MSNBC Cuts Off Presidential Press Conference Because “The President Isn’t Telling The Truth”

Yesterday, there was an extraordinary — and defining — moment on MSNBC when host Nicole Wallace cut off coverage of President Trump’s press conference on the basis that the network did not agree with what he was saying about Joe Biden and his son’s controversial windfall contract with a Ukrainian energy company during the Obama Administration. Wallace simply declared Biden was cleared and that Trump was lying so there was no need for viewers to listen. It ignored any semblance of covering the news and MSNBC appears perfectly okay with a host regulating what viewers believe based on her view of what is true.

Wallace said that the President was just trying to deflect blame to Biden and that “We hate to do this really but the president isn’t telling the truth.”  She added “These allegations against Joe Biden and Hunter Biden he’s repeating had been investigated by the Ukrainians…the Wall Street Journal included in their report on Friday that the Ukrainians view this issue as having been investigated and adjudicated.” However, that is not accurate.

In the transcript, the President of Ukraine says that they are taking a new look at prior investigation. More importantly, there are two concerns with Hunter Biden. One is the concern of whether Joe Biden knew that his actions may benefit his son. I am willing to believe that Biden was not aware of the potential investigation of his son’s company in the Ukraine. Yet, there is the other question of whether the Biden family cashed in on Biden’s positions in these convenient and ample contracts. Children and spouses of politicians are often given positions and contracts to influence them. These payments are more difficult to track and to address under anti-corruption laws. Now, there is the incredible suggestion that Hunter Biden has never (even to this day) discussed his business dealings with his father. Never. Hunter Biden has said that that is not true.

What has long been difficult for many of us to square is how China and the Ukraine searched the world over for the best possible person to handle almost $2 billion and they just happened to come up with the son of the Vice President of the United States, a world leader who happened to be coming to their countries with massive trade and aid plans. Hunter Biden was that much of an intellectual and finance genius from Asia to Europe and beyond?

Yet none of this matters. The question is the role of the media. If Wallace does not believe Trump, that is fine. However, the press conference was news as a president gave his side of a developing impeachment controversy. Some agree with his view of Biden and the controversy. MSNBC is saying that it will not prevent viewers to see statements are its views as untrue about Biden or Trump. That is highly disturbing for those of us who have written about the loss of objectivity in media coverage and legal analysis.

324 thoughts on “MSNBC Cuts Off Presidential Press Conference Because “The President Isn’t Telling The Truth””

  1. Anonymous with the 5? comments between 10:14 AM and 6:44 PM,
    You are dealing with “AllanSpeak”, which Allan likes to use if he thinks it’ll help him squirm out of traps be walked himself into.
    The meaning of Dr. Sun’s statement, as well as at least two other specialists who have been quoted, is clear.
    One would have to be either extremely stupid or intentially dishonest to mistake the meaning of those statements.
    But since those statements undercut virtually everything Dr. Allan Blowhard has tried to claim, he’s working hard to “reinterpret” their statements to the point that their meaning is unrecognizable.
    Pretty sleazy, but since he seems to think it has a chance of scoring some points, there is no limit to how sleazy Dr. Allan Blowhard will get.

    1. OK Fido, you got out again. All experts agree time is of the essence if there is a chance of survival. That is the system failure. “Almost 4 hours” to get an emergency to a hospital that could treat.

      1. Allan, back in August:

        “…multiple failures in her care in Canada…” (911 posting)

        Paul, today:

        I am going to put it right out there and you are not going to like it. The moment she refused treatment she was a dead woman.
        Even if she had accepted treatment the first time and gone to the hospital, it was iffy. She was still going to get shipped to Montreal.If anyone is at fault it is Ms Richardson for not being treated, but even then she didn’t think she was that badly injured.
        NO ONE is at fault. Everyone acted appropriately.

        ____

        Allan is probably one of the few people in the world who doesn’t get it.

        (And Allan’s engaging in more “AllanSpeak” with the following bs, which he keeps repeating:

        “Almost 4 hours” to get an emergency to a hospital that could treat.)

        If she’d gone for treatment immediately, she’d have been in Montreal pretty quickly:

        “1 h 28 min (132.4 km) via Route Transcanadienne/Autoroute”

        Allan needs to get his facts straight.

        1. What facts are those? She refused treatment at first. That is her fault.

          The issue at hand is that the policy appears to be to take all patients first to a hospital that couldn’t offer treatment to those select few that were critically ill following head trauma. The most critical are bleeds in the head with high mortality rates that fall based on how long it takes to get to the hospital.

          We don’t know if any single patient will live or die. “almost 4 hours” is a long time and you say 1 hour and 28 minutes to the trauma center. That means that means a delay of over 2 hours. If one took a sample of patients that could survive one would find the survival rate higher in those that arrived over 2 hours earlier than the others. That is the point.

          Paul said “The moment she refused treatment she was a dead woman.”

          If we are talking about the unknown patient then what Paul is saying is wrong because people do survive bleeds to the head where the survival rate decreases based on time. She was at fault for the lost time until she became a priorty one.

          The systemic failure would be any unecessary delay in getting the patient from point A to the treating hospital where the clock might start before they get permission to transport but once permission is given the time clock starts and correctable delays are a system failure.

            1. You are non-responsive to the details. If you are faced with a poison and need an antidote within two hours do you go to the place that is 1 hour and 28 minutes away or do you go all over the place only to arrive “almost 4 hours” later.?

              1. Just more AllanSpeak.

                Your “almost 4 hours” is meaningless, without all the facts. And you don’t have them.

                Get thee to Canada, Allan. We’re all waiting, with bated breath.

                  1. You are free to disagree but you should at least do so logically based on the data at hand. I don’t understand you guys that can’t argue in a logical pattern.

                1. Again, you are non-responsive. The ambulance records add up to “almost 4 hours” are you denying that? Alternatively are you just talking without caring what you say?

  2. This is what Dr. Sun said:

    “Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. She would have needed to be rushed into the hospital and into a CT scan in a matter of minutes, according to Dr. Sun

    **”…rushed into a CT scan in a matter of minutes…”***

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-natasha-richardson-en_b_176665

    Burr holes work well in the early stages of an EDH.

    You’ll need her medical records, including the results of her CT scan, Allan. Without them, you’ve got nothing.

      1. If she’d gone for treatment immediately, she’d have been in Montreal pretty quickly:

        “1 h 28 min (132.4 km) via Route Transcanadienne/Autoroute”

        Allan needs to get his facts straight.

        1. I didn’t comment on how long it takes to go to the trauma center. You did. I only commented on how long it took to get there and that was “almost 4 hours”.

            1. Explain that.

              You say the trip takes 1 hour and 28 minutes. The patient’s life could be saved at that location.

              The trip took “almost 4 hours” can you clarify your comment?

    1. ” MSNBC is saying that it will not prevent viewers to see statements are its views as untrue about Biden or Trump.” ??????

  3. There’s a very clear demarcation between reporting the news and shaping the narrative, a Rubicon that MSDNC crossed a long time ago. Rather than being held accountable by the rest of the mass media, their behavior is now the norm. It isn’t hard to find the truth but it does take time and critical thinking, two commodities most Americans just don’t have enough of. Therefore I’m very pessimistic about the direction our country is headed and I fear things will get much worse before they get better, if ever.

  4. Alleged corruption, aided and abetted by the Democrat run MSNBC. It is interesting that any viewers continue to tune in, considering that MSNBC is now open about controlling information to shape their views, rather than presenting them with information so they can come to their own opinion as intellectually capable people. At this point they produce propaganda to influence elections.

    1. Trump’s campaign speeches aren’t news or newsworthy. Trump’s usual lying isn’t “information”. It is propaganda, and no news organization is duty bound by journalistic standards to broadcast a campaign speech. That’s why only Fox News “covers” Trump’s campaign appearances.

      1. Trump addressed the allegations behind the impeachment scandal. MSNBC censored his comments, denying the information to their viewers, openly deciding that they would preven their hearing his defense. Forget any analysis afterward. Just cut him off so viewers cannot hear it and think for themselves.

        Some viewers agree, yes, please censor their news. Please don’t lay all the information out there and let them decide what to think. Tell them what to think, and they will be grateful for it. Even defend what many others found insulting to their intelligence.

