Lurker > Suprak the Stud

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/politics/donald-trump-bump-stocks/index.html

Holy shit I wasn't expecting anything to be done at all.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The Mana Sword posted...

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/965785407077212161

oh well indeed

Life comes at you fast.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

HaRRicH posted...

Eddv posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/john-kasich-website-second-amendment/index.html

Kasich silently seems to have turned the corner on supporting more gun control this weekend

This is actually really important especially since with the high likelihood that the Trump Presidency implodes he would be the only Republican not hit by it.

I have yet to see Republicans actually want Kasich though. He was getting, what, 16% or so of 2016's primary votes when it was just a three-way against Trump and Cruz...? It wasn't impressive and I don't know how much Kasich's improved his profile among them. I'm sure being not-Trump matters, but I don't see where Kasich gets that boost over the likes of Cruz yet...and if there's another Trump-like candidate, I don't know that he really gets hurts enough for being like Trump for Kasich to keep it close.

I mean, hopefully Kasich can do well -- he was my favorite Republican from 2016 -- but also that's kind of his problem among Republicans.

Anything could change in a big way if the implosion truly happens, granted. I'm just cautious to say he gets that boost with the "I told you so" card.

^

The reasons we're like "wow this guy is much more qualified than Trump" are the same reasons he never, ever is going to get the nomination. Republicans had a choice of Trump or Kasich last year and Kasich got absolutely demolished.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I just finished watching it and it is totally just The Soup again which is exactly what I wanted. It's good.

^

Yeah, cringe is not the word I'd use to describe it unless you also hated The Soup.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Swamp is trash tier world so do that one last. Not particularly hard, but just poorly designed.

Other than that order doesnt matter!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

We are never going to have a constructive debate about gun control until the Left acknowledges that Congress has to take this to an amendment vote

Why? We dont do this for most things that circumvent the letter of the Constitution

I can't think of a single other hot button issue that is directly spelled out in the Constitution, but debate rages anyway.

I am actually not sure where I stand on gun control, to be 100% honest. Part of me is against it (I've grown up with guns and I think my dad was taking me to the firing range by the time I was ten), but I at least understand the argument for it.

BUT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We have laws limiting almost all of those thing.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

We already have laws in place regarding the right to bear arms (I can't own weaponized flu strains because I want them). You can't even buy automatic weapons legally. So I am confused why, if the left wants to push it to "slightly more restricted" people on the right suddenly go "whoa what about the constitution buddy" as if we don't ALREADY have laws limiting the vast majority of the amendments in the constitution.

Is the ban on automatic weapons tyranny? I see very few on the right arguing in favor of reversing the ban on this sort of thing (which, honestly, good, I'm not criticizing them and think this is a sensible approach). But then when the left tries to do anything and the right goes "but muh constitution says..." it feels disingenuous. A better argument would be "I think the restrictions we have in place are now enough and do not want to go any further for x,y,z reasons".
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Sorry but I really dislike Obama's Presidential Portrait:

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180212113953-special-cut-barack-obama-portrait-exlarge-169.jpg

Oh wait this is real?
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/962348831789797381

Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?

LOL he went there.

This is the same guy that wants to eliminate due process for terrorism suspects and wants police to be rougher when they arrest people.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/why-trump-doubled-down-on-the-central-park-five.html?referer=https://www.google.com/


---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

dowolf posted...

Yeah... Like, unless Pence stood for every anthem accept this one, it's very much a "whatever."

^

As far as I know, Pence didn't stand for any other anthem, so it wasn't like he was taking a stance here.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

39. Finish a game in one day

Type:Rider

This was a PS+ freebie awhile back and I still feel like I paid too much. Its a game about the history of typography and that sentence still isnt boring enough to indicate how boring it is. Its like reading five Wikipedia articles on how Times New Roman and Didot came into being. Oh and the controls are butt too. You play as a colon (!) and if either ball is touching the ground that ball will jump when you hit the jump button. It leads to the controls being a mess because you can never predict how exactly your colon is going to jump unless its on perfectly even ground. Bad. Very bad, not good, no fun. BOOOO.

But it takes like an hour to finish so theres that.

Completed: 2/50
Categories finished: #9, #39
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

StealThisSheen posted...

Trump isn't releasing the Dem memo

Who is surprised

Anyone?

Bueller?

link doesnt work :(

*Iago heart attack from not surprise gif inserted here*
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Eddv posted...

