Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » First Do No Harm(except when it comes to transgendered people)
  1. Results 31 to 60 of 350
  2. Page 2 of 12
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  10. Last

Thread: First Do No Harm(except when it comes to transgendered people)

post 1699706293 03-25-2024, 05:46 PM
-
#31
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
It is related to "medical professionals" performing medical duties without "obtaining consent", which you have admitted to.

Still lulzy tho

Nope.
post 1699708133 03-25-2024, 06:31 PM
-
#32
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441972
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
I still LOL @ the fact that miscers still argue with J.L.C...

A person who has the track record of fudging numbers by decimal points, flat out lying, claiming there was no waiver to be signed upon opting to receive a vaccine that wasn't fully approved at the time, and claiming that the lot control of vaccines administered in beaverland was achieved via a drop down menu on the physical syringe itself!

Just LOL @ beavercels and people who continue to argue with them srs

As bad as his lies are, his inability to admit to them are even worse. But those aren’t even the things that caused me to stop engaging with him. It was his behavior in the red meat leads to diabetes thread. I mean, his goal of trolling was pretty apparent…but after seeing how he acted in that thread where he actually agreed with posters, it was obvious that attempting to engage in any type of meaningful discussion with him is futile. Best to just laugh at him, occasionally point out his hypocrisy and/or lies, and move on.
post 1699709253 03-25-2024, 06:59 PM
-
#33
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
As bad as his lies are, his inability to admit to them are even worse. But those aren’t even the things that caused me to stop engaging with him. It was his behavior in the red meat leads to diabetes thread. I mean, his goal of trolling was pretty apparent…but after seeing how he acted in that thread where he actually agreed with posters, it was obvious that attempting to engage in any type of meaningful discussion with him is futile. Best to just laugh at him, occasionally point out his hypocrisy and/or lies, and move on.
The one where you and Frank were adamant the investigators didn't condition on covariates?

Just lol
post 1699709443 03-25-2024, 07:07 PM
-
#34
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 27,464
  5. Rep Power: 171374
Not sure if it's been mentioned but the NHS in the UK has done a 180. No more giving kids hormone blockers. Most of Europe has done a 180 or close to it when it comes to kids and being transjesters. The 'gender affirming care' ($$$$$$) grift apparently will take more time to fall out of favor here in the US.

The reality that it doesn't change suicidality among confused kids hasn't made the rounds here, so there are still doctors here guilting parents into transitioning their kids under the guise of they'll kill themselves if you don't go with the ploy. Any doctor still saying that should have their license suspended for awhile.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
post 1699710823 03-25-2024, 07:38 PM
-
#35
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Join Date: Jan 2005
  4. Location: Ill.
  5. Posts: 120,479
  6. Rep Power: 316531
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
The claim in the OP is that consent is not being obtained. My position is that those professionals should face repercussions. Do you disagree?
So the nine year wants to be on them, even though they're only nine, the mom says okay, and it's all good.
post 1699710873 03-25-2024, 07:39 PM
-
#36
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Join Date: Jan 2005
  4. Location: Ill.
  5. Posts: 120,479
  6. Rep Power: 316531
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
Not sure if it's been mentioned but the NHS in the UK has done a 180. No more giving kids hormone blockers. Most of Europe has done a 180 or close to it when it comes to kids and being transjesters. The 'gender affirming care' ($$$$$$) grift apparently will take more time to fall out of favor here in the US.

The reality that it doesn't change suicidality among confused kids hasn't made the rounds here, so there are still doctors here guilting parents into transitioning their kids under the guise of they'll kill themselves if you don't go with the ploy. Any doctor still saying that should have their license suspended for awhile.
Didn't they do the same with the COVID Jab?

And yet JLC still insists that a one year old gets the jab.....
post 1699711523 03-25-2024, 07:53 PM
-
#37
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441972
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
I still LOL @ the fact that miscers still argue with J.L.C...

A person who has the track record of fudging numbers by decimal points, flat out lying, claiming there was no waiver to be signed upon opting to receive a vaccine that wasn't fully approved at the time, and claiming that the lot control of vaccines administered in beaverland was achieved via a drop down menu on the physical syringe itself!

Just LOL @ beavercels and people who continue to argue with them srs

And just lol at beavercels getting called out for lying, then immediately lying again.

Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
The one where you and Frank were adamant the investigators didn't condition on covariates?

Just lol
Claims I was adamant about the study when I didn’t even post in the thread. As stated, just business as usual for Canada’s favorite troll. Just remember everyone…this is how obnoxious he tries to be even if he agrees with you.


https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...hp?t=184307613


Imagine wasting any time whatsoever trying to have a meaningful conversation with him.
post 1699711733 03-25-2024, 07:58 PM
-
#38
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 27,464
  5. Rep Power: 171374
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
Didn't they do the same with the COVID Jab?

And yet JLC still insists that a one year old gets the jab.....
No cares about that rube. Whatever is the new establishment from government he'll defend. And yeah the US definitely caught on late to stop recommending the jabs to anyone who wasn't old or with a high risk condition compared to the rest of the world. Per most of the world the pandemic was over in spring 2022 but the US officials waited until a few months after China opened back up to declare the pandemic over.

"The pandemic is over." -US health officials, politicians 2023
"Yeah we knew that a long time ago." -everyone with common sense
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
post 1699712773 03-25-2024, 08:25 PM
-
#39
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
And just lol at beavercels getting called out for lying, then immediately lying again.







Claims I was adamant about the study when I didn’t even post in the thread. As stated, just business as usual for Canada’s favorite troll. Just remember everyone…this is how obnoxious he tries to be even if he agrees with you.


https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...hp?t=184307613


Imagine wasting any time whatsoever trying to have a meaningful conversation with him.
My bad, you refer to the thread regularly, but didn't participate.

Here's Frank
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
Controlling for variables.....not even a thought apparently. Doing a full apples to apples comparison?
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
Except theydidn'tcontrol for almost 10 confounding factors, including ones like smoking and alcohol, exercise, total calories, etc. It's in the data. With the confounding factors accumulated it's no surprise they get their joke study results.
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
But they didn't. You can see in the data tables they did a pisspoor job of adjusting for lifestyle and other dietary factors. It's surprisingly bad.
post 1699713193 03-25-2024, 08:40 PM
-
#40
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
My bad, you refer to the thread regularly, but didn't participate.

Here's Frank
Interesting.

So are you admitting you literally just lied a couple of posts ago?

Or are you going to apologize?

Just LOL @ beavercels srs.
post 1699713293 03-25-2024, 08:43 PM
-
#41
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
Interesting.

So are you admitting you literally just lied a couple of posts ago?

Or are you going to apologize?

Just LOL @ beavercels srs.
I was mistaken and acknowledged the mistake. Recall I asked a question.

Any comments on Frank's inaccuracies?
post 1699713523 03-25-2024, 08:51 PM
-
#42
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
I was mistaken and acknowledged the mistake. Recall I asked a question.

Any comments on Frank's inaccuracies?
I don't see an explicit acknowledgement of a mistake - but that's par for the course. Recall you danced around for two pages and multiple edits before you admitted that you fudged the numbers by two decimal points.

Any comments on why you have issues explicitly acknowledging "mistakes" you make?

Still lulzy tho

post 1699713543 03-25-2024, 08:52 PM
-
#43
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
I don't see an explicit acknowledgement of a mistake - but that's par for the course. Recall you danced around for two pages and multiple edits before you admitted that you fudged the numbers by two decimal points.

Any comments on why you have issues explicitly acknowledging "mistakes" you make?

Still lulzy tho

I literally typed "my bad". You quoted it.
post 1699713623 03-25-2024, 08:55 PM
-
#44
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
I literally typed "my bad". You quoted it.
"my bad" by itself never was, isn't, and never will be anywhere close to "explicitly acknowledging a mistake".

But hey, you are really good at following your Prime Minister's examples!

Still lulzy tho

post 1699713893 03-25-2024, 09:04 PM
-
#45
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  1. J.L.C.
  2. Wat
  3. Join Date: Apr 2005
  4. Posts: 33,220
  5. Rep Power: 37920
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
"my bad" by itself never was, isn't, and never will be anywhere close to "explicitly acknowledging a mistake".

But hey, you are really good at following your Prime Minister's examples!

Still lulzy tho

"my bad
idiom

used for saying that you accept that you are wrong or that something is your fault:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...english/my-bad
post 1699714073 03-25-2024, 09:10 PM
-
#46
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By J.L.C.⏩
"my bad
idiom

used for saying that you accept that you are wrong or that something is your fault:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...english/my-bad
My point still stands.

But hey, at least you've shown you know how to find the dictionary - I guess you won't be able to use your usual excuse of not knowing English anymore.

Still lulzy tho

post 1699715643 03-25-2024, 10:11 PM
-
#47
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2024
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 1,100
  6. Rep Power: 0
I don't really trust Shellenberger. He blocked me on Twitter back in the day after I argued with him about climate change. (I linked studies refuting claims he made, and he then rageblocked.) I'll wait and see how actual doctors address this rather than some journalist with an agenda.
post 1699720853 03-26-2024, 02:57 AM
-
#48
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By uneducated⏩
I don't really trust Shellenberger. He blocked me on Twitter back in the day after I argued with him about climate change. (I linked studies refuting claims he made, and he then rageblocked.) I'll wait and see how actual doctors address this rather than some journalist with an agenda.
He probably blocked you because you most likely had a meltdown and told him what you tell everyone else you disagree with...

post 1699722733 03-26-2024, 04:29 AM
-
#49
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2024
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 1,100
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
He probably blocked you because you most likely had a meltdown and told him what you tell everyone else you disagree with...

I didn't. I was well behaved on Twitter. I just argued with him about the claims he made and linked him studies and asked if he really thought all the researchers all over the world were colluding to lie about it. His brain Error 404'd and he blocked me.
post 1699722783 03-26-2024, 04:32 AM
-
#50
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By uneducated⏩
I didn't. I was well behaved on Twitter. I just argued with him about the claims he made and linked him studies and asked if he really thought all the researchers all over the world were colluding to lie about it. His brain Error 404'd and he blocked me.
So you're only unhinged on the misc?

Highly unlikely.

post 1699722853 03-26-2024, 04:35 AM
-
#51
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2024
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 1,100
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
So you're only unhinged on the misc?

Highly unlikely.

How am I unhinged?
post 1699722953 03-26-2024, 04:39 AM
-
#52
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By uneducated⏩
How am I unhinged?
I guess if you think telling people to kill themselves just because they don't agree with you 100% is not unhinged, in your mind you're not.

post 1699723273 03-26-2024, 04:49 AM
-
#53
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441972
Originally Posted By uneducated⏩
I don't really trust Shellenberger. He blocked me on Twitter back in the day after I argued with him about climate change. (I linked studies refuting claims he made, and he then rageblocked.) I'll wait and see how actual doctors address this rather than some journalist with an agenda.
You lack of trust doesn’t stem from the fact he blocked you, your lack of trust stems from you disagreeing with what he is saying. If he said something you agree with you’d trust it 100%.



As mentioned in the article:

The raw files have been published in a report called The WPATH Files: Pseudoscientific surgical and hormonal experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults, which contains analysis by journalist Mia Hughes that puts the WPATH Files in the context of the best available science on gender distress.

Environmental Progress has made all files available to read at the end of the report. The leaked files include screenshots of posts from WPATH’s internal messaging forum dating from 2021 to 2024 and a video of an internal panel discussion.



So feel free to go read all of it and watch the video if you’d like.
post 1699723283 03-26-2024, 04:50 AM
-
#54
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2024
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 1,100
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
I guess if you think telling people to kill themselves just because they don't agree with you 100% is not unhinged, in your mind you're not.

My god. Are you really that sensitive? I'M SORRY. Feel better?
post 1699723443 03-26-2024, 04:55 AM
-
#55
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By uneducated⏩
My god. Are you really that sensitive? I'M SORRY. Feel better?
Imagine posting that reply thinking it furthers the perception that you don't have a tendency to become unhinged.

Thanks for playing!

post 1699723483 03-26-2024, 04:56 AM
-
#56
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2024
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 1,100
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By jtaylor2010⏩
You lack of trust doesn’t stem from the fact he blocked you, your lack of trust stems from you disagreeing with what he is saying. If he said something you agree with you’d trust it 100%.



As mentioned in the article:

The raw files have been published in a report called The WPATH Files: Pseudoscientific surgical and hormonal experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults, which contains analysis by journalist Mia Hughes that puts the WPATH Files in the context of the best available science on gender distress.

Environmental Progress has made all files available to read at the end of the report. The leaked files include screenshots of posts from WPATH’s internal messaging forum dating from 2021 to 2024 and a video of an internal panel discussion.



