Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

America's "security apparatus" will be turned ENTIRELY inward.  With a 100% focus on "enemies of the Regime."  I mean, y'all have read the history books, right?  Nothing is a surprise anymore.  Nothing.

Miller has made the Homeland Security Council run "like clockwork," and that it's "infinitely more effective than the NSC [National Security Council] with a tiny fraction" of the staff.

You know who else had things like trains, prisons and ovens running like clockwork?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 hours ago, TexasEd said:

It will not be a serious study when the people in charge have determined the outcome ahead of time.

Intersection of politics with medical research is not a new thing. We have NIH funded researchers that have been suppressing the results of their research cause they were afraid of the political implications for some time now. I am not particularly worried about pre-determined outcomes, but agree that a lot of people seem to have already arrived at a pre-determined position wrt what this study will show or how it will be conducted. IMO, the study will be subject to extreme scrutiny and the methods, data sources, and analyses will either stand on their merits or they will fail. What iwas stupid was to put out a rush job timeline that was obviously going to have to get walked back. If I was on the team, I would publish all the study documentation including protocol and statistical analysis plan as soon as it is available. Put out the methods and let peer reviewers critique it prior to execution of the analyses. Adopt any well reasonable course corrections, than run the analyses. We're talking minimum like 18-24 months to execute, but you would be much better positioned to weather any criticism.  

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Intersection of politics with medical research is not a new thing. We have NIH funded researchers that have been suppressing the results of their research cause they were afraid of the political implications for some time now. I am not particularly worried about pre-determined outcomes, but agree that a lot of people seem to have already arrived at a pre-determined position wrt what this study will show or how it will be conducted. IMO, the study will be subject to extreme scrutiny and the methods, data sources, and analyses will either stand on their merits or they will fail. What iwas stupid was to put out a rush job timeline that was obviously going to have to get walked back. If I was on the team, I would publish all the study documentation including protocol and statistical analysis plan as soon as it is available. Put out the methods and let peer reviewers critique it prior to execution of the analyses. Adopt any well reasonable course corrections, than run the analyses. We're talking minimum like 18-24 months to execute, but you would be much better positioned to weather any criticism.  

Totally a serious person taking stupid shit seriously. Again, he believes the guy that doesn't think viruses and bacteria cause illness and that vitamin A is a cure-all will make a serious, genuine effort at science. Hilarious. No, wait, moronic. That is the word. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Totally a serious person taking stupid shit seriously. Again, he believes the guy that doesn't think viruses and bacteria cause illness and that vitamin A is a cure-all will make a serious a genuine effort at science. Hilarious. No, wait, moronic. That was the word. 

Again, you are just begging the question and vocalizing your own pre-determined outcomes. RFK is not gonna be running the study. He ain'st gonna be writing the protocol or the SAS code. 

The study will stand on its merits and the level of transparency they practice. If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish.

 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Again, you are just begging the question and vocalizing your own pre-determined outcomes. RFK is not gonna be running the study. He ain'st gonna be writing the protocol or the SAS code. 

The study will stand on its merits and the level of transparency they practice. If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish.

 

I'm not begging the question. A little bit of ad hominem, sure. The direction this is going is obvious since they've been firing all the actual scientists. Only a total clown would look at the available information and say "wait, maybe they'll make an honest effort". 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

RFK is not gonna be running the study. He ain'st gonna be writing the protocol or the SAS code. 

His appointed lackeys will.  Dr. Road Kill will have final review before it's released.

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Only a total clown would look at the available information and say "wait, maybe they'll make an honest effort". 

I see you are familiar with Annie's work.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Haha 1
Posted

It's Friday afternoon, so you know what that means:  I figure at about 1:30am Trump is going to text some warfighting plans to Hegseth, who will be snockered at Moe's Tavern.  Hegseth will turn around and text them to his kid's little league team and get fired by 4pm.  

  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Only a total clown would look at the available information and say "wait, maybe they'll make an honest effort". 

Don't use quotes to reflect the things you hear that are made up in your own mind. 

Here is what was said:

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The study will stand on its merits and the level of transparency they practice.  If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish.

 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Don't use quotes to reflect the things you hear that are made up in your own mind. 

Here is what was said:

 

Clown. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

Same board that was convinced that rfk was cancelling flu strain selection for 2025 season and laughed when I told yall that they would push the study timelines. 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

The study will stand on its merits and the level of transparency they practice. If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish.

Yes.  Because if there's one thing we know about this admin, it's that they will employ and cite valid and accurate data.  And if there's another thing we know about this admin, when it states conclusions based on utterly made-up bullshit (or, in this case, more likely to be "not revealed bullshit," of the "trust us, that's what our study found, but no, we won't show you the data, because it's a secret" variety), the admin will be called on the carpet and shamed into admitting the truth.  Yep, that's how it goes.  

That's all per the admin that claims that DOGE has saved eleventy billion trillion google bazillion dollars, and that fentanyl seizures have saved 258 million American lives, and

Yep.  THIS time, it will be different.  Because the norms and rules now apply again.

"Trust me, the norms won't let the admin pull any shenanigans" is the most hollow assurance in light of an admin that has thus far been bound by....not a single fucking norm or evidentiary standard.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

I think most of us just find it hysterical how unwilling Ana is to call out this admin.   Spends more time complaint about posters than this clown show.  Sad!

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  Because if there's one thing we know about this admin, it's that they will employ and cite valid and accurate data.  And if there's another thing we know about this admin, when it states conclusions based on utterly made-up bullshit (or, in this case, more likely to be "not revealed bullshit," of the "trust us, that's what our study found, but no, we won't show you the data, because it's a secret" variety), the admin will be called on the carpet and shamed into admitting the truth.  Yep, that's how it goes.  

That's all per the admin that claims that DOGE has saved eleventy billion trillion google bazillion dollars, and that fentanyl seizures have saved 258 million American lives, and

Yep.  THIS time, it will be different.  Because the norms and rules now apply again.

"Trust me, the norms won't let the admin pull any shenanigans" is the most hollow assurance in light of an admin that has thus far been bound by....not a single fucking norm or evidentiary standard.

Again, the study will stand on its merits and the level of transparency they practice. If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish. This is all independent of your ledge and the political framing. I understand that you are struggling with this distinction. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

I think most of us just find it hysterical how unwilling Ana is to call out this admin.

The science will stand on it's own merits. I understand that that is difficult for people that have become very accustomed to adopted uncritically politicized medical evidence and research to grasp. 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The science will stand on it's own merits. I understand that that is difficult for people that have become very accustomed to adopted uncritically politicized medical evidence and research to grasp. 

I wasn’t specifically speaking of that, more so how mad you get about posters using twitter while completely giving the president and Elon, both of whom who absolutely have social media brain rot.    Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve never seen you claim trump/Elon are complete morons, based on their social media addiction, like you do to posters here. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Ted Lange said:

I wasn’t specifically speaking of that, more so how mad you get about posters using twitter while completely giving the president and Elon, both of whom who absolutely have social media brain rot.    Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve never seen you claim trump/Elon are complete morons, based on their social media addiction, like you do to posters here. 

Yeah, it's a more subtle form of whataboutism.  Instead of Hunter's laptop, or HIllary's emails, it's Carter Page FISA warrants, use of tweets as sourcing, and neocon foreign policy.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

I wasn’t specifically speaking of that, more so how mad you get about posters using twitter while completely giving the president and Elon, both of whom who absolutely have social media brain rot.    Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve never seen you claim trump/Elon are complete morons, based on their social media addiction, like you do to posters here. 

You don't pay attention. They are both NPD inflicted individuals. I've commented that multiple times going back years. It just doesn't trigger the posters here as much when I post that stuff, so they don't all flip out and it doesn't imprint for you. 

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, it's a more subtle form of whataboutism.

Social media broke a lot brains here, and continues to do so. Didn't think you'd get wrapped up in the deflection, but whatever. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Social media broke a lot brains here, and continues to do so. Didn't think you'd get wrapped up in the deflection, but whatever. 

Did it break Trump,and Elons brains?

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Did it break Trump,and Elons brains?

Their brains were pre-broken by NPD. Social media is an amplifying factor. 

Edited by Anastasis
*there/their
Posted
14 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

image.gif.1dab81937fbd842ccb07b62fb4e4532d.gif

I mean, it's not just Walz, look at who is on his list. VP, SoS, DNI, whatever Witkoff is.  Total opsec clown show.

Posted
17 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Intersection of politics with medical research is not a new thing. We have NIH funded researchers that have been suppressing the results of their research cause they were afraid of the political implications for some time now. I am not particularly worried about pre-determined outcomes, but agree that a lot of people seem to have already arrived at a pre-determined position wrt what this study will show or how it will be conducted. IMO, the study will be subject to extreme scrutiny and the methods, data sources, and analyses will either stand on their merits or they will fail. What iwas stupid was to put out a rush job timeline that was obviously going to have to get walked back. If I was on the team, I would publish all the study documentation including protocol and statistical analysis plan as soon as it is available. Put out the methods and let peer reviewers critique it prior to execution of the analyses. Adopt any well reasonable course corrections, than run the analyses. We're talking minimum like 18-24 months to execute, but you would be much better positioned to weather any criticism.  

image.gif.d96554b408c1c6fbc7775b572d74d682.gif

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
Again, the study will stand on its merits and the level of transparency they practice. If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish. This is all independent of your ledge and the political framing. I understand that you are struggling with this distinction. 

And what you fail to acknowledge - dishonestly so - is that that “distinction” doesn’t matter. At all. Not even a little bit.
Every single physician, scientist, and statistician in the world could issue a joint statement that “this study is complete garbage and is entirely made up”….and their statement would have exactly as much import and weight as a random post on Surly. Instead, the conclusion that “vaccines cause Autism and also germs and viruses aren’t real and gay people taking poppers causes AIDS” will become law and gospel truth.
That’s the whole point and the whole problem. It’s not that there’s no basis to criticize the completely made up insanity coming out of this admin, it’s that IT DOESN’T MATTER OR MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
The only way to address and stop the bullshit is to stop it before it starts. Because once issued, it becomes law on par with the law of gravity.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish.

Except this timeline proves that this is pretty definitively not true.  

Truth in this administration is irrelevant.  Expertise is ignored and even vilified.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
20 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

America's "security apparatus" will be turned ENTIRELY inward.  With a 100% focus on "enemies of the Regime."  I mean, y'all have read the history books, right?  Nothing is a surprise anymore.  Nothing.

Mr. Brisket? Excellent!

image.png.e3695e7fc6b274bcd8d2658b611d7c69.png

You will come with me, please. No, you won't be needing your wallet. Just come now.

  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Donald Trump No Puppet GIF by Election 2016

I won't argue about it, but the hate engine deprived us of an excellent president in Hillary Clinton. But...that's who we are.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Annie continues to be a hypocritical clown. He would spend hours writing posts critical of small infractions by the prior administration. He refuses to do that now, no matter how significant, obvious, or wide spread the infraction. Alleged military tribunals, illegal prosecutions and detainment? huge issues when it isn't Trump. Literally sending people to life in prison in a foreign county without any due process? Shoulder shrug. Failing to follow best scientific practices? Fauci is the devil. Ignoring all science and firing all subject matter experts now? Wait and see. What a clown. 

This. The things that he derided when they were at level 2 or 3…are suddenly “brain worms” topics now that they’re at level 8 or 9. Fascinating to watch, actually.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


This. The things that he derided when they were at level 2 or 3…are suddenly “brain worms” topics now that they’re at level 8 or 9. Fascinating to watch, actually.

It's almost like, now hear me out, he's getting pleasure out of successfully trolling you guys.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted

HHS released what is essentially the American Cass Report (it cites the Cass Report like over a hundred times) a couple of days ago, and the American Academy of Pediatrics immediately denounced it. The disingenuous bigots don't even have the courage to put their names on it (probably because they had AI write it).

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
21 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Again, you are just begging the question and vocalizing your own pre-determined outcomes. RFK is not gonna be running the study. He ain'st gonna be writing the protocol or the SAS code. 

The study will stand on its merits and the level of transparency they practice. If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish.

 

 

Quite obvious to whom? The millions who live to be lied to?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
On 5/2/2025 at 5:21 PM, Anastasis said:

 

The study will stand on its merits and the level of transparency they practice. If it is all performative and a biased study design, it will be quite obvious, there will be knowledgeable people lined up around the internet to critique every t and i, and the results should be treated as rubbish.

 

 

Kinda like how all the gop stood firm and told trump he was wrong about the 20 election being stolen? Not a single one of them acted like a megaphone. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, bluto said:

Kinda like how all the gop stood firm and told trump he was wrong about the 20 election being stolen? Not a single one of them acted like a megaphone. 

The scientific method will stand the test of time. I think it’s hilarious that some of you are all the sudden worried about the the politicization though. It’s all very cute. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Satchel said:

Quite obvious to whom? The millions who live to be lied to?

lol. Y’all all want to be lied to about something. Your priors give you away. 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
11 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

The Cass Report was not peer reviewed, and is a preview of the politically filtered science we can expect. It was brought to this site by the clown.

It was a systematic review of peer reviewed research. You are so far out of your element. 

  • Fuck You 2


×
×
  • Create New...