  5. And this is why I don’t watch your program. Censorship of current events. Sounds like communism. Close up your shop. We Americans don’t need another fake news station. You are like the Enquirer Magazine. A liner for animal cages.

    1. “You are like the Enquirer Magazine. A liner for animal cages”

      The animals deserve better. We would never use their paper as kindling for our fireplace – think of the toxic fumes. At best the paper is better suited for wrapping multiple strapped bricks, and placing a self-addressed all postage paid postage card on the package that belongs to a liberal organization, and then mailing it. Their postage monies are used to send them the foul papers.

      Yes we have done this and it provides us some joy.

      🙂

  6. Turley is just so envious and jealous because MSNBC wants nothing to do with him anymore, no more easy money and nobody misses Turley because all their current legal analysts are so much better.

    1. FYI….the above comment is from ‘mean Anonymous’….not I 🙂

      Turley is one of the BEST analysts around and they are lucky to get his input on air. Truth!

      1. Take note, the anonymi are taking opposite sides. Mean vs not mean, intelligent vs stupid, etc., but no one can follow such antics. Get a persona that is individual to you unless of course you are afraid of your own opininions.

        [Note ‘anonymi’ is not a word but I can’t think of a better way to refer to these crazies that further disruption on a blog by creating arguments that should never have existed.]

        1. Allan says: “I can’t think of a better way to refer to these crazies”

          If anyone is crazy it’s Allan. He often engages in mean and nasty attacks against those who disagree with him.

          It’s good to see the anonymous folks running circles around the old boy.

          1. “It’s good to see the anonymous folks running circles around the old boy.”

            Anonymous, Do you mean you and Fido running in circles and getting nowhere?

            1. No, I got it right the first time:

              It’s good to see the anonymous folks running circles around the old boy who goes by “Allan.”

              If Allan went to college at all, there’s a good chance that he was one of those students who started out as pre-med, but couldn’t cut it.

                    1. Sometimes a knee-slapper is the truth.

                      Dr. Sun “If she had gone to the hospital and a CT scan indicated that there was bleeding, her skull would have been opened to relieve pressure … Only then, would there have been a chance that she could pull through.”

                      Burr hole relieves pressure.

                    2. I should have stated that You quoted what Dr. Sun said to make your case that you were right.

                      To put in simple words: You are driving at 100 miles per hour which device would you want?

                      Speedometer
                      Brakes

                      Anonymous wants a speedometer so he knows exactly how fast he was going when he killed himself.

                    3. It’s not a surprise that Allan took that quote out of context. It’s what he does as he tries to prove his crazy point. Her’e the full quote:

                      “Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. She would have needed to be rushed into the hospital and into a CT scan in a matter of minutes, according to Dr. Sun.

                      “If she had gone to the hospital and a CT scan indicated that there was bleeding, her skull would have been opened to relieve pressure, and she would have been given medication to relieve the pressure in her brain,” he says.

                      Only then, would there have been a chance that she could pull through. [end quote]

                      ____

                      No one is disputing that burr holes and craniotomies save lives. But absent additional information (medical records, input from medical professionals who treated Richardson, input from her husband), it’s impossible to rewrite Richardson’t story — though that won’t keep Allan from trying.

                      Dr. Sun — again:

                      “Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. She would have needed to be rushed into the hospital and into a CT scan in a matter of minutes, according to Dr. Sun.”

                      Real doctors have moved on. They understand just a bit more than Allan.

                    4. Again anonymous your reading comprehension is poor:

                      He said: ““Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. ”

                      Unlikely, means there was a chance of life if the pressure was relieved. “almost 4 hours” was too much time.

                    5. Dr. Sun:

                      “Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. She would have needed to be rushed into the hospital and into a CT scan in a matter of minutes, according to Dr. Sun.

                      (Get her medical records and get back to us, Allan. Allan thinks that one doesn’t need all the facts. That tells one quite about about how that Jethro-brain of his really works.)

                    1. She had a much better chance because TIME was the definitive factor. “almost 4 hours” is a long time with this type of problem. A shorter time would have been more appropriate.

                    2. Allan,

                      Why don’t you put your little life on hold and make a trip to Canada. Get it all figured out and get back to us.

                      P.S,

                      No hurry.

                      Paul is right. Let it go.

                    3. Anonymous, The question is what Paul is right about. There is no disagreement as to most of the things that occured. The disagreement is over what I think is a system failure. That failure involves time. “almost 4 hours”.

                    4. Allan, back in August:

                      “…multiple failures in her care in Canada…” (911 posting)

                      Paul, today:

                      I am going to put it right out there and you are not going to like it. The moment she refused treatment she was a dead woman.
                      Even if she had accepted treatment the first time and gone to the hospital, it was iffy. She was still going to get shipped to Montreal.If anyone is at fault it is Ms Richardson for not being treated, but even then she didn’t think she was that badly injured.
                      NO ONE is at fault. Everyone acted appropriately.

                      ____

                      Allan is probably one of the few people in the world who doesn’t get it.

                    5. Failure, “almost 4 hours ” to get to a place that could treat the emergency.

                      That is a system failure if treatment could be provided at a closer hospital in less than “almost 4 hours”.

                    6. If she’d gone for treatment immediately, she’d have been in Montreal pretty quickly:

                      “1 h 28 min (132.4 km) via Route Transcanadienne/Autoroute”

                      Allan needs to get his facts straight.

                    7. You apparently haven’t been reading responses.

                      1 h 28 minutes is shorter than almost 4 hours. That is what is under discussion and would be the system failure.

    2. I haven’t seen MSNBC analysts even remotely as honest and clear as Professor Turley. I don’t know why he isn’t on MSNBC but I can think of two possible reasons: 1. MSNBC doesn’t want honesty and clarity; and 2. The professor doesn’t want to soil his soul by appearing there.

  7. I can’t remember the exact protestations and complaints by Anon who said the proof from Solomon didn’t exist. Here’s Solomon’s column from 3 hours ago with some of the proof. Anyone that listens to Anon knows how bad he is. He tried to slime Solomon but who is wearing the slime now. The proof can be clicked up from within the text.
    —–
    Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden’s Ukraine story
    Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.

    He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden’s son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.

    There’s just one problem.

    Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.

    And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma’s legal troubles and stop prosecutors’ plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

    For instance, Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor’s firing was announced.

    In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.

    The memos raise troubling questions:

    1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma’s American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?”

    2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?

    Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

    Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma.

    “I’m knowledgeable about the situation,” Zelensky told Trump, asking the American president to forward any evidence he might know about. “The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.”

    Biden has faced scrutiny since December 2015, when the New York Times published a story noting that Burisma hired Hunter Biden just weeks after the vice president was asked by President Obama to oversee U.S.-Ukraine relations. That story also alerted Biden’s office that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin had an active investigation of Burisma and its founder.

    Documents I obtained this year detail an effort to change the narrative after the Times story about Hunter Biden, with the help of the Obama State Department.

    Hunter Biden’s American business partner in Burisma, Devon Archer, texted a colleague two days after the Times story about a strategy to counter the “new wave of scrutiny” and stated that he and Hunter Biden had just met at the State Department. The text suggested there was about to be a new “USAID project the embassy is announcing with us” and that it was “perfect for us to move forward now with momentum.”

    I have sued the State Department for any records related to that meeting. The reason is simple: There is both a public interest and an ethics question to knowing if Hunter Biden and his team sought State’s assistance while his father was vice president.

    The controversy ignited anew earlier this year when I disclosed that Joe Biden admitted during a 2018 videotaped speech that, as vice president in March 2016, he threatened to cancel $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, to pressure Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko to fire Shokin.

    At the time, Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma. Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm. Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000.

    Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma’s owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General’s office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017.

    After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting.

    Joe Biden has since responded that he forced Shokin’s firing over concerns about corruption and ineptitude, which he claims were widely shared by Western allies, and that it had nothing to do with the Burisma investigation.

    Some of the new documents I obtained call that claim into question.

    In a newly sworn affidavit prepared for a European court, Shokin testified that when he was fired in March 2016, he was told the reason was that Biden was unhappy about the Burisma investigation. “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.

