ubiquitin

I don’t understand how anyone can oppose removing confederate statues. and spare me absurd arguments about “erasing history” We don’t need a statue to rememebr people, A statue glorifies people. nobody suggests Renaming a military installation fort John Wilkes Booth so he isnt forgotten, or building a statue of Mohamad Attah.
Kneeling in protest before a US flag is wrong, but taking up arms against the US and firing upon that flag deserves a statue?
please help

(I dont disagree with the opposing cancel culture and shutting down free speech that is taking hold of the left, and don’t get me started on the gleeful public excutions of people who do or tweet something, that may be offensive (and often isnt), but the statue example is one that I don’t get the support for.)

Health
“You need to do 2 things (Felonies), NOT Just the Murder by ASSAULT!”

you are making this up and it doesn’t make any sense

If a person intends to commit Arson and didnt know a person was inside the building R’L are you saying he cant be charged with second degree murder because it wasn’t a separate act You need to do 2 Felonies?
If a person intends to kidnap someone by stuffing him in the trunk of a car and the person (unintentionally) suffocates he cant be charged with second degree murder becasue it wasnt a separate act You need to do 2 Felonies?

sorry you lost me

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

A prophylaxis is “action taken to prevent disease, especially by specified means or against a specified disease” It has nothing to do with the presence or absence of an immune response. If a person has a disease, then by definition (see definition above) it is no longer a prophylaxis but a treatment.

Are you arguing? are you making a new definition of “prophylaxis” that you are trying to sell?
do you have a question?

“Post-exposure it MAY or MAY NOT be prophylaxis”

Yes obviously.
Of course not every medication taken before or after exposure is always prophylaxis We are in full agreement there.

Health
“….a sarcastic challenge or insult”
I was trying to tell you that I think he meant the #2 definition, not the first.
I don’t think he was mocking or insulting him.”

Got it. So he meant it as an insult but he wasn’t insulting him

“Are YOU Sure You Understand ENGLISH?!?”

Gotcha. So you are, of course, wrong.

to quote te law yet again: ” Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony”
Assault is a felony. IF you attend to commit asssault (a felony) and you intentionally kill the vicitm , yo uare guitly of murder in the second degree .

I am so glad to have cleared that up.
No charge!

Now you know!

“IDK , he’ll have to explain that in court.”

Great!
You must be glad he was charged then

“He doesn’t have to believe ”

so why was he repeating “get in the car” Just to taunt him?
And what was he hoping would happen? what was his intended end game

“I asked you what the charge was. ”

Oh I thought you followed the case. There are multiple charges :
third-degree murder
second-degree manslaughter,

And at any rate As for 2nd degree murder here is one of the definitions that I had supplied, then you repeated (its in your post June 8 8:56 PM)
““…. 3. Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony…….””
The fact that it was “an accident” is not an excuse

Schnitzel

Theres a WAPO piece “There’s overwhelming evidence that the criminal-justice system is racist. Here’s the proof.”
Updated 4/19′ whcih is essentially a lsit of studies on racism specifically in the criminal justice system

IT paints a very ugly pictrue

I can’t say I’m prepared to defend them all, even if you can quibble with one here or there still a good strarting point

“I prefer to argue and discuss stuff on the merits and context of their post and dismiss the argument of authority.”

+1
I happen to have a medical degree, but I don’t think I ever (intentionally) used it as a way to validate my opinion . I dont think I even let on to that fact until recently, though it may have been apparent from some of the debates IVe gotten more animated about.

Just like I’m entitled to an opinion on any myriad of issues unrelated to medicine, (s a quick perusal of topics I have commented on would indicate) anyone can comment on medical issues.

OF course it goes without saying nobody should take medical, legal or halachic advice based solely on some anonymous poster’s claim to be a doctor/lawyer/Rabbi

Ready
as you know I would love to continue any and all conversation and continue to answer nay questions that still linger .
But I have absolutly no clue what you are trying to say in your last post.

I do have a question for you. Any idea when Dr. Zelenko is releasing his study? He said “2 weeks” about 2 months ago

“Do you work for the Lying Muslim AG?”
no

“If NOT, Why post Lies?!?”

no lies
“The PD had to remove him from patrol car because he couldn’t behave in it.”
a. I’m not sure how you know that
b. Even if that is the case, how does that allow for assault after he is unconscious?

“FYI, when you resist, the Police are legally allowed to restrain, including the Neck Restraint.”

Yep. Key word …”WHEN YOU RESIST” not after

“They took it out of the Police Protocols after the death of Floyd.’

The internet has a long memory. If police protocols allowed for assaulting unconcious suspects it would have come up by now. you are making this up.

“You can only release restraint when s/o can take over the custody of the Perp.”

source please

“Here is the law in Minn. for 2nd Degree murder:….”

thanks I already cited the releent part to you.
“…. 3. Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal….. conduct ….or a drive-by shooting….”

