Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Adam" video.

  1. Dr. Abramson talked about the attempt to suppress the release of data on Lex Fridman's YT program. Hearing a doctor who supports vaccination talk about this, and about big pharma, is eye-opening all right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and everywhere else.
    2
  2. They get rich.
    2
  3. Suits over this have already been filed in the US. The manufacturer has no liability, but doctors are responsible for their own malpractice. One woman with GBS was sent home three times with anxiety medication. GBS is not an expected reaction, by the way. It is rare, but they should have thought of it before the fourth time she got to the emergency room.
    2
  4. Sheer negligence, with a brand-new drug -- and a vaccine on top of it, which is given to the perfectly well.
    1
  5. I had read of a study where as many as 49% of visits to ER for heart-attack related symptoms were for panic disorder. The article at the time, from a Harvard publication (Harvard Heart Letter or Harvard Health Letter, I don't remember), was immensely compassionate, and urged everyone to go to ER and rule out the heart. No responsible doctor would ever diagnose any emotional illness without first excluding a physical one. I've known psychiatrists who declined to diagnose and treat for anxiety before being satisfied a heart issue had been excluded. Not to mention that both together are not exactly rare, and the psychiatrist needs to know that.
    1
  6. BTW, are you a doctor?
    1
  7. You fell for the pseudoscience. Lovely. You're as good as the doctors in this picture.
    1
  8. How would the defense introduce this "evidence?" With expert testimony? In the US, expert witness testimony on the credibility of a witness is inadmissible, because it is an attempt to substitute the opinion of a paid expert for that of the jury, which is the sole entity charged with making witness credibility determinations. But you stick to those videos. And be sure to spread the word.
    1
  9.  @frogsong100  You know nothing about evidence. An "expert analysis" of this video for indicia of lying is INADMISSIBLE, on several grounds, not just one. A plaintiff gets to testify. A jury can scrutinuze him then. Those "experts" are putting on a show. Do you ever remember all the stuff they get wrong? No. 🤣
    1
  10.  @frogsong100  The really funny part is that you think you're an expert and accurately assessed this guy because you watch their show. Too bad idiots like me fail to appreciate your skills. 🤣
    1
  11.  @frogsong100  As evidence that he's lying? Based on analysis of body language, facial expressions, vocal quality, etc.? Of course they are not admissible for that purpose. Yes I am a lawyer. Isn't that obvious? But this is common sense. If you thought about it, you'd know yourself.
    1
  12.  @frogsong100  For the purpose of demonstrating that he lied, based on his affect? No. It is not admissible. What I don't understand is how anyone can think so. You think you know this, because you had myocarditis and your symptoms were different? This is why neither side would permit you to sit on the jury. This is news to you? I can't believe it.
    1
  13.  @frogsong100  You know what? Believe what you want. This is a lost cause, I've known for a long time.
    1
  14.  @frogsong100  Wait, I have an idea. Find a lawyer who will tell you you're right. This is 2022; trust me, you can.
    1
  15.  @frogsong100  I see. You can diagnose based on a video, when a doctor could not and would not. You are a better doctor than a doctor, a better lawyer than a lawyer, and YouTube entertainers taught you how to spot a liar. What happened to people? I'd be worried in your position. P. S. Blocked from my notifications.
    1