    “On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.

    Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing. But his account is supported by documents from Burisma’s legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden’s effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.

    Burisma’s own accounting records show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of an American lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run by Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, who both served in President Bill Clinton’s administration.

    Just days before Biden forced Shokin’s firing, Painter met with the No. 2 official at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and asked to meet officials in Kiev around the same time that Joe Biden visited there. Ukrainian embassy employee Oksana Shulyar emailed Painter afterward: “With regards to the meetings in Kiev, I suggest that you wait until the next week when there is an expected vote of the government’s reshuffle.”

    Ukraine’s Washington embassy confirmed the conversations between Shulyar and Painter but said the reference to a shakeup in Ukrainian government was not specifically referring to Shokin’s firing or anything to do with Burisma.

    Painter then asked one of the Ukraine embassy’s workers to open the door for meetings with Ukraine’s prosecutors about the Burisma investigation, the memos show. Eventually, Blue Star would pay that Ukrainian official money for his help with the prosecutor’s office.

    At the time, Blue Star worked in concert with an American criminal defense lawyer, John Buretta, who was hired by Burisma to help address the case in Ukraine. The case was settled in January 2017 for a few million dollars in fines for alleged tax issues.

    Buretta, Painter, Tramontano, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s campaign have not responded to numerous calls and emails seeking comment.

    On March 29, 2016, the day Shokin’s firing was announced, Buretta asked to speak with Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, but was turned down, the memos show.

    Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokin’s firing. Buretta, Tramontano and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Star’s memos.

    Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memo that the general prosecutor’s office provided to me, stating that the three Americans offered an apology for the “false” narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.

    “They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management,” the memo stated.

    The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: “These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution … and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.”

    The memo provides a vastly different portrayal of Shokin than Biden’s. And its contents are partially backed by subsequent emails from Blue Star and Buretta that confirm the offer to bring Ukrainian authorities to meet the Obama administration in Washington.

    For instance, Tramontano wrote the Ukrainian prosecution team on April 16, 2016, saying U.S. Justice Department officials, including top international prosecutor Bruce Swartz, might be willing to meet. “The reforms are not known to the US Justice Department and it would be useful for the Prosecutor General to meet officials in the US and share this information directly,” she wrote.

    Buretta sent a similar email to the Ukrainians, writing that “I think you would find it productive to meet with DOJ officials in Washington” and providing contact information for Swartz. “I would be happy to help,” added Buretta, a former senior DOJ official.

    Burisma, Buretta and Blue Star continued throughout 2016 to try to resolve the open issues in Ukraine, and memos recount various contacts with the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Kiev seeking help in getting the Burisma case resolved.

    Just days before Trump took office, Burisma announced it had resolved all of its legal issues. And Buretta gave an interview in Ukraine about how he helped navigate the issues.

    Today, two questions remain.

    One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burisma’s case, given his son’s interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.

    The second is whether Biden has given the American people an honest accounting of what happened. The new documents I obtained raise serious doubts about his story’s credibility. And that’s an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.

    John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

    1. Apparently the sources didn’t come through but one can get copies of the sources within the story at:

      https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

      Also in front of committee Adam Schiff made up a text of what Trump said that was totally fallacious. If what Trump said was bad for Trump why would Schiff have to make up a phony transcript? He did it in the halls of Congress that provide him immunity. Remember what Harry Ried said in Congress about Romney at a later time admitting the lie worked and proof was Romney didn’t win. That is the nature of the Democrats and people like Anon.

    2. I questioned when and if Solomon’s promised 450 documents would be produced since he was telling us what they meant before he did, and the eager to believe Trumpsters here like Allen were already quoting him as if there was proof.

      Now supposedly there is, but wiser readers, based on Solomon’s past record, and the ambiguous meaning and authority of what we assume is the most powerful of the promised 450, will wait for more information.

      The document purports to be an internal Ukrainian memo by the temporary prosecutor who replaced Shokin describing a visit by PR agents for Burisma, the gas company H Biden was paid by. If it is accurate, it is hard to understand PR professionals talking a by then supposedly vanquished opponent into a position of strength unless they expected the removal of Shokin to increase their vulnerability because ……..he wasn’t doing anything.

      In any case the memo is underwhelming if interesting and I await further information or reasonable interpretations of others as to it’s meaning . No, not you Allen.

      1. “I questioned …”

        That’s how much we read when you post your tripe – 2 words, if that much.

        While the latest faux scandal is good news for your employment, since George Soros is still alive fluffing David Brock’s organ (eeeeuwww), eventually you’re going to move to Canada and troll Trudeau for his black face. Take Enigma with you since he needs the work playing the race card

        best

        1. Thanks for you kind thoughts Nana, though somehow they don’t echo those of my now long departed and sweet grandmother – I guess I’ll have to adjust.

      2. “I questioned when and if Solomon’s promised 450 documents would be produced since he was telling us what they meant before he did”

        That is BS, Anon. If you actually read any of the postings of Solomon’s provided on the list you would note he refers to his “proofs” within the text he is writing that day. Stop trying to resurrect a position that is untenable. He has about 450 documents but he admits he hasn’t fully read all of them nor has he checked their validity. That requires legwork not Anon BS.

      3. “Trumpsters here like Allen were already quoting him as if there was proof.”

        More BS from Anon. I only quoted what he said and the documents were released within his column. Take note despite your statements that Solomon didn’t produce the documents, that is exactly what he is doing. What are you doing? Absolutely nothing to prove your claims and refute his. You don’t even discuss the material because your arguments are dishonest.

        Instead you look for a flaw in his history. What human doesn’t have flaws or doesn’t make mistakes? Character assassination is your only offense and that is offensive to all when you forget the facts presently placed on the table. Solomon is far more honest and accurate than any of the people you have quoted. He has been correct on this issue and you are free to contradict any of transcripts, sworn testimony, etc. that you wish but those like you that only promote BS don’t do that thing. Instead you refuse to deal with evidence preffering to assassinate the character of anyone you disagree with.

          1. Anonymous, I only copy your words to use against you and if your words are stupid it is not character assassination to call you stupid. Regarding Richardson, you made a lot of stupid comments, lied and misquoted. That was stupidity in its most brilliant form, obvious to anyone of any level of intelligence not character assassination. You already had a reputation for stupidity and anonymity so your reputation wasn’t altered.

            1. Allan must be slipping. He forgot to include two of his favorite words, liar and stupid, in his comment about how he does not engage in character assassination.

              1. Correction:
                Allan forgot the words ignorant and liar.
                He did get in the word stupid, another one of his standard insults.

                1. “Correction:
                  Allan forgot the words ignorant and liar.”

                  Anonymous I didn’t forget those words though they apply. You had to correct a simple statement proving once again you are stupid.

              2. “Allan must be slipping. He forgot to include two of his favorite words, liar and stupid”

                I included the word stupid to explain your misuse of the phrase “character assassination”. I didn’t bother noting that you are a liar because I think that is already well known to the group.

              3. Entered a correction earlier that did not post.
                Alan forgot to include the words liar and ignorant in his last comment.
                He does get partial credit for including his other favorite insult, stupid.
                I did not mean to misrepresent Allan’s comment about how he does not engage in character assassination.

                  1. There is sometimes a considerable time lag between the time “Post Comment” is hit, and the time the comment actually appears.
                    Occasionally, there is an indication that it’s “Posting Comment”, but the comment never gets posted.
                    It was noted by someone yesterday that Alan was starting another one of his “pissing matches”.
                    But to his credit, I think he waited a little longer today to start his pissing match ritual.

                    1. Again, Anonymous is racking up stupidity points with an excuse that would only be an excuse for someone new to the list. Nost people are smart enough to figure these things out. Some are not. Anonymous is one of the later.

                    2. Is there any kind of a manual, like “Allan’s Ground Rules for Pissing Matches” , out there?
                      Mind you, I make no promises to abide by those rules. But there is such a manual, I’m willing to at least consider complying with the ground rules.

                    3. “Is there any kind of a manual, like “Allan’s Ground Rules for Pissing Matches” , out there?”

                      Of course anonymous. Don’t lie or intentionally deceive.

                1. Again, I apologise for the mistake.
                  I did not mean to misrepresent any of the familiar insults Alan likes to use.
                  And I know that when Allan engages in character assassination, it’s not really character assassination under “Alan’s Special Rules”.

                    1. ” emergency tracheostomies — or cricothyroidotomies ”

                      The discussion is Richardson. As I said you keep racking up stupidity numbers and it doesn’t stop.

                    2. Allan was the first person to bring up emergency tracheotomies and now he wants to pretend that he didn’t. He wants to direct the conversation but, gee, this isn’t his blog.

                      Allan’s motto: “I save dead people.”

                    3. “Allan’s motto: “I save dead people.””

                      You kill people. I advocate things that can save people and agree with Dr. Sun

                      Dr. Sun: “If she had gone to the hospital and a CT scan indicated that there was bleeding, her skull would have been opened to relieve pressure … Only then, would there have been a chance that she could pull through.”

                      A burr hole relieves pressure

                    4. Allan and Anonymous – I am going to put it right out there and you are not going to like it. The moment she refused treatment she was a dead woman.
                      Even if she had accepted treatment the first time and gone to the hospital, it was iffy. She was still going to get shipped to Montreal.
                      If anyone is at fault it is Ms Richardson for not being treated, but even then she didn’t think she was that badly injured.
                      NO ONE is at fault. Everyone acted appropriately.

                    5. Paul, that is not the question at hand. Many people’s lives are saved that have bled in their head. My comment that anonymous took exception to was that I said I thought there was a system failure. He said there wasn’t.

                      A bleed in the head is time dependent. Therefore, the quicker one gets to a facility that can at least relieve the pressure the better the chance the patient lives. In a system failure one is thinking of a generic patient. To take a critically ill patient where a bleed is suspected to a facility that doesn’t have the ability to at least do a burr hole is of no value.

                      Therefore since her condition was deteriorating the system should have provided the closest avenue to some type of remedial treatment. Instead they took almost 4 hours to get her to such a place. Maybe that was the closest but I doubt it. Even ER doctors have done burr holes. Neurosurgeons can be available by phone and even have real time images of what is happening and can direct the treatment.

                      Whether or not a specific patient would have died no matter what is not pertinent to the question of a system failure.

                      The only thing that is pertinent is whether or not the time span could have been shortened.

                    6. Allan – the only thing that would have shortened Richardson’s time span was immediate attention. SHE made the decision to delay that. Once she did that, she was a dead woman walking. There is no system failure because not all hospitals are designed for all things. The smaller the hospital, the less they have and the fewer staff they have.

                    7. Paul, do you agree that the shorter the time frame the greater the likelihood of survival?

                      She is at fault for her delay but we are dealing with the delay that came afterwards. Are you saying that there was no chance for survival in any patient with a similar delay due to refusal of initial treatment? I don’t think you believe that though you say “she was a dead woman walking”. Patients with longer delays survive so I don’t understand your logic. What do you think is the longest a patient could survive before treatment? 2 hours? Treatment has been delayed a lot longer than that with survival.

                      If “not all hospitals are designed for all things.” then don’t you think that those with specific problems where death is imminent should be brought to the hospital that can treat or delay death?

                      Help me out here Paul. I want to follow your logic.

                    8. Allan – Ms. Richardson’s refusal of care (which is her right) is the proximate cause of her death. Once she refuses care and goes to her room to lie down, she is a walking dead woman. Ambulances work different areas. These EMTs took her to the nearest hospital to be evaluated. They could not treat her, so shipped her to Montreal.

                      In a perfect world she would not have refused treatment, the ski slopes would have been 15 minutes outside Montreal and a neurosurgeon would have been on staff at the hospital they took her to. However, Montreal was two hours away, she refused treatment and there was no neurosurgeon at the first hospital they took her to.

                    9. Paul, the case is not Richardson. It is whether or not there was a system failure that could be applicable to other patients with a severe head injury. Therefore her refusal is not part of the question so skip it. No one said her refusal didn’t play a big part in her death.

                      I think you believe many brain bleeds survive if treated soon enough and you might recognize that the frame for treatment varies.

                      “Ambulances work different areas.”

                      That represents part of a system. Should all patients be treated the same and go to the same hospital even if it appears likely that they will die at that hospital but might have a chance to live at another? That is the question at hand.

                      There may even have been a hospital equipped to save her life closer than the trauma hospital. That could be part of the system failure as well. But use Montreal and let us assume we are dealing with a brain bleed that needs Montreal to survive and then work backwards.

                      Does it make sense to take her to a hospital that couldn’t treat only to transfer her to Montreal taking up almost 4 hours or would it make more sense to take her to Montreal in 1 hour and 28 minutes if time of the essence?

                    10. Allan – all ambulances go to the closest hospital or emergency room. She was given a CAT scan there, judge unfit for treatment there and shipped to Montreal. All of that takes time. However, the moment she refused care she was a dead woman. She needed to be treated immediately and that little hospital didn’t have a neurosurgeon on staff. So, even with the best time, from the time the lodge first called, had the picked her up, tested her and shipped her to Montreal, it would have been 2.5 to 3 hours. Outside the window of saving her.

                    11. “Allan – all ambulances go to the closest hospital or emergency room.”

                      Not so. Most of the times that is what happens but there are many exceptions. Some depend on one’s insurance plan and sometimes ambulances will go directly to the hospital that has the services the patient needs. That can be handled by telephone in conjunction with all involved and can include physicians. That is part of a system.

                      Paul what do you think happens in an area with multiple hospitals when there is a major car crash with many people dying? One hospital can’t manage all the patients so at least in some areas the system has one hospital dividing patients up according to requirements. That leads to better outcomes.

                      The question is after a traumatic injury to the head and decreasing mental status whether or not there is a bleed. If there is a bleed time is of the essence so shipping a patient to a hospital that increases the time by over 2 hours, in my mind, is not the best idea and represents a system failure (whether or not that system failure exists for good reason)

                      Since we are not dealing with just one patient in a system we don’t how long the time window is to save a life. In this case according to one individual the trip to Montreal takes 1 hour and 28 minutes. I don’t know where you get your numbers (“2.5 to 3 hours”) but the time it took was almost 4 hours and that significant extra time represents a system failure.

                    12. Allan – I will accept your point, however the ambulance here was going to the local hospital first since Montreal is 1.5 hours away.

                    13. “Allan – I will accept your point, however the ambulance here was going to the local hospital first since Montreal is 1.5 hours away.”

                      Thank you Paul. That of course is a major consideration that cannot be forgotten. That is why I called it a system failure rather than a personel failure.

                    14. Allen – people falling on the Bunny Slope and getting a brain bleed is a system failure if we use your logic.

                    15. “Allen – people falling on the Bunny Slope and getting a brain bleed is a system failure if we use your logic.”

                      Paul, that is known as an accident unless it was caused by some system related problem. Example: leaving a machine on an open slope so that a reasonable skier would hit it.

                  1. So in answer to the question, Alan says no. And that asking the question is lying.
                    When someone complains about the target of “ad hominens” or gripes about the use of character assassination, while freely engaging in both, it naturally raises a question about that person’s standards.
                    Whenever the person has a double standard, or no standards, like Alan, then we can ask if he has a Specific Alan Rulebook or he’s just winging it with his own set of unwritten rules.

                    1. Anonymous, you don’t have to follow the rules ‘don’t lie and don’t deceive’. They are my rules, obviously not for you. If you followed those rules you would have very little to say.

                    2. Yes, those are Alan’s rules for other people. As part of his rules, disagreeing with him “lying and deceiving”.
                      So he likes to throw out words liar in addition to his other favorite words, like stupid, ignorant, etc.
                      At least with the AllanBlog he’s set up here, he can reach more widely distribute his insults, while pretending he’s a paragon of virtue.
                      Instead of the boring, dimwitted dirt bag that he actually is.
                      The silver lining is that the Gasbag Allan probably has less time to bore people in person, so his pursuits here give others a bit of break.

                    3. Anonymous, you are a liar and not even embarrassed by it. That would make you a chronic liar. When you quote another to prove your case and the full question and answer are produced demonstrating your lie you continue with the same lie. You are stupid as well so sometimes it might be hard to separate your stupid parts from your lying parts. I guess we just have to recognize you as a chronic stupid liar.

