New Opioid Study

I'm only doing this because I like you:

By this logic, any study that looks at one year of anything is "cherry picked" and biased.

It looked at current data.


It's didn't show a weak correlation; it showed a 20 point correlation.

You are attaching adjectives to this.


It tested a hypothesis.

That is literally what all experiments and studies do.

I could ask: "Is there are correlation between being under 5' 6" and being a millionaire?" Just because I am asking this question doesn't mean that I am being biased for (or against) people under 5'6" (or millionaires).


Good, now we are getting somewhere.

If I consistently found that places that had more rocks had more sheep... guess what?

Bingo! I've found a correlation between rocks and sheep!

Notice, this doesn't mean that rocks cause sheep. Correlation in not causation.

I think the reason that you (and some others) are so pissy about this issue is because you think the study is implying that voting for Trump (or Trump himself) has some sort of causal link to the opioid epidemic.

It is doing nothing of the sort. As @panamaican pointed out, correlation is not causation...






... but it is correlation.

Good day, sir.

Nothing in my posting suggests that I believe Trump has anything to do with the opioid epidemic, or that the study suggests that.
The study is poorly done, its biased and its prejudicial. Its exploiting an epidemic for political gain.
Its link being the opioid epidemic and Trump being elected is weak based on the study and it isn't worth of JAMA.
 
It is doing nothing of the sort. As @panamaican pointed out, correlation is not causation...






... but it is correlation.

Good day, sir.

I stopped debating it because the entire premise for criticism is that it attaches one positive thing with one negative thing. Which is just another version of the "don't say anything remotely negative about people, places, things that I like," that kills intelligent conversation. Instead we end up with these twisted debates where someone wants all the roses on their side and all of the weeds on the other side and the real world doesn't work that way.

to me, this is a study that should actually spur people to notice that those parts of the country need help and they know it, hence strongly selecting an anti-establishment candidate.
 
Still massive number from all angles of the opioid epidemic in California, which is why you used rates to describe the issue in the most densely populated state in the country. They had one of the highest number of deaths/state in 2016. BTW, that still doesn't hold water. I live in Maine, a state that also went to Clinton, and our opioid abuse rate is through the roof.

The opioid issue is not a Trump issue. Its been a long growing tumor in this country that stretches back decades, not just back to November of 2016.

Again, this thread is absurd. Isn't it usually liberals who talk about solving all of our problems by legalizing drugs?

Do you not understand what the word "rate" in mathematical term means or how it is used?

California has almost 40 million people.. You would need to add up the population of the lowest 23 states to equal that amount. If you add up all the deaths from opioid from those states in 2016 they would be way MORE than the number of opioid deaths in California. How lopsided are we talking about?

Opioid deaths in 2016
California: 4,614
West Virginia: 884
Connecticut: 971
Oklahoma: 813

I've just added 3 states and I am practically more than halfway to California's number. And yes those 3 states are in the lower 23 in terms of population.

And the article is about the rates of opioid abuse in each counties within each state. Of course if a city has 2 million people then you'll find way more abuse than a little town with 10k simply because there are more people in a location.

Just because Maine was a Clinton state doesn't mean it has a lower rate of opioid abuse compared to other states. But if the article is correct that would mean that the counties in Maine that did support Trump have higher opioid rates compared to Maine counties that supported Clinton..

This concludes your mathematical lessons...

edit... had to changed the bolded part.. forgot that the article is about abuse and not death although I am sure there's a strong correlation between the two.
 
Last edited:
I stopped debating it because the entire premise for criticism is that it attaches one positive thing with one negative thing. Which is just another version of the "don't say anything remotely negative about people, places, things that I like," that kills intelligent conversation. Instead we end up with these twisted debates where someone wants all the roses on their side and all of the weeds on the other side and the real world doesn't work that way.

to me, this is a study that should actually spur people to notice that those parts of the country need help and they know it, hence strongly selecting an anti-establishment candidate.

This is typical of this forum. You have to label anybody that disagrees with you. In this post you're suggesting that I disagree with the study because I like Trump. You're ridiculous.
 
The study is poorly done.
What are your qualms with the methodology?

, its biased .
What is its bias?

prejudicial.
Prejudicial refers to how people react to it.

Facts might be prejudicial or not.

Its exploiting an epidemic for political gain.
Conjecture, your honor. Who is gaining what? You'd have to have a pretty clear smoking gun for that to stand up in a court.

Its link being the opioid epidemic and Trump being elected.
Here's where you keep being wrong. It presents no such link between Trump being elected and opioids.

Even if Clinton had won, the same correlations would apply.

weak based on the study and it isn't worth of JAMA.
Would a 20 point correlation between, say, birth control pills and having early strokes be worthy?
 
This is typical of this forum. You have to label anybody that disagrees with you. In this post you're suggesting that I disagree with the study because I like Trump. You're ridiculous.

It's not typical of this forum. We had an exchange, I think your criticism was vapid and superficial. I told you so, you disagreed. What else is there to discuss?

You disagreed with the study because you assigned it an agenda that wasn't explicitly or implicitly expressed. Your interpretation of that agenda was that it existed to castigate Trump and/or Trump voters in some way. There's nothing to debate once that's on the table. There's no agenda explicitly stated in the study so debating the merit of the study in the framework of your created fiction isn't going to go anywhere because I can't convince you that you're just making things up.

And the only logical reason for you to create an agenda out of whole cloth is because you perceived the study and it's conclusions negatively and so believe that the negative conclusion that you perceived must have been the primary intent in the first place.

None of that is about the study itself, it's about your perception of the results of the study. If someone had said "We're going to study the voting habits of drug users to gain insight into their overall mindsets," no one would be acting like this because we do it all of the time. This isn't different in any way.
 
Do you not understand what the word "rate" in mathematical term means or how it is used?

.
Yes, I touched on why the rate was misleading. The fact that there's more people there doesn't mean more people didn't die there. Its a nationwide issue. Not a Trump voter issue.
 
What are your qualms with the methodology?
There data is incomplete. All of the information was based on legal prescriptions for the elderly and/or disabled.
It did not take into account any illegal usage of the drug. And they included all voters. So they didn't include 50% of the opioid related deaths, as they are associated with illegal usage and they included all voters. They also didn't use include private insurance data.


What is its bias?
Its inherently biased. Its associating one man, at one moment in time, to a 20 year epidemic.


Prejudicial refers to how people react to it.
Or how its meant to cause a negative reaction. In this case the objective was to show Trumps election was a result of the opioid epidemic.
It associates Trump with an epidemic and it associates his votes with the afflicted.

Facts might be prejudicial or not.
Incomplete facts portrayed in a certain way almost guarantee it. I think your thread is a good example of it.
You saw this study and figured you ram it down Trump supporters throats.
I saw it and thought it was irresponsible.
Neither of us voted or support Trump.

Conjecture, your honor. Who is gaining what? You'd have to have a pretty clear smoking gun for that to stand up in a court.
Not in the court of public opinion, where this is being discussed.

Here's where you keep being wrong. It presents no such link between Trump being elected and opioids.
Are you for real? The very basis of the study was to show a correlation between Trump being elected and the opioid epidemic?

Even if Clinton had won, the same correlations would apply.
This study wouldn't have been conducted if Clinton had one.

Would a 20 point correlation between, say, birth control pills and having early strokes be worthy?
Are you comparing a Trump to a stroke?
 
Two years into Trump’s term, the country is still in the grip of a terrible opioid crisis. It is a truism that this crisis cuts across demographic lines— sort of.

A new medical journal study shows that the counties that voted most heavily for Trump in 2016 have the highest rates of opioid abuse.

“In counties with higher than average rates of chronic opioid prescriptions, 60 percent of voters went for Trump. In counties with lower than average rates, only 39 percent voted for Trump.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...erlap-in-opioid-use-and-trump-support-in-2016

Many people in these communities support Trump because they believe Obama caused the opioid crisis. I, for one, happen to believe that Obama deliberately caused the so-called "opioid crisis" in Appalachia. Obama's defenders will deny this all day, but based on everything else Obama has said and done, I just don't believe it. He knew damn well what he was doing. It was meant as a government-sponsored "fuck you" to a predominantly white community. Perhaps he viewed it as revenge for the popular belief in the Black community that the CIA deliberately circulated crack cocaine to destroy black families. Perhaps it was just old-fashioned racial animus. Either way, I'm sure he did it on purpose, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. Consider this article from Medium, a far-Left SJW publication:

Under President Obama, a small army of executive branch “slow-walkers” served as pallbearers, knowingly or not, to the grim march of overdose deaths from commonly prescribed opioids that was already underway in years before he took office. As the body count climbed, the Brownlee-led US Attorney settlement with Purdue, as well as West Virginia’s 2004 settlement against the same company, ought to have prompted scores of decisions to reign in opioid prescribing. Instead, the opposite happened: prescribing numbers continued to grow throughout Obama’s first term, reaching a peak in 2012. Despite subsequent reductions, they remain the highest in the world.

During Obama’s time in office, licit opioid prescribing increased not only in number but also in potency. Most notable was expanded use of the powerful synthetic known as fentanyl, a drug approved only for opioid-tolerant cancer patients suffering from pain beyond the reach of traditional opioids, but one that drug makers marketed in a manner of ways, including in advertisements that pictured construction workers and others employed in similar, physically demanding jobs. Although a reduction in opioid supply was desperately needed, and close scrutiny of opioid manufacturers more than warranted, the Obama administration declined to do either.

What most exacerbated the opioid crisis was the dramatic rise in overdose deaths from heroin and heroin adulterated with illicit synthetics (fentanyl and carfentanil). While Obama was president, illicit heroin underwent an industrial transformation: market expansion, innovation, and in many places, a reconfiguration of production and distribution. Yet the path of initiation to heroin via prescription pills that fueled its resurgence went substantially unchallenged by the president. In fact, it was strengthened and fortified.

Though Obama did not start the opioid crisis, it is a blunt and brutal fact that, under his administration, drug overdose became the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50, and the opioid crisis became the worst drug epidemic in American history. It is an irrevocable part of his legacy as president.

I realize that this article declares "Obama did not start the opioid crisis." It is Medium after all, and I fully expect them to say that. However, I disagree with this conclusion because it predates January 2018 Senate report which found that ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion is at least partly to blame for the opioid epidemic. Obamacare's expansion made opioid pills cheaper and more widely available, and "created a powerful incentive for millions to get prescriptions and end up either getting addicted themselves or selling the pills on the black market." That much was obvious to people living in affected regions, and it is almost insulting that it took a Senate committee report to confirm what Obama's defenders had vociferously denied.

On top of that, Obama prioritized killing local industries, particularly the coal industry, under the auspices of promoting "green energy" alternatives and/or natural gas / fracking. I've addressed this in other posts at length, and I won't do it again here. Suffice to say that Obama deliberately and needlessly killed the coal industry. It was not the fault of some spontaneous rise in the natural gas / fracking industry. It was not inevitable. By destroying the livelihoods of the hardworking families of Appalachia, and by prioritizing "pain management" via government subsidized healthcare, Obama created conditions for unemployed breadwinners to become hooked on powerful opiate pain killers, and he flooded the region with an endless supply. As the Medium article above notes, "reduction in opioid supply was desperately needed, and close scrutiny of opioid manufacturers more than warranted," but Obama declined to act.

Obama's defenders will no doubt point out the lack of a memo declaring Obama's intention to "poison those honkies for centuries of slavery and oppression." Frankly, I would be surprised if there were a paper trail proving Obama's intent here. But I just can't bring myself to believe this was an unintentional "perfect storm." Just like Lois Lerner did nothing wrong at the IRS, just like Peter Strzok did nothing wrong at the FBI, just like Eric Holder / Lynch did nothing wrong at the DOJ, just like Hillary did nothing wrong with Benghazi or her e-mails, I cannot believe that all these "perfect storms" happened by accident. And I doubt the millions of people who were affected by the "opioid crisis" hold Obama blameless. At the end of the day, their only recourse is to succeed in spite of Barack Obama's overt attempts to destroy their lives. Oh... and to vote REPUBLICAN henceforth.

So, to summarize, Obama deliberately caused the "opioid crisis" by
  • Killing off local industries
  • Providing greater access to powerful opioids
  • Refusing to take steps to mitigate or limit the spread of opioid addiction
Bringing this around to your post, it's fucked up to ridicule communities that suffer from rampant opioid abuse for supporting Trump when it was Obama's deliberate actions that created the conditions for this "opioid crisis." They know it. I know it. You know it. No wonder they support Trump. No wonder they hate Obama and the Democratic Party. Thankfully, these communities are healing under President Trump.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I touched on why the rate was misleading. The fact that there's more people there doesn't mean more people didn't die there. Its a nationwide issue. Not a Trump voter issue.

double down on stupidity heh?

