What's new

Coronavirus

So you're reading a thing it doesn't say. Got it.
I’m providing you an accurate picture of what it indeed says. You read “we discussed that the benefits outweigh the risks for using _____” and that’s synonymous with your decision, else you’re explaining why you feel the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks, yet you’re declining intervention (without clarifying why). So if you’re wanting to believe this doesn’t say that, you’re welcome, but you can substitute out “hydroxychloroquine” for any other intervention and ask any other physician if that’s ambiguous language and they will tell you that they’re providing a rationale for their decision. This is routine.

It's really easy to be vague about what's transpired in documentation. The question as to whether or not he prescribed (or concurred) with him taking hydrochloroquine is not vague in that. If he was wanting it to be vague, it wouldn't be written that way, because any physician would know that he's coming out rationalizing the decision.

Here's my final thought: whether Trump was prescribed it or whether he is saying he was prescribed is no sweat off my back. I don't have any skin in the game on that. You've staked an opinion on it, so I'd assume that, to some level, you do. I'm offering you my professional experience on what that says, of which the outcome doesn't affect me. I've already given my not-so-enthusiastic opinion on prophylactic hydroxychloroquine. But if you're comfortable with your own interpretation, that seems to be more predicated on a lay interpretation of this physician's statement read through the lens of your view of Trump's motives, then you are certainly welcome to that.
 
I’m providing you an accurate picture of what it indeed says. You read “we discussed that the benefits outweigh the risks for using _____” and that’s synonymous with your decision, else you’re explaining why you feel the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks, yet you’re declining intervention (without clarifying why). So if you’re wanting to believe this doesn’t say that, you’re welcome, but you can substitute out “hydroxychloroquine” for any other intervention and ask any other physician if that’s ambiguous language and they will tell you that they’re providing a rationale for their decision. This is routine.

It's really easy to be vague about what's transpired in documentation. The question as to whether or not he prescribed (or concurred) with him taking hydrochloroquine is not vague in that. If he was wanting it to be vague, it wouldn't be written that way, because any physician would know that he's coming out rationalizing the decision.

Here's my final thought: whether Trump was prescribed it or whether he is saying he was prescribed is no sweat off my back. I don't have any skin in the game on that. You've staked an opinion on it, so I'd assume that, to some level, you do. I'm offering you my professional experience on what that says, of which the outcome doesn't affect me. I've already given my not-so-enthusiastic opinion on prophylactic hydroxychloroquine. But if you're comfortable with your own interpretation, that seems to be more predicated on a lay interpretation of this physician's statement read through the lens of your view of Trump's motives, then you are certainly welcome to that.
Kicky, that thing in your hands is your ***. Infection just handed it to you.
 


For those of you that don't understand this. This is talking about the Democrat Governor Cuomo in New York who put covid infected people into nursing homes. He then went on CNN to discuss Corona virus with his brother. His brother, who says he is a journalist, never once questioned his brother on this policy. Many people have died needlessly but Cuomo is not questioned because he's a Democrat.
 
I’m providing you an accurate picture of what it indeed says. You read “we discussed that the benefits outweigh the risks for using _____” and that’s synonymous with your decision, else you’re explaining why you feel the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks, yet you’re declining intervention (without clarifying why). So if you’re wanting to believe this doesn’t say that, you’re welcome, but you can substitute out “hydroxychloroquine” for any other intervention and ask any other physician if that’s ambiguous language and they will tell you that they’re providing a rationale for their decision. This is routine.

That sounds very much like the notes I read from time to time.

My only question is if you feel the note almost certainly referred specifically to treating the President, or might have been referring to the member of the President's staff that tested positive. I found it unclear on that point, but I have never written these notes.
 
That sounds very much like the notes I read from time to time.

My only question is if you feel the note almost certainly referred specifically to treating the President, or might have been referring to the member of the President's staff that tested positive. I found it unclear on that point, but I have never written these notes.
I haven’t been following this much, but my assumption is that this memo was put out in response to media coverage after Trump said he was taking it. With regard to what he’s saying, he specified the present with reference to health, negative testing to date, etc. If he’s referencing someone else, then detailing that he’s conferring with the president regarding that person’s treatment would be suicide. If it was for someone else, he’s disclosing medical information (whereas Trump personally disclosed his and obviously authorized this release). But, above that, I’m not certain why he would treat someone else with this, then write something vague to make it look like he treated Trump with this.
 
I haven’t been following this much, but my assumption is that this memo was put out in response to media coverage after Trump said he was taking it. With regard to what he’s saying, he specified the present with reference to health, negative testing to date, etc. If he’s referencing someone else, then detailing that he’s conferring with the president regarding that person’s treatment would be suicide. If it was for someone else, he’s disclosing medical information (whereas Trump personally disclosed his and obviously authorized this release). But, above that, I’m not certain why he would treat someone else with this, then write something vague to make it look like he treated Trump with this.

Thank you.
 
Back
Top