So you see how Libs Lie to fit their AGENDA!”

No sorry I do not. I do see how I correctly cited the law implicating the perp Chaauvin

Thank you Health, for resupplying the relevent code confirming without question Chauvin’s guilt:
guilty as charged.

No one is saying that minorities have some disadvantages.”

great I love when we agree

“My parents that immigrated to the USA had zero, they were subject to a lot of discrimination.”
sure and obviously I don’t know the specific circumstances your parents faced but buying houses and college admission was probbly not one of them

“a) this still exists.”

I am not saying this still exists (in all facets) I am saying the sequela of those discrimination is still felt today

“Explain that on the banks”
Again, its not one issue

Schnitzel
” I agree that there are vicious cycles of poverty in the black community that originated from oppression”

so there you go.
That is the answer to your question.
Yes the vicious cycle of poverty is bad regardless. but when the vicious cycle of poverty is bad as a result of systemic oppression (that existed years ago) that is worse

Schnitzel bigot

Even if this one specific example weren’t true that is but one piece.
Secondly “chances are” doesn’t help much to people in that position. and aerguing that Jamal is a “low socioeconomic” name but not a “black name” doesnt really hold water

“Washongton is like 100% black”
no not 100% Though by far most.

2systemic
“That is very not recent.
Today, is there is any evidence of systemic racism against the black community?”

It is very recent and it is still felt today.
I have a leg up thanks to a home my parents purchased in the 80’s A black person my age does not have that advantage. I will IYH be able to leave more to my children thanks to that home.
It is an advantage that I have today, it doesnt get more recent than that

Ruby Bridges is the first black child to attend a desegregated kindergarten in Louisiana.

she is only 65.

That is young, these policies are very recent. and repercusions are still being felt

I cannot do two much justice to the subject so this won’t turn into one of thsoe endless ubiquitin repeat loops (I hope)
schnitzel if you answers to your questions with link s to specific studies wikipedia has a piece on “Institutional racism” with many links to said studies
no not to one study that shows systemic racism exists. But to many small pieces that put together created this edifice.

Health

““cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.”
This is the TITLE of the Report.”

Yep it is A title serves as sort of a summary of the report. A report titled “The many lies of health” will list many lies health has told

The report does not list drugs as a specific cause of death. In fact it doesnt list a “cause of death at all. Outside of the title .

The report lists ALL the medical findings
I -blunt force injuries
II Natural diseases
III No Life threatening diseases identified
IV viral testing …
V Hemoglobin S….
VI toxicology

Are you suggesting they mean one of the causes of death was covid-19? Having sickle cell trait ? the mucosal injury on lip? All these are listed in the exact same manner as the toxicology
not all the findings listed in the report are causes of death.

AND
even if they were
Chauvin is STILL guilty as you helpfullly point out “Then it goes on to say there was Multiple reasons for his DEATH. It lists Drugs (some Illegal), restraint”

So restraint did contribute to his death. If I shoot someone and he dies because he has a serious heart condition that plays a role. It would be an absurd to try to defend that well a younger healthier person may have survived that gunshot wound so ubiq is innocent.
bottom line if if those other factors did play a role (and they may have) if not for the unwarranted and illegal restraint Floyd would be alive

“Did you read it? ”

Yes.
That is a verbatim quote

and you are a bit suspect, you claimed you watched the video when you clearly hadn’t , and here ou are denying what is written in black and white (literally) for all to see.

“You have to understand who the AG of Minn. is!
He’s a Friend of Farrakan & a Muslim, who doesn’t like Jews.”
I don’t follow so therefore we should lie about what the autopsy report says?

“I repeat: asking posters to join you in ignoring someone is a bullying tactic. It’s wrong.”

Completely agree.

Comments are there for all to see you say “Health has been backed into a corner that defies logic, (self-contradiction) ” Let people determine that

DMB you say “When someone is simply repeating the same dumb idea over and over without even bothering to listen to logic, then it is time to end the debate”

so end the debate, you do not have to add any more comments if you don’t want to .

If you are afraid of “ceding the last word” you can end off with something to the effect of pointing out that another poster is simply unaware or misrepresenting the facts (which is clearly true) and that further discussion is futile
If other posters agree they don’t have to continue the discussion if they don’t they can
. but rallying the troops to ignore someone is wrong

“but you have made two very cofounding statements nevertheless.”

No I have not

I repeated the same thing in various iterations over and over.
The question was “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country ”

I replied that there is no reason for doctors to prescribe a medication just because one guy claimed anecdotal success.

I also said If a doctor thinks his patient will benefit from a medication he absolutely should prescribe it.

