Ulysses S. Grant would like a WORD
Hogan Gidley: Trump is "the most masculine person to ever hold the White House as the president of the United States" https://t.co/fcoYWyaEhz
— Eliza Relman (@eliza_relman) January 11, 2021
But he didn't go down. He stood there and, while bleeding out, steadily took aim and killed the dude who shot him.
Stone cold.
Grover Cleveland hired a substitute to take his place in the Civil War.
And then he was the guy Polk chose to start a war with Mexico. He did so. And then he conquered Mexico.
One time he was on a hill in Cuba, and he got to watch it get taken by the innovative use of gatling guns supporting regiment of black cavalrymen!
The dude was DETERMINED TO POAST.
He is the third HEAVIEST president, of course, after Grover Cleveland (remember him from above?) and Taft, of stuck-in-the-tub fame.
More from Lyman Stone 石來民
So a few days back I was tweeting about SSRIs. The big question with these drugs is: why do controlled trials routinely show such small effects when practitioners and patients report life-changingly-large effects?
So first off, at this point the evidence is pretty clear that SSRIs and other anti-anxiety/anti-depression drugs truly don't do very much. Their average effects are beneath clinical significance, as I tweeted about here:
Basically, the problem these drugs face is that while they actually see relatively LARGE effects.... but that placebos in those trials ALSO see large effects (and most untreated depression improves within a year anyways).
So basically you have this problem where:
1. The condition tends to improve on its own in a majority of cases
2. Placebo effects for the condition are unusually large
Which means the large crude effects of SSRIs get swamped.
So that raises two new questions.
1. (Not my focus here) Are we treating these conditions appropriately given their untreated prognosis is usually (though certainly not always!!) "goes away in a few months"?
2. Why are placebo effects so unusually large?
So first off, at this point the evidence is pretty clear that SSRIs and other anti-anxiety/anti-depression drugs truly don't do very much. Their average effects are beneath clinical significance, as I tweeted about here:
What's the best recent empirical assessment of SSRI/SNRI effectiveness which deals with heterogeneity and long-term effects in a plausible way?
— Lyman Stone \u77f3\u4f86\u6c11 (@lymanstoneky) December 4, 2020
Basically, the problem these drugs face is that while they actually see relatively LARGE effects.... but that placebos in those trials ALSO see large effects (and most untreated depression improves within a year anyways).
So basically you have this problem where:
1. The condition tends to improve on its own in a majority of cases
2. Placebo effects for the condition are unusually large
Which means the large crude effects of SSRIs get swamped.
So that raises two new questions.
1. (Not my focus here) Are we treating these conditions appropriately given their untreated prognosis is usually (though certainly not always!!) "goes away in a few months"?
2. Why are placebo effects so unusually large?
More from Trump
Having a Twitter account is not a right.
If you incite violence on Twitter, the company can - and should - stop you. Good call.
Plans for “future armed protests” are spreading on Twitter and elsewhere, the company warned, “including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021”.
Yes, people who boosted their careers off of Trump - his sycophants, his kids & people like Haley, who helped him attack and undermine human rights around the world - are boo-hooing right now.
Always beware of powerful people pretending to be victims.
https://t.co/0A5D5eJFvL
But no one should react with glee. The president of the United States has been inciting violence, and Republican Party leaders, along with a willing, violent mob, have been aiding his attempts to overthrow the democratic process.
That's the real story here.
The dangers are real, and we've all seen them. That Twitter even had to contemplate banning any politician for inciting violence is awful. That they had to ban the sitting president for it is even worse.
If you incite violence on Twitter, the company can - and should - stop you. Good call.
Plans for “future armed protests” are spreading on Twitter and elsewhere, the company warned, “including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021”.
Yes, people who boosted their careers off of Trump - his sycophants, his kids & people like Haley, who helped him attack and undermine human rights around the world - are boo-hooing right now.
Always beware of powerful people pretending to be victims.
https://t.co/0A5D5eJFvL
But no one should react with glee. The president of the United States has been inciting violence, and Republican Party leaders, along with a willing, violent mob, have been aiding his attempts to overthrow the democratic process.
That's the real story here.
The dangers are real, and we've all seen them. That Twitter even had to contemplate banning any politician for inciting violence is awful. That they had to ban the sitting president for it is even worse.
1.) Here’s the transcript: Coincidence it is “18” screenshots to capture? I think not!💥🇺🇸💥🇺🇸💥 https://t.co/wrfqjjW6hw
PRESIDENT TRUMP: THIS MAY BE, THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH I'VE EVER MADE. 12/02/2020
— GEORGE NEWS (@GeorgenewsOrg) December 3, 2020
(Use English/French Subtitles and READ every single word) #GodWins https://t.co/ZJ9racUF6o
