birdog1960 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I'm guessing that without your respective priesthoods, you'd each have to create one to validate your own incapacity for original thought. keep telling yourself that and eventually you'll believe it. just like right wing talk radio audiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 keep telling yourself that and eventually you'll believe it. just like right wing talk radio audiences. Now you're insulting an academic and intellectual? Or trying to? And failing...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 u chicago transplant surgeon on the newshour just said 3-5% of transplant patients are over 70....therefore, since there are about 2000-3000 transplants/year, he's one of 6-15 patients per year his age that got a transplant. draw your own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 u chicago transplant surgeon on the newshour just said 3-5% of transplant patients are over 70....therefore, since there are about 2000-3000 transplants/year, he's one of 6-15 patients per year his age that got a transplant. draw your own conclusions. I conclude that that's not even remotely a statistically relevant statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I conclude that that's not even remotely a statistically relevant statement. really? you don't think it's relevant that cheney was apparently considered one of the 10 best over 70 candidates in the us for a heart transplant? you don't think they had the means to give that heart to someone with better predicted outcomes regardless of age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 really? you don't think it's relevant that cheney was apparently considered one of the 10 best over 70 candidates in the us for a heart transplant? you don't think they had the means to give that heart to someone with better predicted outcomes regardless of age? Ten best? What, there's a quota? That's why it's not statistically relevant. "6 to 15 over-70 candidates" get transplants a year. Great...so is the correct number this year six, or 15? Or was it six, but now it's seven because Cheney got one? Or was it 15, but now it's 16 because Cheney got one, which means he shouldn't have? You're drawing a deterministic conclusion from a statistical statement. There's a technical term for that: bull ****. As any academic intellectual would tell you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Ten best? What, there's a quota? That's why it's not statistically relevant. "6 to 15 over-70 candidates" get transplants a year. Great...so is the correct number this year six, or 15? Or was it six, but now it's seven because Cheney got one? Or was it 15, but now it's 16 because Cheney got one, which means he shouldn't have? You're drawing a deterministic conclusion from a statistical statement. There's a technical term for that: bull ****. As any academic intellectual would tell you... are you listening to "pretzel logic"? only excellent candidates with expected good outcomes get transplants. historically those over 70 have comprised only 3-5% of this population. therefore, either.... i'm sure you can fill in the blanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 are you listening to "pretzel logic"? only excellent candidates with expected good outcomes get transplants. historically those over 70 have comprised only 3-5% of this population. therefore, either.... i'm sure you can fill in the blanks? Yeah, I can fill in that blank. It means someone judged him to be one of the 3-5%. "Pretzel logic" is taking that and converting it into some sort of ridiculous conspiracy theory that cheated someone else out of a heart. "3-5% of over-70 candidates" does not even remotely demonstrate that. You sure you're a doctor? I'd have thought doctors would have to have at least a basic understanding of statistics and their limitations to actually be a doctor. Really, for you to not understand that because a limited set of older people get heart transplants, it does not mean that Cheney wasn't in that set, you must be a REALLY stupid doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Yeah, I can fill in that blank. It means someone judged him to be one of the 3-5%. "Pretzel logic" is taking that and converting it into some sort of ridiculous conspiracy theory that cheated someone else out of a heart. "3-5% of over-70 candidates" does not even remotely demonstrate that. You sure you're a doctor? I'd have thought doctors would have to have at least a basic understanding of statistics and their limitations to actually be a doctor. Really, for you to not understand that because a limited set of older people get heart transplants, it does not mean that Cheney wasn't in that set, you must be a REALLY stupid doctor. and you seem more than reluctant to review the facts we do know: smoked from 17-37 (up to 3 packs per day). 1st heart attack age 37 at which time he may have quit smoking. morbidly obese at times during later life. history of other documented vascular disease (popliteal aneurysm). history of hyperlipidemia. history of gout. there are many forms of heart failure that aren't lifestyle linked. infectious myocarditis comes immediately to mind and is often not associated with comorbidities. someone with this diagnosis alone would have a better expected survival than someone with cheney's history. i said the data points to one of two conclusions: 1. that cheney truly was in the top 3-5% of candidates over age 70 or that he received preferential treatment (you only filled in 1 blank!). additionally, a 3rd possibilty is that in 2012, more than 3-5% of the transplant recipients will be over 70. that oossibil;ty will be easy to confirm or deny in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Oh great, the guy who wept for Sauron is on our side. sauron? What/ who is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 and you seem more than reluctant to review the facts we do know: smoked from 17-37 (up to 3 packs per day). 1st heart attack age 37 at which time he may have quit smoking. morbidly obese at times during later life. history of other documented vascular disease (popliteal aneurysm). history of hyperlipidemia. history of gout. there are many forms of heart failure that aren't lifestyle linked. infectious myocarditis comes immediately to mind and is often not associated with comorbidities. someone with this diagnosis alone would have a better expected survival than someone with cheney's history. i said the data points to one of two conclusions: 1. that cheney truly was in the top 3-5% of candidates over age 70 or that he received preferential treatment (you only filled in 1 blank!). additionally, a 3rd possibilty is that in 2012, more than 3-5% of the transplant recipients will be over 70. that oossibil;ty will be easy to confirm or deny in the near future. It sure is fun watching one of you liberals argue against giving **** away, especially when you're basically using conservative principles as your reasoning. The only reason your !@#$ing panties are in a wad is because it's Cheney. Hilariously hypocritical. It's too bad you can't apply the same rationale to all the other bull **** you assclowns are in favor of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 It sure is fun watching one of you liberals argue against giving **** away, especially when you're basically using conservative principles as your reasoning. The only reason your !@#$ing panties are in a wad is because it's Cheney. Hilariously hypocritical. It's too bad you can't apply the same rationale to all the other bull **** you assclowns are in favor of. conservatives don't have a monopoly on fairness. in fact, that doesn't often seem to be a consideration. the fair distribution of scarce resources seems a consistent, core tenet of liberalism. i don't care what the candidate for transplants name, ethnicity or accomplishments are even if it's cheney...he/she should be judged only on medical criteria. no hypocrisy there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 and you seem more than reluctant to review the facts we do know: smoked from 17-37 (up to 3 packs per day). 1st heart attack age 37 at which time he may have quit smoking. morbidly obese at times during later life. history of other documented vascular disease (popliteal aneurysm). history of hyperlipidemia. history of gout. there are many forms of heart failure that aren't lifestyle linked. infectious myocarditis comes immediately to mind and is often not associated with comorbidities. someone with this diagnosis alone would have a better expected survival than someone with cheney's history. i said the data points to one of two conclusions: 1. that cheney truly was in the top 3-5% of candidates over age 70 or that he received preferential treatment (you only filled in 1 blank!). additionally, a 3rd possibilty is that in 2012, more than 3-5% of the transplant recipients will be over 70. that oossibil;ty will be easy to confirm or deny in the near future. I "filled in" the only "blank" there is: the people who decide who gets a heart transplant decided on Cheney. Everything else you're claiming - he received preferential treatment, 2012 is a statistical outlier of a year (demonstrating again that you know **** about statistics, you moron), is, at best, merely a contributing factor to the fact that the people who decide who gets a heart transplant decided on Cheney. That's all you know. That's all you will know. You won't know why. So keep pretending Cheney paid people off. Hell, just go ahead and postulate that Cheney had someone killed for their heart - if you're going to be stupid, don't half-ass it. Do it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 conservatives don't have a monopoly on fairness. in fact, that doesn't often seem to be a consideration. the fair distribution of scarce resources seems a consistent, core tenet of liberalism. You are correct. Now, define "fair" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 conservatives don't have a monopoly on fairness. in fact, that doesn't often seem to be a consideration. Which would depend on your definition of fair. Go ahead and give the class a lesson on that. the fair distribution of scarce resources seems a consistent, core tenet of liberalism. Oh, how I love when you liberals throw out such generalizations. What "scarce resources" are you referring to? Be specific. i don't care what the candidate for transplants name, ethnicity or accomplishments are even if it's cheney...he/she should be judged only on medical criteria. no hypocrisy there. Sure. Which is why you've been able to balance your opinions on virtually every other subject on this board. Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I'm sure academics and intellectuals know the difference between "than" and "then". No they don't. I have a rep who has a masters in mathematics and has done research at Stanford who had me review an email where he used than instead of then. And even I caught it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 conservatives don't have a monopoly on fairness. in fact, that doesn't often seem to be a consideration. the fair distribution of scarce resources seems a consistent, core tenet of liberalism. i don't care what the candidate for transplants name, ethnicity or accomplishments are even if it's cheney...he/she should be judged only on medical criteria. no hypocrisy there. Speaking of hypocrisy I don't seem to remember you being this passionate about Steve Jobs potentially "buying" his transplant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 u chicago transplant surgeon on the newshour just said 3-5% of transplant patients are over 70....therefore, since there are about 2000-3000 transplants/year, he's one of 6-15 patients per year his age that got a transplant. draw your own conclusions. Did this surgeon give any reasons as to why the number was between 3-5%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Oh, how I love when you liberals throw out such generalizations. What "scarce resources" are you referring to? Be specific. This is an excellent question I hope gets answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Did this surgeon give any reasons as to why the number was between 3-5%? advanced age infers a worse prognosis, in general. life expectancy also is less. cost/benefits start favoring costs. but he was also saying that the outcomes are improving and they are becoming more open to doing older patients. hence, my comment that time will tell if the 3-5% is a static or dynamic range. Oh, how I love when you liberals throw out such generalizations. What "scarce resources" are you referring to? Be specific. in this instance: organs for transplant. if you want, we could generalize it to health care. broadening it any further would make for a pointless debate but i'd be happy to dicuss it on an issue by issue basis. didn't we just do minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts