Skip to comments.
Panel of top physicians warns Congress about SARS
Star Tribune (Minneapolis) ^
| 05/22/2003
| Rob Hotakainen
Posted on 05/21/2003 6:22:35 PM PDT by EternalHope
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:39:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
To: per loin
The figures below, presented for your ...You are only serving to prove my point ... it is a vast array of the unwashed here that need these 'things' pointed out to them.
WAS I NOT one of those who POINTED here early on with with stats figures and cases that Legionares Disease, for instance, presents a more dire and will continye to pose itself as a more dire threat Americans than SARS?
YOUR memory is short.
YOU'VE grown to big for yourself.
41
posted on
05/22/2003 6:24:48 PM PDT
by
_Jim
(http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
To: EternalHope
The operative words you seem to be focused on are the disclaimers they inserted. 'Disclaimers'?
What disclaimers?
How about qualifying or qualifiers used to more properly set the background or context in which the facts must be viewed?
42
posted on
05/22/2003 6:27:56 PM PDT
by
_Jim
(http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
To: per loin
many of us here have wondered over whether or not there are substantial numbers of cases not serious enough to have been noticed. I MADE a similar, if not the same, observation/RAISED the same question WEEKS ago now (as a number of others did as well).
TRY not to claim this as a 'sole' achievement by yourselves or your compadres ...
(Observation: ALL you 'SARS people' are getting "too big for your britches" ...
43
posted on
05/22/2003 6:32:26 PM PDT
by
_Jim
(http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
To: EternalHope
You have focused on possibilities, and then asserted them to be proven facts. Specifically, the POSSIBILITY that SARS may have a lot of mild cases that simply go unnoticed is not at all warranted by the existing data. The weight of the evidence, thus far, is just the opposite.
PRETTY D*MN BOLD assertion yourself in light of recent 'published commentary' ... without *any* data on your behalf to support it I might add!
44
posted on
05/22/2003 6:35:29 PM PDT
by
_Jim
(http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
To: EternalHope
The quote ... was from Anthony Fauci, director of ...Are you accusing him of fear mongering?
THE correct charge would be
pandering - but since it involves injecting
fear into the argument for the purposes of getting
money out of the deal I would say, technically, it's
extortion.
45
posted on
05/22/2003 6:38:29 PM PDT
by
_Jim
(http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
To: _Jim
Gee _Jim there must be a million factors on Sars that people are wondering about. I've noticed in the past that you have mocked those who have wondered. Its been a few months now, do you think more focus is needed for SARS or do ya still think SARS will be no worse than the typical flu?
46
posted on
05/22/2003 6:45:48 PM PDT
by
TBall
To: Betty Jo
that terrorists were infecting us.DO you blame other forms of contagion on bad thoughts, oddly shaped skulls, spells cast by witchs and warlocks too?
47
posted on
05/22/2003 6:50:32 PM PDT
by
_Jim
(http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
To: TBall
do ya still think SARS will be no worse than the typical fluNo.
There are a lot more factors to consider that MOST people haven't when trembling in fear of this disease - YOU stand a better chance of contracting ANYTHING other than SARS today, tomorrow and the rest of your life for that matter ...
do you think more focus is needed for SARS
Like what - public bleeding using medical leeches in the streets?
Are you aware of what the CDC is currently doing?
Are you aware of other contingency plans drawn up by various arms of the US gov't?
48
posted on
05/22/2003 6:56:03 PM PDT
by
_Jim
(http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
To: _Jim
No, do you?
49
posted on
05/22/2003 7:00:09 PM PDT
by
Betty Jo
To: All
50
posted on
05/22/2003 7:00:28 PM PDT
by
Bob J
(Freerepublic.net...where it's always a happening....)
To: _Jim
"tomorrow and the rest of your life for that matter..." Wow you most know things I don't know.
51
posted on
05/22/2003 7:09:58 PM PDT
by
TBall
To: _Jim
"YOU stand a better chance of contracting ANYTHING other than SARS..." I guess that include arsenic poisoning?
52
posted on
05/22/2003 7:39:38 PM PDT
by
TBall
To: TBall
This whole SARS thing is getting to be a real bummer. From now on I will only focus on the positive. SARS is a rare disease, no one in the U.S. has died. Very few people worldwide have contracted it, of those that did, the majority survived. Nothing to see here, move along. la la la... I've got to go shopping.
53
posted on
05/22/2003 7:58:49 PM PDT
by
IYAAYAS
(Live free or die trying)
To: TBall
This whole SARS thing is getting to be a real bummer. From now on I will only focus on the positive. SARS is a rare disease, no one in the U.S. has died. Very few people worldwide have contracted it, of those that did, the majority survived. Nothing to see here, move along. la la la... I've got to go shopping.
54
posted on
05/22/2003 7:58:50 PM PDT
by
IYAAYAS
(Live free or die trying)
To: TBall
This whole SARS thing is getting to be a real bummer. From now on I will only focus on the positive. SARS is a rare disease, no one in the U.S. has died. Very few people worldwide have contracted it, of those that did, the majority survived. Nothing to see here, move along. la la la... I've got to go shopping.
55
posted on
05/22/2003 7:58:51 PM PDT
by
IYAAYAS
(Live free or die trying)
To: _Jim
Again you miss the salient facts. Although death rates for elderly folk hospitalized for the flu are comparable to those for SARS, only a tiny percentage of flu victims are hospitalized.
As for your comments on the great unwashed here, I see them as meaningful as a Chicom complaining about honesty.
But you have not answered my question. do you still assert that the epidemic in China peaked in February?
56
posted on
05/22/2003 8:39:19 PM PDT
by
per loin
To: _Jim
Are you drinking tonight, or just purposely being even denser than usual? The phrase "many of us here" contains no dismissal of what you may or may not have said.
But I notice that you fail to follow the reasons that "many of us here, who are more interested in digging out the facts, than in being merely a nuisance" (a phrase which does seem to exclude you) have come to doubts as to the existence of large numbers of lesser cases.
57
posted on
05/22/2003 8:50:12 PM PDT
by
per loin
To: _Jim
BUMP
58
posted on
05/22/2003 8:54:21 PM PDT
by
GrandMoM
("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson