I agree with much of what is written in the
initial posting by Matthew in this
topic. I originally drafted this reply as congratulations, until I discovered that as Ladislaus has claimed, he was already "connecting dots"
2 months ago.
So I'm very disappointed to see so many things
wrong with that
initial posting. Especially unidentified
insertions in the posting that don't appear in the PDF file (at the link already given above). Also the continual changes in
text style, e.g., in
font family (e.g.,
sans-serif vs.
serifed), font size, and even font color [†], that I'm
puzzled by
exactly who wrote what. It seems to be an unidentified person's commentary on another unidentified person's commentary (on maybe yet another unidentified person's commentary), where "SJ" is only 1 of them, on the "original unedited manuscript" by "Harvey A
Risch" [
*].
Right
after the full title of the paper (which was bolded or enlarged as is quite reasonable to capture attention for a headline or the title of a published paper), I see this: "Below,
I have selected the most significant items from the study to save readers from having to peruse the entire study."
Huh? Who's "
I"? It's typically
not the author of a paper who's trying to "save readers from having to peruse
[his] entire study". Despite appearing immediately after the title, it's understandably
not in the PDF. Well,
Hey-yell! That title
should have been the start of
Risch' own words,
uninterrupted by any undistinguished insertions of text by some unidentified
meddler. Let's keep in mind that Risch is the only medical professional who's identified in
any of the uncertain number of levels of commentary that I've inferred.
In particular, I object to unexplained instances of "
--SJ" here and there. Those 2 letters do
not appear as a discrete (character) string
anywhere in the full-content PDF by Risch. That's really no surprise, because they're obviously
not the initials of Risch, who is the only author of the cited study. Yet "
SJ" dispenses
medical advice plus political opinions. Most troubling was this: "Isolation,
masks, contact tracing and a vaccine are
unnecessary for these people" [×]. Those are
not the words of Risch, because they do
not appear in the PDF file: "The great majority of infected people are at low risk for progression or will manifest the infection asymptomatically
♦. For the rest, outpatient treatment is required that prevents disease progression and hospitalization" (p. 4) (to provide context, I've inserted a red diamond where the comment was inserted by "SJ"). So in its context, "SJ" is unmistakably claiming that "
masks [...] are
unnecessary" for "
infected people"! I tried Evil Google's
advanced search; altho' it
does find text from those puzzling insertions by "SJ", it finds them
only in the
CathInfo posting by Matthew, and
nowhere else on the Web.
I fear that many readers, off their guards because of the tiring length of an
initial posting excerpted from a
29-page docuмent [
#], then lengthened by unidentified comments, and the smoothly effective placement of the "SJ" comment, will remember not only the words of Risch, but also the comment by "SJ", as if Risch had written both sets of words. I realize that "SJ" followed a custom (albeit narrowly interpreted) for using parentheses to enclose embedded commentary, but it's a great example of embedded commentary that's likely to cause confusion for some readers, and so should have been stashed out of the way, in a
footnote. I'm left quite confused: What the
[expletive deleted] is really going on in that posting?
To help readers get a start on making sense of it all, especially who's written what, I
request that
Matthew, as soon as he can reasonably squeze it into his & his household's
real life, provide either
links, or more-or-less complete citations, for
each source of words [‡] in his posting, which seems to have intermixed at least 2 levels of commentary by
unidentified writers (if not 3 or 4 levels). It's unfair to readers to obscure who's written what, thus making it difficult or impossible to figure out which words were written by someone
qualified to give
medical advice, and which words were
not.
-------
Note
*: "Dr. Harvey A.
Risch (
no ‘
t’), Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, [....] New Haven, CT". As released by Oxford U. Press (OUP) as a PDF file without any
pay-wall.
Note †: I recognize the proverb
"de gustibus non disputandum", but the
excessive use (arguably an understatement) of
bright red oversized fonts seems to cause
physical pain to my senior eyes, whereas other colors, notably blue and moderate RGB shades of green, simply do
not. And the
brightness of my monitor is set so that the white background is
not bright white, but instead, what photographic printers might call a
clean barely-off white.
Note ×: I
strongly disagree with that particular
de facto medical advice from "SJ"; the mask is not for the benefit of the
wearer, but instead for the benefit of possibly much more
vulnerable people
around the wearer, as might be recalled from a reply in another
topic nearly 3 weeks ago: ‘AlligatorDicax’: "Re: To wear a mask or Not to wear a mask. Reply #82 on May 15, 2020 at 20:00:02". <
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/to-wear-a-mask-or-not-to-wear-a-mask/msg699432/#msg699432>.
Note
#: Even tho' it's double-spaced (as is common for manuscripts), won't 29 pages of a medical paper, free from comments by unidentified people, be enough homework & PDF eye-strain for even the most studious of
CathInfo readers? Why should we care about reading text inserted by unidentified people, about whose medical qualifications we have been provided not even a clue.
Note ‡: I did my
due diligence, using
CathInfo-privileged Google, e.g., an insertion by "SJ": ‘this exact word or phrase:’ "Isolation, masks, contact tracing and a vaccine are unnecessary for these people"; ‘site or domain:’ blank (i.e., no restrictions). <
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=Isolation%2C+masks%2C+contact+tracing+and+a+vaccine+are+unnecessary+for+these+people&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=lang_en&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=>.
Topic: HCQ is CURE for COVID-19 - read all about it! (Read 1276 times)