                    4. Pace yourself, Alan. You have an entire weekend ahead of you of running your mouth, calling others stupid and liars, and proving what an ass you are.
                      If you overexert that giant brain of yours and wear the shine off your halo too soon, the Allan Weekend Blog might fall short of your usual “standards”.

                    5. Anonymous, I don’t have to worry. Your stupidity and lying preceded this thread but is on multipe others. No great problem dealing with the likes of you. Can you come up with new material?

                    6. “The silver lining is that the Gasbag Allan probably has less time to bore people in person, so his pursuits here give others a bit of break.”

                      Yep.

                    7. Given Allan’s repetitive use of the same words like liar and stupid, and his near identical tactics of smearing others with the same accusations, he’s not one to talk about “new material”.
                      He’s the one who keeps singing the same, tired, boring tune. If he had any consideration at all, he would save his comments for later in the evenings to bore the heck out of people. 😴

                    8. To consider this comment as some principled position, you would of course denounce the likes of Natacha and Mark M.

                      You’re on the clock to demonstrate such principles.

                    9. Anonymous maybe you will miss my last comment so I will repeat it in its entirety. When you finally learn what actually transpired, let me know.

                      I’ll post one of our more amiable exchanges where your stupidity existed because the same questions had been asked and answered earlier multiple times frequently showing up in one of the studies you or someone else contributed. You are between the quotes and I respond inbetween your comments. You can reevaluate your actions on this matter and since.

                      “There are established guidelines dealing with responses to a variety of acute medical issues”

                      If you like the term guidelines that is fine. It is a good term but guidelines coexist with systems that are in place. Systems aren’t necessarily created by medical professionals and even medical guidelines can be altered by non professionals.

                      “Their assessment was that she he had suffered a concussion.”

                      Yes, she suffered a concussion but did she also suffer a bleed?

                      “The question then is “Should a concussion patient with her symptoms be immediately rushed to a distant hospital with a major trauma unit”? I don’t think that the guidelines call for that, at least in most areas.”

                      That is what I call a system failure. The bleed is the real emergency whereas the concussion would be of much less urgency and more run of the mill. Did they know she wasn’t a routine problem? Should critical conditions be handled like routine problems? (I don’t think so.) We have to guess that they recognized this patient was more critical than the vast majority of patients they treat based on a troublesome Glasgow score, a deteriorating mental status, and ‘talk and die’. Did the system appropriately account for the most serious conditions? That is the issue under discussion.

                      A bleed should always be in the back of the minds of medical professionals that recognize the urgency. You seem to believe that the only facility that could relieve the pressure of a bleed is a trauma center. That would mean that Canada had no closer facilities that could both do a CT and a burr hole and then transfer the patient to the trauma hospital buying the patient’s life a little extra time. Have you checked the possible facilities in that area? A closer facility to just drill the burr hole decreases the delay for that type of patient.

                      This problem is not as uncommon as you believe. You should have recognized that when you posted the article on burr holes. They were discussing doing burr holes on the site so the patient wouldn’t die on the way to the hospital or the trauma hospital.

                      Since they didn’t seem to have a system to separate the sickest from the rest I wonder if the system was created based solely on the odds. That is not the way medicine should be practiced. I think their system has already been changed to account for this type of system problem. I think they now use helicopters and that helps correct the failure I have been talking about.

                      This posting of yours seems like an attempt to address the systems involved. It is the best effort to date by you but I think you drew a conclusion and then looked for things that satisfied the conclusion instead of maintaining an open mind drawing conclusions after you had more information.

                      We have to recognize that Canada has a centralized system of medical care and that can lead to certain holes in treatment. The specific hole that occurred here might not occur in a more decentralized medical system. There are advantages and disadvantages and they have to do with the risks and benefits.

                      The risk is loss of life the benefits have to do with preserving resources. Where on the line one places their emphasis is a societal decision.

                    10. Allan was singing the praises of emergency tracheotomys back on the Sharpiegate thread, but let’s bring a little balance to the topic.

                      Add “burr holes” to the list in the first paragraph.

                      “Tracheotomy: Does TV Get it Right?”

                      by Editorial Staff | July 14, 2016 (Last Updated: October 1, 2018)

                      “We as a nation love medical dramas. It has to be a fact, as 91 shows related to the genre have been produced since 1951 in North America alone. What’s not to love? A fast-paced environment, strong characters and a little bit of health advice along the way! Except… with such popularity, a lot of writers seem to get their facts confused in order to instill a bit more drama in the story. Similar to other ill-informed portrayals of medical techniques (bad CPR, needle to the heart, using electroshock while flat lining, removing bullets, etc.) produced by Hollywood, a delicate procedure like a tracheotomy is often performed by the protagonist and without medical training (or with very little guidance). Of course, there have been plenty of doctors portrayed performing the procedures as well, but the ratio is a bit too even for our liking. Before we dive into depictions, what exactly is a tracheotomy?”

                      “While it’s certainly heroic and brings with it a good life-time feeling of saving a life, tracheotomies should be treated as a last resort in a dire situation and with medical staff guiding along or on their way. Because remember: tracheotomies add drama on TV, but add a lot more than you might bargain for in real life.”

                      (And the same goes for burr holes.)

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/05/trump-ridiculed-for-altered-hurricane-forecast/comment-page-4/#comment-1884107

                      The aforementioned comment is by Allan — a guy who watches a lot of TV, reads shit on the internet, and knows just enough to be dangerous…

                    11. “Allan was singing the praises of emergency tracheotomys …”

                      Take note that after being told what the conversation is all about you shift the discussion to tracheotomies. You can’t defend your position so you switch topics.

                      Take note what your expert says: tracheotomies should be treated as a last resort in a dire situation”

                      Dire situations like Richardson’s head injury who ended up brain dead after “almost 4 hours” is what the conversation was all about. No one, not even physicians want to perform such procedures when the circumstances aren’t optimal but will do so if the circumstances are dire. You can’t differentiate between life and death situations. That is your problem.

                      Take note how you complain about the number of postings. Have you counted the number of postings of yours in just a few hours. That shows that you project.

                    12. No, Allan…, you posted an old comment of yours and I did the same. In “AllanWorld” you may get to direct any and all discussions, but that’s not how it works here. You’re not “the decider” on JT’s blog.

                      As for those emergency tracheostomies — or cricothyroidotomies — here’s the link:

                      https://www.lung.org/about-us/blog/2016/07/tracheotomy-does-tv-get-right.html

                      (Sorry for the duplication, but let’s get this to the right spot.)

            2. “Regarding Richardson, you made a lot of stupid comments, lied and misquoted.”

              Allan really doesn’t understand “projection.”

              (Psst, Allan: You’re projecting. And now you’re running your big yap again.)

              1. Alan seems to be an extremely example of “the best defense is a good offense”.
                If he tries hard enough to call others liars, stupid, etc., he thinks it will cover up the fact that he is a moron and a liar.

                1. “extreme”, not extremely. Just in case Alan wants to start a pissing match over spelling, like he did earlier over a delayed posting of a comment that was submitted but not posted until about 10 minutes later.

                  1. Anonymous, you don’t learn from experience and that is why you are considered stupid. It was your excuse that was stupid.

                    1. “Hey, Jethro:”

                      Jethro is a Biblical figure and was was the father -in -law of Moses. He was a somebody. Anonymous is a nobody. Anonymous is one of those cowardly people afraid to live under an identifiable alias. He shoots his mouth off but seldom intelligently and seldom on topic. He complains (“See if you can run this thread past 1,000 comments, Jethro.”) about the number of posts from other people but hasn’t bothered to look that he dwarfs in numbers every other poster. He is a loser.

                    2. “Jethro is a Biblical figure and was was the father -in -law of Moses. He was a somebody. ” This is the Jethro with whom our boy Allan identifies, given Allan’s delusions of grandeur

                      This is the real Allan-Jethro…or Jethro Allan — the one who says: “I save dead people.”

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnVaSBoBt5s

                      By golly, Allan “is somebody.”

                    3. Anonymous, too dumb to stick to the subject?

                      “The transmissions from the paramedics on the ambulance are one piece of actual medical evidence we have that is documented at an exact time.”

