue, just to tell their friends they made him look bad.

The study was politically motivated. The peer review was was politically motivated. The reporting was politically motivated. Your continued efforts to defend it are politically motivated.

Those who hold to radical liberal leftist ideology corrupt everything they touch, especially science. They have no respect for truth or objective evaluation, only pushing their agenda.

peace to you
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Pick any reporter from CNN, MSMB, New York Times, Washington Post, etc., Pick the folks who published the fake study. Pick the folks who ran with the fake data, and continue to repeat it even though it has been discredited.

The challenge, as laid out in the OP is to find someone that has said, "it is better that people die than Donald Trump be right."

So out of the millions of these people the OP claims exist, name three of these people.

It really isn’t hard to see if you are not blinded by hatred for POT$S.

I'm not blinded by hatred by Trump.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
No political motivation? Really? How does producing a fraudulent medical study enhance reputation or profit? Why risk good name and reputation and profit?

Surgisphere was the ones who committed the fraud. They did it so that they could gain reputation and profit as a source of data for more papers in the future as an easier way to collect data through the promise of “big data” systems that aggregate data from sources all over the world. If true, it would help papers publish data much faster and be a leading provider of data for research. With covid19 pushing the demand for research and data at lightning speed, Surgisphere would position itself as a leading corporate supplier of research data.

The problem was they couldn’t deliver on the actual data and instead of admitting that to their clients they made up data and sold them lies. Their data was used in some 20 papers in the process of peer review. None of the researchers or journals knew about the fraud until this story came out. Once it did, all those papers died in the review process.

The other researchers and the journals in the NEJM and Lancet papers should have done more due dilligence in questioning Surgisphere’s data and their sources prior to completing the peer review process. They did initiate a review of Surgisphere after the inconsistencies were noted in the public and apologized and retracted the paper immediately once it was shown to be fraud. If they knew of the fraud before, the paper would have never passed peer review. They trusted someone they shouldn’t have.

Yes there were political ramification to this, mostly because Trump has made hydrocychloroquine a political issue by backing it before good evidence was available. Researchers, especially those not in the US, do not care about Trump’s positions on medications. It is possible that Surgisphere had political motivations for their fraud. But that has not been shown at this time. Occam’s Razor would suggest it is simply trying to maintain reputation for profit, like the most recent Theranos case that caught many politicians and powerful people up in its web of lies.

A valid criticism is that the review process should have picked up the fraud earlier. And that is why journals are looking into their review process. The speed at which covid19 research is being done and the sheer number of papers being published is putting a lot of strain on the peer review process which is a volunteer process. It is not a perfect system but at the moment it is the best we have. If you were to approach every paper like a government inquiry, it would grind medical research around he world to a halt. If we had a better system, it would already be in place now.
 
Last edited:

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
Surgisphere was the ones who committed the fraud. They did it so that they could gain reputation and profit as a source of data for more papers in the future as an easier way to collect data through the promise of “big data” systems that aggregate data from sources all over the world. If true, it would help papers publish data much faster and be a leading provider of data for research. With covid19 pushing the demand for research and data at lightning speed, Surgisphere would position itself as a leading corporate supplier of research data.

The problem was they couldn’t deliver on the actual data and instead of admitting that to their clients they made up data and sold them lies. Their data was used in some 20 papers in the process of peer review. None of the researchers or journals knew about the fraud until this story came out. Once it did, all those papers died in the review process.

The other researchers and the journals in the NEJM and Lancet papers should have done more due dilligence in questioning Surgisphere’s data and their sources prior to completing the peer review process. They did initiate a review of Surgisphere after the inconsistencies were noted in the public and apologized and retracted the paper immediately once it was shown to be fraud. If they knew of the fraud before, the paper would have never passed peer review. They trusted someone they shouldn’t have.

Yes there were political ramification to this, mostly because Trump has made hydrocychloroquine a political issue by backing it before good evidence was available. Researchers, especially those not in the US, do not care about Trump’s positions on medications. It is possible that Surgisphere had political motivations for their fraud. But that has not been shown at this time. Occam’s Razor would suggest it is simply trying to maintain reputation for profit, like the most recent Theranos case that caught many politicians and powerful people up in its web of lies.

A valid criticism is that the review process should have picked up the fraud earlier. And that is why journals are looking into their review process. The speed at which covid19 research is being done and the sheer number of papers being published is putting a lot of strain on the peer review process which is a volunteer process. It is not a perfect system but at the moment it is the best we have. If you were to approach every paper like a government inquiry, it would grind medical research around he world to a halt. If we had a better system, it would already be in place now.
Many words to obscure truth. These folks could have faked the data to support its use. There is 60 years of worldwide use for this drug. Many studies, many evaluations. This isn’t the first time they looked at whether the drug had side effects.