Kenri posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/politics/kfile-north-dakota-senate-candidate-radio-interview/index.html

...sigh

Honestly though his excuses are pretty fuckin' clever, Donald could learn something from him.

Emineth also defended other posts revealed by CNN's KFile, including calling former President Barack Obama a "POS" when sharing an article. Emineth claimed he did not know "POS" was a common acronym for "piece of shit."

"You know what POS stands for in my world? I'm in the grocery business -- point of sale. It's the cash register," Emineth said.

That Barack Obama - what a cash register!

I think what he was saying is that he MEANT to type POTUS but it autocorrected to POS because of how often he uses it.

I think.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-jr-real-racism-rappers_us_5a78fadae4b00f94fe943738

Sorry for the HuffPo link but their quotes are sourced by a video

Don Jr is incredibly incredibly ignorant

Thats the kindest way I can say it

"Some of the guys my dad takes photos with are black!"
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

"Do humans have two cells?"

*looks at PhD on wall*

"No, no that can't be right. But I'm close!"
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Mayonesa posted...

A kid has the ability to control other's speech patterns, and wastes the talent on his dad.

Liar Liar?
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

neonreaper posted...

Disagree heavily about replacing Brady. You dont have to think hes the GOAT - I dont care about those arguments - but you couldnt just swap someone else in. What does he do that makes you think he could win so much with a different QB? Please avoid half time adjustments without really discussing the actual adjustments and giving him credit for what Patricia dialed up etc

Again, and perhaps I'm not articulating my argument well enough, is that you can't just swap "someone else" in. He's a top five QB of his generation, without question. BUT he isn't the definitive number one QB and there are a handful of other players that the Patriots would have been just as good with. And even with someone like Stafford or, hell, Foles, the Patriots would have been able to put together multiple Super Bowl runs.

Belichick is effectively coach and GM at this point, and that's where is true genius is. He is so damn good at putting together a team, and then executing a game plan with the pieces he has that it is unparalleled in the sport. I have a lot of Patriots fan friends, and I always think they overvalue Brady and undervalue Belichick. "Halftime adjustments" aren't even the best thing he does, although he probably does it better than any coach ever (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-patriots-defense-needs- (space) 30-minutes-to-figure-out-how-to-beat-you/ - that's just this year. He's been doing this for decades now without Patricia so I'm not inclined to give him any credit yet. I've seen what happens when coordinators leave Belichick and I have no reason to think the exact same thing won't happen to Patricia without Belichick there to guide him.)

He is a phenomenal coach, and there are maybe two in the past forty years that even come close to him in terms of what he has done for that franchise. I mean, big credit is due to the rest of the Patriots organization too for getting out of the way and letting him do what he wants to do, because that is where a lot of organizations falter.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Did you play Super Mario Odyssey/BotW and what did you think of them?

This is basically my top five "games I want to play from 2017 that I haven't gotten around to yet" list, so unfortunately I can't comment on anything posted beyond that :(
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/960492998734868480

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/960530665702912000

*thinking face emoji*
*thinking face emoji*
*thinking face emoji*
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

KingButz posted...

Brady is the undeniable best value. He is underpaid for his talent.

They can't afford to replace him with a better QB

^

This too.

Combine that with the fact that, except for in my hypothetical, the Patriots can't just go out and get Brees or go out and get Rodgers (or even go out and get someone "good" but not great like Matt Stafford) because they don't just become available, and it makes sense why the Patriots would just stick with the really, really good guy they already have.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Well, you can't just replace a QB like Brady with one of the other pieces. Players like Brees and Rodgers don't just become available (except for that one time he did, I guess >_>). Brady has been a top five QB in the league for almost two decades now, so obviously you want to hold on to that as long as you can. He's probably in the top 30 QBs of all time (arguably higher - but I think literally everyone would at least agree to that). It's the most important position on the team and he's really, really good.

But he can be replaced. Matt Cassel got them to 11-5.

I thought you could've put Garoppolo in there and the Patriots would not regress much at all, but then they chased his away. Might be the first real big mistake of the Belichick years depending on how that plays out (unless he is planning to retire when Brady does, which I hope not because I desperately want to see Belichick minus Brady for at least a couple of years so I can have some real data that supports or refutes my argument).
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Like take Manning (or Luck) out of Indy for a year and what happens? An unimaginable dumpster fire of terrible. That franchise has built respectability the past couple decades on the backs of two incredible QBs with little else around them. That's an example of a team that literally can't function without its QB.

NE is just a fantastic team, and has been for almost TWENTY YEARS. That has way more to do with Belichick than it does with Brady. Brady is a fantastic cog in the system and an undeniably great talent. But he can and will be replaced and the machine will keep running. You can't swap out the machine entirely and expect the same results.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

SmartMuffin posted...

Obviously Brady is very good, but tell me he gets swapped out for Manning, Brees, Rodgers, etc and the Patriots have likely almost just as many Super Bowls.

I generally agree with your thesis, but I also feel like Brady has had a much longer window of pretty damn good play than any of those other guys.

Maybe you argue that Peyton lasts longer if he's protected by the Pats O-line? But Brady has been doing this for a lot longer than Brees and Rodgers, and doesn't currently show any signs of falling off any faster than they are.

I mean, that's definitely a fair point. Of all of Brady's impressive attributes, far and away his most impressive is his longevity. Part of this is certainly due to his style of play, but I still give Belichick credit for part of this as his scheme and o-line construction are almost always incredible, both of which leads to Brady not taking as many hits as he could.

Manning got absolutely killed year after year in Indy because they couldn't build anything close to what the Patriots had.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Belichick is likely a top three coach of all time. The fact his coaching tree is awful makes it all the more impressive.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

neonreaper posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I'm also not saying "Tom Brady is a bum replace him with Matt Cassel and nothing changes!"

I'm saying "Tom Brady is very good but there are other comparable players in the league even during the time he was active, and swap in someone like Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees and I doubt anything would change."

Meanwhile there is absolutely no one I would even consider near Belichick's level. There is no comparable person I'd say "oh, yeah, if person x had built the Patriots around Brady instead of Belichick I bet they'd have also been a dynasty too."

You need both for the dynasty, to have a multi-decade run like this, you need both the best coach and the best QB.

Belichick nails a few things... he changes the Pats systems every few years so they don't have to overpay for the level of quality he wants. If everyone runs the 3-4, he switches to the 4-3 (not always.) He also values versatility, which helps sub packages, which means they don't usually get caught the same way other teams do. He also kept away from drives that ended in long field goal attempts, because they tended to yield the same average field position as turnovers. That has changed a little bit, but, for a while a lot of coaches would be happy to drive 45 yards and try a long FG. Remember the old 'blame the kicker' mentality, but Belichick would rather blame the coach.

They also understand that the success of the offense relies on the success of the QB. That sounds obvious, but many teams just try to get a good QB and good WRs and a good OC, and don't really play to everyone's strengths. Almost every NFL QB is a good QB, and a few are great. But how many offenses are truly cohesive?

Who would I pick? Falcons were up 28-3 and the players were explicitly afraid of Tom Brady beating them. And Brady by far had a better 2017 than Billy Billy.

The Patriots came back not because oh Tom Brady remembered he was good but because Belichick is literally the best second half adjuster of all time. Again, Im not even convinced Brady is the best quarterback of his era, while Belichick unquestionable is the best coach.

Name QBs as almost good or better than Brady while he was playing and I could rattle off a decent list.

Name coaches almost as good or better than Belichick while he was coaching and no one even comes close.

Obviously Brady is very good, but tell me he gets swapped out for Manning, Brees, Rodgers, etc and the Patriots have likely almost just as many Super Bowls.

Say Belichick gets swapped out for literally any coach you want to name I dont care who at the beginning and they are responsible for the team building around Brady and they likely have zero.

Brady is not a transcendent player. Belichick is a transcendent coach. Its sort of the opposite of Green Bays situation, where I think almost any other coach in the league right now could get more out of Rodgers than what theyre currently getting.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Paratroopa1 posted...

Philadelphia's not long-suffering either, Phillies won in 2008

Sorry, long suffering sports fandom.

I think the Cubs 100 year drought and the Eagles never winning it qualifies as long suffering, regardless of how the other teams in the city were doing.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

WiggumFan267 posted...

https://twitter.com/SportingBecky/status/960392723197915136
https://twitter.com/bataviasbest/status/960381561760870402
https://twitter.com/eggmenendez/status/960376471205359621
https://twitter.com/TravusHertl/status/960384121489956864
https://twitter.com/albanyculiacan/status/960417548280979457
https://twitter.com/ForeverGreen_/status/960376413994930176
https://twitter.com/khanali217/status/960363257637822465
https://twitter.com/bataviasbest/status/960387758408785920

this is just the tip of the absolute wanton destruction, violence, pestilence, rioting, etc Philadelphia is going through tonight.

In MASSIVE numbers, and to a really staggering degree. Like I know y'all are gonna say a lot of cities do this, but I don't think they're THIS bad. And THIS many people. All of whom are encouraging and proud of it. But all of this, combined with all of the old usual Philly shit makes them completely indefensible from now until the end of time. No longer do 'oh the media overblows it' or 'well every fanbase has some bad eggs, its just some bad people' or 'most philly fans are good people, really!'

Like this is truly disgraceful. Other fanbases are not THIS bad. I'm sorry that people like lefty and such have to get rolled up into this by virtue of supporting, but there's truly such a giganticly higher proportion of destruction lunatic assholes in the Philadelphia fanbase than any other one. Period. Forever. Indefensibly. These people don't deserve a championship if this is how they react to it.

yeah I'm biased but I think this is fair here. Let me know if you think I'm wrong- other fanbases that riot, literally loot, start fires, roll cars, etc... do other ones do it THIS much? like something outside of a single act or two. This is rampant.

Heres two other big, long suffering cities in recent years:

http://fox8.com/2016/06/19/cleveland-curse-broken-cavs-make-history-with-nba-championship-title/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-a-whole-lot-of-partying-but-few-problems-after-cubs-victory-20161103-story.html

So Id say Philly is winning the wanton destruction race so far!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I'm also not saying "Tom Brady is a bum replace him with Matt Cassel and nothing changes!"

I'm saying "Tom Brady is very good but there are other comparable players in the league even during the time he was active, and swap in someone like Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees and I doubt anything would change."

Meanwhile there is absolutely no one I would even consider near Belichick's level. There is no comparable person I'd say "oh, yeah, if person x had built the Patriots around Brady instead of Belichick I bet they'd have also been a dynasty too."
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

They also beat the NFC representative for the Super Bowl that year 47-7.

So they were quite good. They were 1 win away from the 2 seed, and 2 wins from the 1.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I also think if Brady doesn't chase away Garoppolo you are sitting pretty for another 5+ years easy until Belichick retires.

ALSO has there been one good coordinator that came out of the Patriots system and been good for another pro team? There are so many teams where they lose an important coordinator and then they just kind of are a step back the next year. Not the Patriots. They lose coordinators, the coordinators go elsewhere and do very little, but the Patriots keep rolling. Because Belichick runs everything, and is the dominating force behind the Patriots.

He's like top three coach, all time.

Brady is top three quarterback during the years he was active, most years.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

MZero11 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Personally, I think Brady is a very good quarterback, but Belichick is a legendary, once in a generation coach.

I think Pats will still be routine contenders for 5-10 years after Brady retires as long as Belichick is still coaching at full capacity. I'd say he's more responsible for the Pats success than Brady, so I don't expect any sort of NFC dominance until at least after he retires.

I disagree. We've seen Belichick without Brady and it's not pretty. He had a losing record with the Browns and only made the playoffs once. Went 5-11 the year before Brady started and 11-5 with Brady and won the Super Bowl. The only year Brady missed (2008) they also missed the playoffs. So as a Head Coach he has made the playoffs once in seven seasons without Brady.

Not to say Bill isn't great or that Tom would be as successful without him, but they really work well together and I doubt either one dominates alone

>_>

The year they missed the playoff they went 11-5.

With Matt Cassel.

They missed the playoffs, but they are the only 11 win team since the expansion of the playoffs to miss with 11 wins. It wasn't like he was some bum coach that didn't know what to do without Brady. And yeah, Belichick was bad with the Browns, but that was because they didn't let him build the entire organization like he did with the Patriots. He has a hand in everything with the Patriots.

There are probably five QBs in the league right now that you could swap out for Brady during this run and they'd be just as impressive. Hell, I'm not 100% positive Brady was ever the best QB in the league at any point during his career. Like swap out Brady with Manning in his prime, Rodgers, Brees, do you really think the Patriots don't have almost the same number of titles? Swap out Belichick with any other coach and I don't think the Patriots have a dynasty, because no one else in modern football can build a team like he does. Brady's obviously elite, but not the same way Belichick is ELITE. He's an all time great coach, while Brady is just a very good QB.

I kind of wish Brady would've retired a couple of years ago, so we could've gotten to see several years of still in his coaching prime Belichick without him. I think that would have settled this debate. To me, Belichick is an irreplaceable peace of the dynasty, while there are a handful of names that are active now or recently at QB where I could think, "yeah, the Pats would've been 100% fine with him too".
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Yeah, I'd give him another 5-10 years, tops.

And then the Patriots will immediately fade back into the irrelevance from which they came.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Personally, I think Brady is a very good quarterback, but Belichick is a legendary, once in a generation coach.

I think Pats will still be routine contenders for 5-10 years after Brady retires as long as Belichick is still coaching at full capacity. I'd say he's more responsible for the Pats success than Brady, so I don't expect any sort of NFC dominance until at least after he retires.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

FFDragon posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

the Bears are cursed to be one of the NFL laughing stocks until the end of time.

As long as the Browns exist, the Bears will still fail at being failures.

You can't out fail the Browns, this is true.

Browns are like a limping puppy, the team everyone knows is going to lose but people feel bad for and want to cuddle.

Bears are like a rabid raccoon. They're bad and, sure, they could beat the puppy, but the lovability isn't there and you know they're about ten minutes from just rolling over and dying anyway.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Shadow Dino posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

tazzyboyishere posted...

Next yer the bears will somehow stumble into the Super Bowl, count on it.

The Bears will never be good again.

Its Chicagos punishment for the Jordan Bulls.

Cubs winning the World Series ate up any remaining sports pity capital the city of Chicago had left.

.

Oh, I'm not complaining.

Jordan Bulls. Kane/Toews Hawks. White Sox had one of the best post seasons ever. Cubs just broke a 100 year drought.

It's just that, because of this, the Bears are cursed to be one of the NFL laughing stocks until the end of time.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

tazzyboyishere posted...

Next yer the bears will somehow stumble into the Super Bowl, count on it.

The Bears will never be good again.

Its Chicagos punishment for the Jordan Bulls.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Disaster Artist
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Divinity
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

disaster artist
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Tough choice.

Gambit
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Baby Driver
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The reason you probably won't see stuff like this until clinical trials or the drug is on the market is because for FDA approval you need to test it in a mammalian model-- typically a mouse. You might test it in 100 mice with varying efficacy, but each mouse is on the same background (ie tightly regulated and controlled so that their genome is close to identical, think of a family from the UK vs a family from Thailand).

This is grossly untrue, or at least phrased completely incorrectly.

http://www.fdareview.org/03_drug_development.php

To get FDA approval is very tough, especially today. There are absolutely no drugs that hit the market tested only on mice.

Any drug that has FDA approval is tested on humans for YEARS before it can hit the market. Preclinical trials are conducted on animals, sure, but clinical trials are done on humans through multiple phases testing toxicity, efficacy, long term exposure, etc. The only time this is fast tracked at all is if it is considered a life saving medicine of urgent importance (i.e. this is a drug that shows promise in treating terminal cancer patients or something of those lines.)

Seeing things after they hit the market is incredibly rare, almost unheard of in modern studies and is usually the result of gross negligance if it does happen.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I would need to see a peer reviewed article about "single time gluten ingestion leading to depression" because uh that sounds very not true.

Gluten "poisoning" you as a whole has been greatly overhyped by the pseudo nutritionists.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

That being said the overall benefit of Tamiflu seems relatively minor and thus there are some valid questions about whether or not it really needs to be prescribes except for in at risk populations. It does show a reduction in length and severity in symptoms at a high confidence interval, but at the same time it seems unnecessary overall unless someone is suffering from a particular significant bout of the flu.

EDIT: Here is the best, most recent meta analysis I read in regards to Tamiflu, for the curious. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62449-1/abstract
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Gatarix posted...

Well then I tentatively withdraw my buy.

I am UNDECIDED. How about that.

Nothing they said was regarding the specific "dangers" of Tamiflu!

Tamiflu is safe. It has gone through extensive testing. Side effects are rare and mostly minor. All drugs have some side effects. If your doctor prescribes Tamiflu, there is probably a good reason so please listen to years of research and medical advice over "one grieving family desperately trying to make sense out of a tragic situation".
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

OliviaTremor posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

The brain simply doesn't work like that, anyway. You're not gonna go from "Never a depressed thought" to suicide after two doses of anything.

Oh oh! I'm a PhD candidate in neuroscience who has taught graduate level drug discovery courses and feel qualified in telling you that you are incredibly incorrect! Yay!

Whoa! High five. I just finished my PhD in molecular biology and now am working in a lab handling clinical samples.

I didn't know there were other science PhDs on here.

(Good luck!)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

That is to say, there is a reason you're reading about this from some local fox affiliate and not Science or Nature or NEJM.

And it isn't because a big ol' truck of Tamiflu money pulled up to literally buy off every single medical researcher that had anything to do with its 10+ year approva/usagel process.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."