                      So use the evidence you have from the transmissions to prove your case.

                      What we know that act as anchors is that:

                      1) priority 1 took “almost 4 hours” to get to a place where the facility was able to save the life.
                      2) a stop was made at an institution that could not save her life. That wastes time.
                      3) she was brain dead when she got to the hospital that would have been able to treat.
                      4) her Glasgow score provided a timeline for the mental status decline

                      Your claim is either 1)that there was no facility that could do a burr hole less than “almost 4 hours away” 2)the ambulance and hospital personal didn’t know she was dying 3)you believe a CAT scan is treatment.

                      Stick with 1) to 3) and make your argument.

                    4. I may not save people but Dr. Sun does:

                      Dr. Sun: “If she had gone to the hospital and a CT scan indicated that there was bleeding, her skull would have been opened to relieve pressure … Only then, would there have been a chance that she could pull through.”

                      A burr hole relieves pressure
                      She had a chance if the pressure were relieved.

                    5. Yes, you’re right, Allan. Dr. Sun does know, but you took a snippet out of context, because that’s just who you are.

                      Here’s the full quote:

                      “Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. She would have needed to be rushed into the hospital and into a CT scan in a matter of minutes, according to Dr. Sun.

                      “If she had gone to the hospital and a CT scan indicated that there was bleeding, her skull would have been opened to relieve pressure, and she would have been given medication to relieve the pressure in her brain,” he says.

                      Only then, would there have been a chance that she could pull through. [end quote]

                    6. I will interpret for you. The only thing to save her life was to relieve pressure in the brain. Nothing else was going to save her life.

                      The only question is how much time did she have left. She arrived at the first hospital and they sent her to the trauma hospital so even then they thought she had a chance to live.That is why I questioned the “almost 4 hours” before definitve treatment was provided.

                2. One of the disadvantages of posting as anonymous is you are never assumed as credible. What’s worse is your motivations are always considered to be less than the most despicable among us.

                  1. It depends on whether you’re influenced more by the content of a post, or its source.
                    For example, if you find yourself normally in agreement with the views of a liar and a fraud like Allan, you may find him “credible”.
                    His tactics don’t seem to matter very much for some people. The fact that he has maybe been given a pass on his lying and insults is no guarantee that he can continue to pull that crap unchallenged.
                    Whether he is challenged by someone calling himself “Joe Blow” or “anonymous” is beside the point.
                    Nor does some faceless guy calling himself “Allan” add any credibility to his trash talking.

                    1. If you believe that derogatory comments and lies coming from someone posting as “Allan” to be noteworthy or credible, that’s fine, Olly.
                      I don’t happen to agree for a variety of reasons, but everybody has their own “take” on how they perceive comments.

                    2. I respect Natacha, Hill, Anon1, Allan, George, FPR, mespo, DSS, Squeeky, Paul, Jim22, George, and every other contributor on this blog willing to commit their opinions under a unique pseudonym. I will not always agree with their opinions, but I will always respect the fact they are willing to own them. No one that isn’t willing to take unique ownership of their opinions deserves to be ill-considered.

                    3. “I agree with Anonymous @ 12:35 AM”

                      It looks like Fido has reappeared at her masters feet (anonymous).

                    4. I “own” the comments as soon as I submit them, Olly.
                      There are a couple of people that you mentioned that I do not respect, regardless of whether they used their actual full name, a username, or post as anonymous.
                      That goes back to the content and and especially the tactics that they use.
                      As an example, I don’t give any extra credit or credibility to the content and the tactics our resident self-proclaimed Con. Law expert, who constantly spews his nonsense here in these threads.
                      I would not find his comments any more noteworthy or worthy of respect no matter what name or username he used.
                      That is where we differ.

                    5. “I “own” the comments as soon as I submit them”

                      Anonymous, as soon as your comments are submitted they are owned by wordpress. The only defining thing a poster has is his individual identity or alias. One who doesn’t permit that individuality and hides is worth little more than a piece of dirt. The success of blogs such as this one is in great part based on honesty and integrity.

                      Content is not only based on a singular comment but frequently the context in which it is said which may involve many people and many comments and an understanding of prior comments made by that personality.

                    6. Olly,
                      About your question concerning Natacha and Mark M., I believe.
                      I’m not sure what your point is, but I have commented on their posts here.
                      I will add that I’ve had some things to say about YNOT as well.
                      The comments I’ve made were not complementary.
                      Since you say you respect those who post with a username other than anonymous, it would follow that you include those people in that category.
                      I could say that I respect someone whose primary purpose here is to be obnoxious and spew insults because of the fact that they have individual user names, but what’s the point in giving them respect for that, given their objectives here?
                      I mentioned that we have company this weekend, so my time is somewhat limited.
                      If it was your expectation that I engage in a pissing match with these other people in addition to the current pissing match that Allan started, I don’t have the time.

                  2. Olly,
                    I mean to add that while you may say that I’m “on the clock”, I won’t and can’t set my schedule around someone else’s timeline.
                    If you want to act as this site’s official timekeeper, I’ll need to see some credentials that you have that authority.

                3. Anonymous, you are a litterbug littering your trash everywhere possible on the blog. You are a liar and you are stupid. That is proven almost everytime you open your mouth. I reposted a more amiable posting from the past already. Why don’t you read it and see if you are smart enough to see your inadequacies.

                4. There are HUNDREDS of comments exchanged about the claim of “multiple failures” in the medical response to Richardson’s accident. HUNDREDS.
                  There are probably thousands of words produced by Allan in REPEATING parts of those exchanges. Quoting and cutting z
                  and pasting very large swaths of exchanges that have already been covered extensively, with Allan’s “explanation” of why he’s supposedly right.
                  I noted before that any sort of “debate” with him apt to devolve into an incredibly long, drawn out, “I’m Allan and I’ll keep repeating myself and I always have to have the first and last word”, even if it means running a thread up to over 800 comments.
                  As much as I enjoy wasting time on this sort of “debate”, the time ready wasted and the clear potential to waste lot more time with someone who weighs in on issues when be doesn’t know what he’s talking about, we havd company coming this weekend.
                  They are rational, logical, knowledgeable people, so discussing and debating issues with them is not a waste of time.
                  Maybe Allan can take up the slack by playing more reruns, reposting thousands more words from a previous exchange with hundreds of comments.
                  I don’t plan on answering the same set of questions or accusations that I already wasted time on, having gone over them multiple times already.

                  1. Anonymous, the pot calling the kettle black, the liar, and the chronic poster who posts quantity instead of quality makes his usual complaint. I already twice posted one of the comments I made in response to yours. Take note how you continue to run your mouth about the number of comments (You are the generator. I don’t even answer all of your comments) but never deals with the facts provided.

                    1. In Allan’s mind, he deals in
                      “quality”, not quantity.
                      When a lying gasbag like Allan makes a claim like that, it at least provides some comic relief.

              2. ” You’re projecting”

                I’ll post one of our more amiable exchanges where your stupidity existed because the same questions had been asked and answered earlier multiple times frequently showing up in one of the studies you or someone else contributed. You are between the quotes and I respond inbetween your comments. You can reevaluate your actions on this matter and since.

                “There are established guidelines dealing with responses to a variety of acute medical issues”

                If you like the term guidelines that is fine. It is a good term but guidelines coexist with systems that are in place. Systems aren’t necessarily created by medical professionals and even medical guidelines can be altered by non professionals.

                “Their assessment was that she he had suffered a concussion.”

                Yes, she suffered a concussion but did she also suffer a bleed?

                “The question then is “Should a concussion patient with her symptoms be immediately rushed to a distant hospital with a major trauma unit”? I don’t think that the guidelines call for that, at least in most areas.”

                That is what I call a system failure. The bleed is the real emergency whereas the concussion would be of much less urgency and more run of the mill. Did they know she wasn’t a routine problem? Should critical conditions be handled like routine problems? (I don’t think so.) We have to guess that they recognized this patient was more critical than the vast majority of patients they treat based on a troublesome Glasgow score, a deteriorating mental status, and ‘talk and die’. Did the system appropriately account for the most serious conditions? That is the issue under discussion.

                A bleed should always be in the back of the minds of medical professionals that recognize the urgency. You seem to believe that the only facility that could relieve the pressure of a bleed is a trauma center. That would mean that Canada had no closer facilities that could both do a CT and a burr hole and then transfer the patient to the trauma hospital buying the patient’s life a little extra time. Have you checked the possible facilities in that area? A closer facility to just drill the burr hole decreases the delay for that type of patient.

                This problem is not as uncommon as you believe. You should have recognized that when you posted the article on burr holes. They were discussing doing burr holes on the site so the patient wouldn’t die on the way to the hospital or the trauma hospital.

                Since they didn’t seem to have a system to separate the sickest from the rest I wonder if the system was created based solely on the odds. That is not the way medicine should be practiced. I think their system has already been changed to account for this type of system problem. I think they now use helicopters and that helps correct the failure I have been talking about.

                This posting of yours seems like an attempt to address the systems involved. It is the best effort to date by you but I think you drew a conclusion and then looked for things that satisfied the conclusion instead of maintaining an open mind drawing conclusions after you had more information.

                We have to recognize that Canada has a centralized system of medical care and that can lead to certain holes in treatment. The specific hole that occurred here might not occur in a more decentralized medical system. There are advantages and disadvantages and they have to do with the risks and benefits.

                The risk is loss of life the benefits have to do with preserving resources. Where on the line one places their emphasis is a societal decision.

                1. Glad to see that Allan left enough I reserve to deliver his weekend filibuster, mostly consisting of recycling his previous idiotic comments.
                  And the Gasbag Allan has a huge well of veribiage from his wordy garage dump to draw on.

                  1. I don’t know which type of of argument is easier to deal with. One that insults as you do or one that doesn’t know the difference between a diagnostic test and a treatment and incessantly repeats things over and over again proven to be wrong. I will remind you for the umpteenth time CAT Scans cannot cure a bleed in the brain just to provide an example.

                    I left out responding to other your posts because they are repetitious of all that came before and are worthless.

                  1. Like a bad penny.
                    I explained, MULTIPLE TIMES, that you do not drill holes into someone’s skull for what is thought to be concussion.
                    We know from Dr. Allan Blowhard that he would have immediately diagnosed a torn cranial artery withoug the benefit of CAT Scan, but in real life mere mortal medical professions can’t make diagnoses without Dr. Blowhard’s gift of 20/20 hindsight.
                    Virtually all if his stupid, worthless conjure, spanning over hundreds of comments, has been based on his 20/20 hindsight.
                    It was obviously a waste of time repeated trying to explain to AllanAlla meaning and significance of the word “contraindication”, and why “lack of imaging” is a major contraindication to performing burr hole surgery.
                    Of course ancient people sometimes drilled holes into the skulls of other people. That doesn’t have a damn thing to do with modern medicine obligations and requirements to practise modern medicine.
                    Nor does the isolated example Allan provided from exceptional case in a remote Australian area apply to the Richardson case.
                    Dr. Allan Blowhard confidently declared that there were “multiple failures” in the medical response to Richardson’s fall at a ski resort.
                    It was clear early on that he had no idea WTF he was talking about. So Allan, being Allan, scurries about over the course of hundreds of comments trying to back up his original baseless accusation with some of the dumbest arguments imaginable.
                    And yes, like a bad penny, he’ll just keep at it.

                    1. “I explained, MULTIPLE TIMES, that you do not drill holes into someone’s skull for what is thought to be concussion.”

                      You do if the bleed is killing them and that is what this discussion was all about. We are not discussing a simple concussion rather a person who arrived brain dead almost 4 hours later..

                      It is not a matter of diagnosis. It is a matter triage something you know little about. Separate the critical from those that will be better tomorrow. One of your prior answers was that maybe we should let those people die based solely on Dr. Death’s opinion that it wouldn’t be worth it to try and save her life because the injury was greater than 90 minutes earlier. Hindsight tells us how we might improve a system.

                      “lack of imaging” is a major contraindication to performing burr hole surgery.”

                      Again you are repeating the same stuff. Imaging is great but if not available and the patient is going to die you don’t send them for a CAT Scan where the treatment cannot be provided. I will bet there were multiple facilities where the burr holes could have been drilled less than almost 4 hours away. You prefer to waste time taking a patient that has a high risk of a bleed and death to a facility that can do not treatment for the problem rather than taking them to where the patient could be treated. In other words you prefer an inefficient death to life.

                      The patient that you say was in the middle of nowhere survived. The patient at a 5 star ski resort didn’t. That should tell you something but if you can’t comprehend the difference between a simple concussion and one who is rapidly deteriorating then there is no hope for you.

                      I previously gave you a list of multiple potential failures in this case. You didn’t bother to respond to those failures because I think the concept went over your head.

                      Aonymous, keep on insulting instead of bringing the discussion to the serious head trauma where the patient was dead in almost 4 hours after being made a priority1. At that time the patient may have arrived at a good hospital but it was too late to treat.

                    2. More ridiculous comments by ‘Allan’, who clearly isn’t a medical professional, but thinks he is.

                    3. Allan I’m-not-a-doctor is busy saving lives, one comment at a time, dontcha know. He lives in his own little world where things like risk, contraindications, and even a patient’s medical history and records, aren’t treatment factors.

                      http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/09/richardson.injury.timeline.gupta/index.html

                      “What Richardson couldn’t have known is that she suffered an epidural hematoma. It’s a condition where a blood clot forms between the skull and the outer layer of the brain. Too much pressure can cause brain damage and even death. Symptoms include dizziness, headaches and nausea.”

                      ‘”The person seems to be fine and walks it off, and that’s one of the problems with an injury such as this,” said Dr. Liam Durkan, a neurologist with the Montreal Neurology Institute. “Anytime there is any sort of process expanding in the skull, which is a closed space, once the symptoms are apparent, it can be a matter of 30 minutes to an hour to 90 minutes before there is a major deterioration.”‘

                      “Two hours after her initial fall, while Richardson was back in her hotel room, she was feeling the symptoms. The clock was ticking and she needed to get to a trauma center fast. With the closest trauma center 2½ hours away, time may have been running out on her. It’s recommended that anyone with an epidural hematoma get to the trauma center within 30-90 minutes.”

                      ‘”It is a rapidly deteriorating situation and the distance might have been just too much by ambulance, road ambulance or air ambulance. It’s difficult to say,” said Durkan, who did not treat Richardson. Depending on the severity of the injury at the time, he said, even helicopter services may have been too late.’

                      “No one can answer the question whether a helicopter service could have saved Richardson’s life. She refused services immediately after her fall, but with the clock ticking immediately after she felt symptoms from her injury, 2½ hours may have been too far away even if she’d gotten help immediately.”

                      Sorry, Allan, old boy, — even a burr hole wouldn’t have given her back her life. It was too late. In this particular case. Not everyone can be saved.

                    4. “Sorry, Allan, old boy, — even a burr hole wouldn’t have given her back her life. It was too late. In this particular case. Not everyone can be saved.”

                      Once again anonymous you are dealing with the wrong issue. I don’t know how many different issues you have discussed over this long series of postings, but the issue centered around “almost 4 hours” and whether or not the patient could have been treated at a facility in less than “almost 4 hours”.

                      The initial facility need not have been the final facility to complete whatever had to be done. It could have been a facility that would only do a stop-gap procedure to buy her more time, a burr hole.

                    5. “It was too late. In this particular case. Not everyone can be saved.””

                      This is another of your issues, not clearly mentioned here but mentioned earlier in several of your statements. Because it is recommended that treatment begin “within 30-90 minutes …” 90 minutes had occured before the priority1has been brought up you Dr. Death have concluded that the patient is dead.

                      Wrong.

                      Let us assume Richardson’s location was one minute from a trauma center and instead of “ almost 4 hours” it took her only two minutes to get there. You say “It was too late”. Not so. Her Glasgow score at that time was 12 so she could have lived. No certainty but a better chance.

                      From your article: “Anytime there is any sort of process expanding in the skull, which is a closed space, once the symptoms are apparent, it can be a matter of 30 minutes to an hour to 90 minutes before there is a major deterioration.”’

                      What would be a temporary solution to stop or slow the time process? A burr hole releases the pressure and gives the patient time.

                      That is the issue under discussion. Should she have first been transported to a facility that couldn’t treat wasting time arriving for treatment “almost 4 hours” when she was already brain dead or should her first stop have been to a facility that could buy her time or even do more?

                    6. “More ridiculous comments by ‘Allan’, who clearly isn’t a medical professional, but thinks he is.”

                      Anonymous, you keep mulling over the issue of whether or not I might be some type of medical professional. Anything is possible so you don’t know, but one has to ask themselves, did I say anything or use any logic that would be outside of the knowledge held by many people that read and are logical?

                      No.

                      It is your lack of logic and intellect that cause you to mishandle discussions of this nature. That causes your frustration which leads your mind to become closed and locked. No one can do much with such a problem which remains entirely yours.

                    7. Allan — who isn’t a a medical professional says, “Anonymous, you keep mulling over the issue of whether or not I might be some type of medical professional.”

                      ‘Mulling’? Nope. There’s not a doubt in my mind. Allan is definitely NOT a medical professional.

                    8. “‘Mulling’? Nope. There’s not a doubt in my mind. Allan is definitely NOT a medical professional.”

                      Who gives a sh-t what is on your mind. Your mind is an empty garbage heap that doesn’t demonstrate intellect or logic. That is why you had so much trouble with this discussion. Everything flew above your head. You were left generalizing and talking about patients that were going to be alive the next day, but couldn’t concentrate on those that would be dead unless managed in a more appropriate manner.

                      You don’t bother responding to what was actually written. You can’t, you lack intellect and logic. You are a loser.

                    9. “It is not a matter of diagnosis”.
                      This is one of Dr. Allan Blowhard’s more ridiculous statements.
                      He “knows”, with 20/ 20 hindsight, that Richardson suffered “a brain bleed”.
                      And like the idiot that he is, be assumes that what he now knows, in hindsight, was somehow immediately apparent to the paramedics and MDs who first assessed her.
                      There are reasons why correct diagnoses are important. There are reasons why one major contraindication to performing burr holes surgery is ” lack of imaging”.
                      There’s also a reason why diagnosis by a Monday Morning Quarterback doofus like Allan is not especially helpful in the real world.
                      There are probably hundreds of thousands of ER visits annually for head injuries. The vast majority of them will turn out to be concussions.
                      “Just in case”, or if “in the back of their minds”, it could be “a brain bleed”, do you immediately assume that in all cases, without a proper diagnosis, and perform burr hole surgery “just in case” for all concussions?
                      Best and probably the most realistic hope for success of Dr. Dr. Allan Blowhard’s method of practising medicine is to build a time machine, go back in time at the scene of every incidence of head injuries, and give them the benefit of what he learned in the future with 20/20 hindsight.

                    10. “He “knows”, with 20/ 20 hindsight, that Richardson suffered “a brain bleed”.”

                      No, based on the reports I know that Richardson was in serious condition (not a routine injury) and likely needed a more advanced facility quickly.

                      Anonymous keeps repeating himself but doesn’t address the need for a more rapid solution. Instead he talks about a proper diagnosis.

                      When a person is dying anonymous will talk you to death rather than think about changing his direction and saving the patient’s life.

        1. Allan,
          You’re dealing with those that have their truth; facts be damned. John Solomon’s investigative work should not stand on his interpretation of findings alone. That would be an example of confirmation bias, which is not what you and I and others accept. Instead, Solomon’s reporting should be the beginning point of fact finding. And if the facts don’t support Solomon’s reporting, then he should be challenged on that.

          I read the Shokin affidavit and it not only reflects corruption on Biden’s actions, but what’s not being discussed is the actions of people within the Obama administration. Shokin’s statement is not evidence to prove corruption, but it is strong evidence that contradicts everything being reported supporting Biden’s actions. An objective observer doesn’t wave off Shokin. No, an objective observer seeks facts that disproves or proves these serious allegations. I believe the Ukrainian government needs to provide facts that get to the truth.

          Here is a link to Shokin’s affidavit:
          https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

          1. “You’re dealing with those that have their truth; facts be damned.”

            Olly, don’t think my desire is to change Anon’s mind. His mind won’t change until the minds of many have changed because Anon is a follower, not a leader. I do this to show others how foolish Anon makes himself and perhaps they will think twice about drawing conclusions rashly like Anon, without evidence. That is why the MSM doesn’t want to show a lot of this because it would show how foolish the Democrats have been and normal people don’t like to be thought of as fools. People like Anon think very short term and figure tomorrow what he said today will be forgotten and he can start all over. It is never forgotten just like his prior alias Jan F. is never forgotten.

            Thanks for the link but I was linked there from Solomon’s article, just like Solomon said he would do despite the foolish words of Anon.

            I think there is enough information to believe that Joe Biden engaged in criminal conduct. I believe it is a matter of determining what criminal conduct has adequate proof for conviction and whether or not the US government wishes to go in that direction. I say this not based on the reports of other people rather based on Bidens own words. Those words are what will sink him because he took a dumb position too early in the game and his words make him look like a liar.

            I think he graduated from law school, Yale? His words demonstrate that whatever Yale was supposed to teach him wasn’t accomplished.

          2. Yeah Olly, Shokin was such a crusader and all of the EU and the IMF were working for Hunter Biden.

            “The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine’s scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country’s political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.

            Ukraine’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to fire Viktor Shokin, ridding the beleaguered prosecutor’s office of a figure who is accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and stymying moves to root out graft.

            “This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general’s office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office . . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust,” said Jan Tombinski, the EU’s envoy to Ukraine.

            “There is still a lack of tangible results of investigations into serious cases . . . as well as investigations of high-level officials within the prosecutor general’s office,” he added.

            Mr Tombinski said the EU was also concerned about the resignation or dismissal of several “reform-oriented” prosecutors and reports that Mr Shokin’s office was investigating a “highly-respected” anti-corruption group – an obvious reference to Kiev’s Anti-Corruption Action Centre, which had fiercely criticised Mr Shokin.

            In what appeared to be his last act before dismissal, Mr Shokin sacked his deputy, Davit Sakvarelidze, who had repeatedly called for his boss to be fired.

            Mr Sakvarelidze, a Georgian who was also chief prosecutor in the Odessa region, said his dismissal by Mr Shokin was part of “a cleansing of people who are prepared every day to fight corruption and the old guard without compromise”.

            https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

            1. Anon, One has to recognize that all newspapers have their spin. The Ukraine is not following the EU’s bidding in the way the EU would like and Ukraine thought the EU should be doing more for them than they do. I don’t think The EU nations are treating the Soviet threat the way it should be treated, but apparently the EU and Obama felt differently and no satisfactory aid was forthcoming to Ukraine when the Russians were moving westward.

              I don’t know a lot about Shokin but he seems to be a nationalist favoring Ukraine rather than kissing the butts of EU members. I suspect Shokin is reasonably honest, but I would have to look at details. There is no doubt Ukraine was corrupt but did the corruption come from Shokin or the one that preceded him? Take note, the Irish Times didn’t make anything clear about what was bad about Shokin except in generalities that are meaningless. They did say he was fired but I think he voluntarily resigned. That would make anyone question anything that was written in the article.

      4. As far as the actual content of Anon’s remarks, I don’t see that there is much of any. He generalizes but apparently is unable to comprehend the written words so he believes generalizations based on nothing are strong arguments in his favor. They are not.

        Take note, that Solomon doesn’t provide conclusions rather only asks questions. I haven’t said Biden is guilty either, I feel he is but to date I don’t even know if what I think he did is criminal or not. Our conclusions come with the evidence. Anon’s conclusions come before any evidence is brought to the table.

        Anon has proven that his word has little meaning and most of the meaning represents his efforts to demonstrate what he wishes to be true rather than what is true. By now I think everyone realizes that.

    3. This is a “comments” section not a tome, “The World According to Allan,” library. A simple link would do nicely. Great idea: You set up your own blog site and people can flock there for your inimitable and interminable insights.

      1. George,
        Now why would Alan want to set up his own blog when he can write thousands of words here daily and show off the workings of that giant brain of his?

Leave a Reply