The”mistakes” always go one direction..., every single time. There is a reason for that. It is pure hatred for conservatism in general and Tr:mp in particular.

peace to you
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Many words to obscure truth. These folks could have faked the data to support its use. There is 60 years of worldwide use for this drug. Many studies, many evaluations. This isn’t the first time they looked at whether the drug had side effects.

The”mistakes” always go one direction..., every single time. There is a reason for that. It is pure hatred for conservatism in general and Tr:mp in particular.

peace to you

You are welcome to your opinion. But there are much more reasonable explanations for the problems in this situation based on factual information other than politics. There is the possibility of political influences but no evidence of such at this time.
 

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
Surgisphere was the ones who committed the fraud. They did it so that they could gain reputation and profit as a source of data for more papers in the future as an easier way to collect data through the promise of “big data” systems that aggregate data from sources all over the world. If true, it would help papers publish data much faster and be a leading provider of data for research. With covid19 pushing the demand for research and data at lightning speed, Surgisphere would position itself as a leading corporate supplier of research data.

The problem was they couldn’t deliver on the actual data and instead of admitting that to their clients they made up data and sold them lies. Their data was used in some 20 papers in the process of peer review. None of the researchers or journals knew about the fraud until this story came out. Once it did, all those papers died in the review process.

The other researchers and the journals in the NEJM and Lancet papers should have done more due dilligence in questioning Surgisphere’s data and their sources prior to completing the peer review process. They did initiate a review of Surgisphere after the inconsistencies were noted in the public and apologized and retracted the paper immediately once it was shown to be fraud. If they knew of the fraud before, the paper would have never passed peer review. They trusted someone they shouldn’t have.

Yes there were political ramification to this, mostly because Trump has made hydrocychloroquine a political issue by backing it before good evidence was available. Researchers, especially those not in the US, do not care about Trump’s positions on medications. It is possible that Surgisphere had political motivations for their fraud. But that has not been shown at this time. Occam’s Razor would suggest it is simply trying to maintain reputation for profit, like the most recent Theranos case that caught many politicians and powerful people up in its web of lies.

A valid criticism is that the review process should have picked up the fraud earlier. And that is why journals are looking into their review process. The speed at which covid19 research is being done and the sheer number of papers being published is putting a lot of strain on the peer review process which is a volunteer process. It is not a perfect system but at the moment it is the best we have. If you were to approach every paper like a government inquiry, it would grind medical research around he world to a halt. If we had a better system, it would already be in place now.
That has to be one of the most bald-faced, politically biased "assessments" I've come across, so chock full of obfuscation one could swear it was written by a political enemy of professional medicine, or by someone with a severe case of TDS.

Hydroxychloroquine as a potent treatment used by eminent doctors with a reportedly high degree of success was already very well-known. To carelessly pass off papers by the same author as fully peer reviewed in two well-established medical journals knowing that desperately important medical research and productive treatment would immediately grind to a halt in the midst of a pandemic killing thousands is intentional malpractice with an aim to mass murder.

If you are claiming that the system is really that flawed in general, then your system is not bona fide at all but mere farce, sham, smoke and mirrors, quackery, anything but real science, so that no true doctor of medicine should have ever trusted it. Certainly no one should have given it any heed at the time. What you are saying means they never should have before nor ever should in the future. Either shame on you or shame on you all.

Occam's Razor says there must be a great deal of money or power or both involved at every level in this matter.
 

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
The challenge, as laid out in the OP is to find someone that has said, "it is better that people die than Donald Trump be right."

So out of the millions of these people the OP claims exist, name three of these people.



I'm not blinded by hatred by Trump.
You have misquoted the op. It does not say that anyone has “said” it is better for people to die than Tr:mp be right. Rather, by their irrational attack on this drug, including the fake study, they are demonstrating they would rather people die than Tr:mp be right.

What did Tr:mp do? He repeated the stories from doctors and patients the drug worked for them. He said it was worth looking at. He encouraged doctors have it as an option for patients that were dying.

His response was well reasoned, measured, and compassionate, especially when so many people were dying from a new virus with little info on treatments.

The response to the Pr:s by the radical left was insanity. They claimed people would die because of him. They produced a fake study to claim they had scientific proof. Liberal politicians banned doctors from prescribing the drug.

Clearly, by their actions, they demonstrated they would rather people die without trying the drug, than have people take the drug and live and Tr:mp be shown to be right about saying doctors should be allowed to use it if they thought it would help.

peace to you
 
Top