So in 1 breath you say I'm wrong.

In your next breath you admit to my statement being right.

Sometimes arguing just to argue is counterproductive.

 

There is a difference between a statement that can be given with absolute certainty vs a more general statement that says the technology to save someone with a certain type of wound did not exist 5 years ago. I don't think anyone was suggesting that medical advancements are guaranteed to save someone or that without the medical advancements a person is guaranteed to die. However it can generally be said that medical advancements now save people from wounds that would have caused death prior to said medical advancements. Anecdotal cases do not really serve to disprove a broad statement about medical advancements.

Sometimes arguing just to argue is counterproductive.

So are you conceding? You obviously weren't able to come up with a counter argument and instead decided to promote a movie.

Clearly you are wrong about arguing to argue for the sake of arguing.   

So in 1 breath you say I'm wrong.

In your next breath you admit to my statement being right.

Sometimes arguing just to argue is counterproductive.

 

Once again you show your ignorance and your willingness to flap your gums about something you obviously know little about.

I made a general statement that no one can be absolutely certain about anything in medicine. The recent story of the guy who was in a coma for years only to regain his mental faculties is a case in point. But that case is the exception not the rule.

Then I said it was common in medicine to make such statements as to survivability based on the techniques or treatment modality used. Those educated estimates are based on facts garnered from previous cases and are frequently used to determine course of actions with regard to treatment. But, to get back to your juvenile and ill-informed name calling about the practice, let me give you an example that should be clearly evident, even to you.

The first successful heart transplant occurred 12/3/1967.  So, a patient with restrictive cardiomyopathy has a successful heart transplant performed in 1970. Therefore, a statement that "five years ago that patient would not have survived" would have been accurate. I know that example is a little simplistic, but considering your level of reasoning and background in medicine, I thought it would illustrate how wrong you are in a manner you would be most capable of understanding.

Your ignorance to my background is comedic.

I know that you want to get the last word in every disagreement that you're involved in so you can go ahead.

The bottom line is that no one can make any "certain" statements as far as medicine goes.

How did the medical world discover that electrical impulses moved muscles?

How was the pacemaker invented?

How was nitrous oxide introduced as a key to painless surgery?

How did doctors discover to inject dye into the right coronary artery when they needed to take a contrasted image?

How was insulin discovered?

Do some research before you flap your jaws.

Ok, because I know you're too prideful to research these questions, I'll give you the answer.

All of these medical breakthroughs were discovered by accident.

That's right, medicine is not an exact science.

Go ahead and rebut anything you want, I'm done educating you.

 

Quite expected, but the VPC doesn't list what or where they got this information.  They say "new information" and all the VPC does is link to the CDC.  No reports.  No data. No information.


I mean let's be honest, Vermont is #34, and probably has some of the most lax gun laws... constitutional carry for a long ass time as well.

Just in Vermont last week visiting family. It's nice to sterile conceal carry (no ID no permission slip). Vermont doesn't even have a violent felon in posession ban. Only the Feds can prosecute under federal law.