I have repeated various iterations of the above now fewer than 29 times in this thread alone (see separate post)

“Also, you made out they were randomized in all respects, they were not”
I don’t think yoou know what randomized means. they were NOT a random sample, they were randomized to treatment or placebo .

“So biased candidates for study., may give a biased result.”
Of course! Though not really “bias” what you mean is is this group generalization to the general population? perhaps not.

“Re: self distancing-because, the population was told to self-distance to save their lives, but the study group did not.”
Unlcear how that would change the effect of HCQ. They weren’t being compared to “the general population” comapring to similar patients who did not self distance and id not get HCQ

Ready now:
Here is a compilation of the many many times I have said the 2 not contradicting statements
A. If a doctor thinks a certain treatment will help. He should prescribe that treatment.
B. Just because one doctor claims success doesn’t mean all doctors must follow

(mods, to make your job easier these all or verabtim pulled from previosuly approved comments, spelling mistakes left alone just date added, (lots of free time at hospital bh))

April 6 “That said for a sick pateitn the benefit (possible survivial) outweighs the risk so might as well give it. For healthy patients, the vast majority, the benefit doesnt outweigh the risk. For more moderate patients is questionable, I’d err on the side of giving.”

April 6 As I said in my first post “That said for a sick patient the benefit (possible survivial) outweighs the risk so might as well give it.”

April 6 “Does HCQ help Pts with Covid19? Maybe some anecdotal reports say yes other say no. Lets study it. Whats the harm in giving it? So for some youre right there is no harm as IVe said several times ) “

April 7 “Again, I’m not saying not to give it in all cases. but his “data” proves exactly nothing.”

April 11 “At No point did I claim to know, let alone to “know for sure”, that Hydroxychloroquine wasnt helping.
In fact In my first post on this thread I explicitly said the opposite “For more moderate patients is questionable, I’d err on the side of giving.””

April 13 “Again and toeb crystal clear: He may be right (as Ive said in the first comment and about every other comment since then). but his data does not show that “

April 13 “Again to be clear: I am not saying he is wrong. I am not faulting him for not doing a proper RCT. I am solely answering the question, why just because he says he has success others aren’t convinced.”

April 13 “Dr Zelenko would agree. It is not proven, his argument is what the harm, and I;m not sure I disagree.”

April 13 “I’m not criticizing the doctor, I am not saying it shouldn’t be prescribed (both of which I’d understand why people would get riled up)
All I am saying is why although one person may have had success, it isnt so cut and dry”

April 14 “and thats fine. I’m not trying to dissuade you from following his advice. that is not the topic of this thread.”

April 17 “At any rate this is way of topic.
If you like the study (that was halted early) go ahead and give low dose HCQ.

I’m not interested in a discussion as to whether HCQ is efficaicous or not (since there isnt enough data)
The topic of this thread. Is solely why not everyone is following Dr. Zelenko’s reported success.”

April 19 “I’m still not clear on what your point is.
for the10th ? 20th? time I never said not to take, it nor that it doesnt help with or without zinc. That isnt the subject of this thread”

April 19 “And again, as Ive said from the onset Im not “against it” let alone “so against it” I’m just poitning out to the lack of data.”

April 21 “does this mean the benefit outweigh the risk? – Maybe “

April 23 “Neither his experience nor mine puts the issue to rest.
We need studies.”

April 24 “There is not enough data. period Dr Zelenko would probably agree. (though hed add what do we lose, which is a fair point as IVe said from the onset)”

April 30 “Again to remind you we are not discussing whterh HCQ works. We are not discussing whether it is reasonable to give it anyway and hope for the best. So if you are now saying “Ok it might not work, but what is thee to lose. ” Well I said that in my first post in this long repetitive thread”

May 8 “Again, just to be clear since although Imentioned this over a dozen times on variosu threads, it is a while since I have. I am not opposed to giving HCQ nor zinc nor both.”

May 12 “I am saying one thing and one thing only: Dr. Zelenko’s patients report does not prove that HCQ helps. That is all.”

May 14 ““So, okay to treat coronavirus, short-duration medication,” Was this in dispute?”

May 15 “From my very first post I made clear I am not opposed to giving HCQ here is the quote “For more moderate patients is questionable, I’d err on the side of giving.”
I then repeated this point approximatly a dozen times to make sure it wasnt getting lost.”

May 19 “And again, becasue you keep forgetting this point. This thread is not about whether HCQ works (yes with zinc ) nor whether it is ok for doctors who think it works to prescribe it (with zinc). Of course all doctors should prescribe medications they think work (with zinc) and as I said I prescribed it (with zinc)”

May 20 “Again, just because a medication has risks is not a reason not to use it “

May 24 ““if the life would hang in the balance with the threat of coronavirus. The risks have to be weighed”no question. I literally said this in my very first post way back on April 6. Go check its still there”

May 25 “Again, as a reminder what this thread is about (it has been running for 250 posts for almost 2 months so easy to lose track) The OP asked “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country”
I am not arguing to use it I am not arguing not to use it (I said this explicitly over a dozen times )”

May 27 “Reminder this thread isnt about whether HCQ helps (with zinc) Its whther everyone should prescribe it becasue Dr. Z said so.”

May 27 “Again to reiterate I am not disputing the study, and I am nto saying HCQ doesnt work.”

May 27 “I was never opposed to it, IVe given it before if patient wants it I’d prescribe it”

June 3 “note even if you think following one doctor’s anecdotal report is reasonable ( and I don’t disagree as I made clear over 2 months ago and dozens of times since) “

Health

“I wasn’t there!”

lol! to quote you “It’s obvious that you didn’t watch the video”

“I told you before a lot of PD’s in the US, aren’t even trained in Basic First Aid.”
Yes you said , that seems silly. But if thats the way it is so be it. why are you telling me again?

“““Resisting” can be as simple as going limp,” So maybe he thought he was Still Resisting?!?”

On what planet is “maybe” and “he thought” justificantions for death!

“because the opposite Lawyer would Cut you Down SO BAD!”

I hope you ARE the lawye in a court caser :

Health why did your client shoot those people?
Health: ” Maybe he thought the gun had blanks and the people where ghosts wearing bulletproof armor”

bottom line:
Was he resisting yes or no,’?
don’t say you werent there, go watch the video.
If you dont want to watch the video thats fine too, just say you arent interested in the truth.
.

Do most white kids grow up wishing they could be the next Madeline Albright, Antonin Scalia , or Milton Friedman ?

bk

yes for sure schnitzel is correct too, otherwise it would be far to great a risk .

bk
“As sick as what Chauvin did was, does anyone actually believe that’s what his intention were? ”

Here is why I think they had to bump up his charges:

The 3rd degree murder charge is a slam dunk, as several psoters pointed out any sane or competent person (and most insane and incompetent people too) recognize that holding a knee against the neck of a person who is not resisting is not ok (even if he had been resisting earlier)

That part is easy and straight forward.

Intent is harder to prove. clearly Chauvin had malicious intent (how else do you explain his telling Floyd “get up” and not letting floyd do so when he said “I will” “I cant move” ) but he can easily claim “I never intended to kill, I just wanted to rough him up, toy with him, a bit to teach him a lesson”

The harder part is the other officers. Thou looks like he served as the lookout making sure no bystanders came to save the victim (Someone argued he was outranked there was nothing he could do, that charge didnt fly in Nuremberg 1946, I doubt it would fly today “Just following orders” isnt a defense) .

Thus he seems to be aiding and abetting. But aiding and abbeting what? Negligent homicide ? that doesnt really make sense.

so they bumped up Chauvin;s charge to the harder to prove (but still plausible) charge

I think I have the answer to the OP

“How is it possible that many yidden have almost no sympathetic feelings to George Floyd?”

doesn’t seem to know what occurred. He describes floyd resisting even on the ground.
Millhouse didn’t see the autopsy report. He mistakenly thinks it says Floyd died of “a heart attack”

So there you go. nobody who has the facts doesn’t acknowledge Chauvin’s guilt (at least to some extent , see Joseph)

Millhouse

“The autopsy.”

Sorry, neither the preliminary nor final version of the medical examiner’s autopsy nor the private autopsy ssaid he dies of a heart attack.

Do you have your own autopsy? where can it be accessed?

The medical examiner report said “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.” There was never any mention of a heart attack

“He died of a heart attack,”

Source please

Health

“No, because that’s the Truth!”

what makes you say that? you stick in “The Final Report was probably Done…” Why do you say that?

“”No; their just LYING! ”
why do you say that? do you have some inside information
you are making lots of assertions do you have anythign to back it up

Of course the claims you try to back up you get wrong too…
“He followed the Protocol.”

The protocol is to continue to hold unconscious individuals in a choking restraint? and not to check for a pulse?
citation please. I don’t believe you

“5-311…”
thank you I supplied that to you already

Was he going for a conscious neck restraint? If so it is to be used on a subject ” who is actively resisting”
So not Floyd at that point.

If you say it was an unconcious neck restraint that is to be used “On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or; For life saving purposes, or; On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective”

Obviosuly not in floyd’s case

Baruch Hashem there is still a sense of justice in this country and the officers who aided the murder have been charged as well. Tou looks pretty guilty too, (probably not coincidentally both of these mmany complaints filed against them for excessive force in the past you like bringing up Floy’ds past curiously you don’t bring up theirs) ) had prior the others its hard to see wha t they saw from their vantage point.

All deserve their day in court though Chauvin’s guilt is clear and as you point out NOT in

Catch yourself and Besalel

Very very well said