So feel free to go read all of it and watch the video if you’d like.
Nope. I've seen climate advocates also misunderstand the science too. It bothers me when people forget these are atmospheric physics questions. They aren't about feelings.

Regarding the trans chit, I realize some of those emails make things look bad, but to ultimately determine whether gender affirming care works, you need a lot more data. Most of the studies I have seen suggest it is working better, on average, than not. But I'm not a reproductive medicine doctor so I will defer to their rebuttal, if they make one.

Here is a lay rebuttal I found that at least links some studies contradicting some of the claims presented in your post.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/f...dRedirect=true
post 1699723583 03-26-2024, 04:58 AM
-
#57
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2024
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 1,100
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
Imagine posting that reply thinking it furthers the perception that you don't have a tendency to become unhinged.

Thanks for playing!

I mean if you think I am unhinged, you think I am unhinged. I can't change what you think.
post 1699723723 03-26-2024, 05:01 AM
-
#58
  1. Anachron
  1. Anachron
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 16,256
  5. Rep Power: 684578
Originally Posted By uneducated⏩
Nope. I've seen climate advocates also misunderstand the science too. It bothers me when people forget these are atmospheric physics questions. They aren't about feelings.

Regarding the trans chit, I realize some of those emails make things look bad, but to ultimately determine whether gender affirming care works, you need a lot more data. Most of the studies I have seen suggest it is working better, on average, than not. But I'm not a reproductive medicine doctor so I will defer to their rebuttal, if they make one.

Here is a lay rebuttal I found that at least links some studies contradicting some of the claims presented in your post.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/f...dRedirect=true
You said you will wait for actual doctors to weigh in instead of "journalists with an agenda", then proceeded to link a "fact check" article from a "Transgender Journalist reporting on LGBTQ+ legislation, news, and life every day."

At least your username to post content correlation is on point.
post 1699723863 03-26-2024, 05:05 AM
-
#59
  1. jtaylor2010
  1. jtaylor2010
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,186
  6. Rep Power: 441972
Originally Posted By uneducated⏩
Nope. I've seen climate advocates also misunderstand the science too. It bothers me when people forget these are atmospheric physics questions. They aren't about feelings.

Regarding the trans chit, I realize some of those emails make things look bad, but to ultimately determine whether gender affirming care works, you need a lot more data. Most of the studies I have seen suggest it is working better, on average, than not. But I'm not a reproductive medicine doctor so I will defer to their rebuttal, if they make one.

Here is a lay rebuttal I found that at least links some studies contradicting some of the claims presented in your post.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/f...dRedirect=true
Lold at “right-wing activist” and “anti-trans” labels getting immediately thrown around. I’ll look over it, but the bias is already BLATANTLY apparent within the first few lines.




Also…lold at this being the first deboonking they list
For example, one section claims that the WPATH Standards of Care 8th revision “sent shockwaves through the medical profession,” and “provided the catalyst for the Beyond WPATH declaration, now signed by over 2,000 concerned individuals, many of whom are clinicians working with gender diverse young people.” A closer examination of the “Beyond WPATH” letter itself reveals signatories such as “John Howard - DJ” and “Collin Wynter, yoga instructor.” A majority of the signatories appear to be from non-relevant categories, and a significant chunk are not medical providers at all, such as “concerned grandparent” or “parent.” While the report presents the “declaration” as a document of primarily medical professionals, it omits that it is essentially a freely available online petition form.
Omg, they said many of the people who signed it are healthcare professionals, but we found a significant chunk are not healthcare professionals at all!!. BUSTED!!



I’ll continue reading, but that is a perfect example of the hilariously biased “fact-checking” that is so prominent these days. Hopefully the rest is just as funny. Thanks for sharing!
post 1699723893 03-26-2024, 05:05 AM
-
#60
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  1. uneducated
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Mar 2024
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 1,100
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Anachron⏩
You said you will wait for actual doctors to weigh in instead of "journalists with an agenda", then proceeded to link a "fact check" article from a "Transgender Journalist reporting on LGBTQ+ legislation, news, and life every day."

At least your username to post content correlation is on point.
I said I'd wait to form an opinion. I linked you all something you might be interested in if you care about truth since they claim to rebut what he linked. Don't take it personally.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts