I have no problem shaming these people. They are depriving my kids of Important time with friends, time in sports camps, and much more. And they are putting my parents lives at risk. They are simple precautions to take. But yeah, go make your machismo point about your constitutional right to get a haircut without a mask. You are just making yourself look ridiculous, selfish and unpatriotic.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
I have no problem shaming these people. They are depriving my kids of Important time with friends, time in sports camps, and much more. And they are putting my parents lives at risk. They are simple precautions to take. But yeah, go make your machismo point about your constitutional right to get a haircut without a mask. You are just making yourself look ridiculous, selfish and unpatriotic.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
My conclusion: You are interpreting it the way you want to interpret it despite what it actually says. "We concluded the potential benefit of the treatment outweighed the relative risk." You're suggesting they came to this conclusion and then decided to do the opposite of what the conclusion dictates?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Such a vague reply certainly leaves you a lot of wiggle room. Can you actually give examples of what was selective and what was deceptive?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
He didn't say it as eloquently as he could have (which sometimes happens in dialogue), but at no point did he sound like he was losing his mind. If you think this sounds like recent Biden statements then you clearly haven't been listening to Biden.
Extrapolating the results of survey to the entire state: selective.
Using the ratio of confirmed mortality to this extrapolation: deceptive.
That's full 46 seconds into the video. I listened to the whole thing once, I don't feel the need to repeat it.
I'm saying the letter is written in a misleading way. What would Trump be "treated" for? He doesn't have COVID-19.
I believe they have had many conversations and this doctor and the President have agreed that hydroxycholoroquine is worth trying. That is what the letter says.
This letter does not say that Trump was prescribed or that he is taking it. It was released to prove either or both of those two things but says neither.
Look man, I'm an attorney. I read insurance documents all day, including treatment recommendations. I know a sneaky wording trick when I see one. I think this is designed to be just plausible enough to make the already converted who won't just acknowledge that Trump is a serial liar feel like they have cover to believe an obvious lie.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
What’s your point? So we shouldn’t wear them then?
Exposure and prophylaxis. There’s a term “to treat prophylactically.” I'm assuming you would know that, reading insurance documents and treatment recommendations all day.
Who do you think may be more apt to provide a more accurate interpretation of what that physician’s letter said: a physician, or a lawyer who doesn’t know that prophylaxis is treatment?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Could not roll my eyes harder, are you claiming to be a physician now that writes letters this way?
Do you really think you'd be able to justify a charge code with that letter?