Trump voter issue? it's just a statistical analysis. counties that voted for trump generally have higher opioid abuse rates based on that study. no one claimed its not a national issue. it very much is so.

lol. there's nothing misleading about rates. If you don't understand the importance behind it then you don't know math.

but hey you want to stay ignorant (mathematically speaking) go ahead. you lot are generally terrible when it comes to dealing with numbers anyhoo.. and you "lot" in this case means natives.
 
Last edited:
It's not typical of this forum. We had an exchange, I think your criticism was vapid and superficial. I told you so, you disagreed. What else is there to discuss?

You disagreed with the study because you assigned it an agenda that wasn't explicitly or implicitly expressed. Your interpretation of that agenda was that it existed to castigate Trump and/or Trump voters in some way. There's nothing to debate once that's on the table. There's no agenda explicitly stated in the study so debating the merit of the study in the framework of your created fiction isn't going to go anywhere because I can't convince you that you're just making things up.

And the only logical reason for you to create an agenda out of whole cloth is because you perceived the study and it's conclusions negatively and so believe that the negative conclusion that you perceived must have been the primary intent in the first place.

None of that is about the study itself, it's about your perception of the results of the study. If someone had said "We're going to study the voting habits of drug users to gain insight into their overall mindsets," no one would be acting like this because we do it all of the time. This isn't different in any way.
Its is typical and this is a perfect example. My first 5-6 posts in this thread have nothing to do with Trump. They're all about the epidemic and the poorly constructed study.

I disagreed with the study because it was poorly constructed. I feel I have to repeat this because you keep misrepresenting my position.
I disagreed with its publishing under such a headline when it admits its significant limitations.
I disagreed with the the thread because it obvious that this study has produced prejudicial and misleading results.
Because I consider the study poorly constructed, and still published in JAMA I can't help but feel there was an agenda here.
Look no further than the OP. You don't see an agenda in Trump Country = Opioid Country?
 
double down on stupidity heh?

Trump voter issue? it's just a statistical analysis. counties that voted for trump generally have higher opioid abuse rates based on that study. no one claimed its not a national issue. it very much is so.

lol. there's nothing misleading about rates. If you don't understand the importance behind it then you don't know math.

but hey you want to stay ignorant (mathematically speaking) go ahead. you lot are generally terrible when it comes to dealing with numbers in general anyhoo.. and you "lot" in this case means natives.
Its a "statistical analysis" that tries to turn the opioid epidemic of this country into an arguing point to use against conservatives. Frankly, as one who has seen family horribly affected by opioid abuse, and a person who lives in a state that votes blue in presidential elections, I find it offensive. Maine has a similar % of our population ( a rate!) that is liberal as California and we are one of the states most plagued by the opioid epidemic.




And yes, rates are indeed misleading. They lead you to believe there is no issue where there is one. California still had more drug related deaths than anyone else in the country, so clearly its a pretty big issue, even in utopian blue states.

This thread is fucking stupid and anyone defending it deserves no more credit. Opioids are a nationwide epidemic. Not just for states where a lot of people voted for Trump. What a bunch of fucking clowns you people are. Really.
 
Its a "statistical analysis" that tries to turn the opioid epidemic of this country into an arguing point to use against conservatives. Frankly, as one who has seen family horribly affected by opioid abuse, and a person who lives in a state that votes blue in presidential elections, I find it offensive. Maine has a similar % of our population ( a rate!) that is liberal as California and we are one of the states most plagued by the opioid epidemic.

And yes, rates are indeed misleading. They lead you to believe there is no issue where there is one. California still had more drug related deaths than anyone else in the country, so clearly its a pretty big issue, even in utopian blue states.

This thread is fucking stupid and anyone defending it deserves no more credit. Opioids are a nationwide epidemic. Not just for states where a lot of people voted for Trump. What a bunch of fucking clowns you people are. Really.

You are the one misrepresenting the facts and statements of the article and the data.

The bolded part shows you either didn't read the article or simply refuse to understand what it is trying to say. At no point does it claim that red states have a bigger opioid problem nor does the majority of the liberal posters in here say so. And if any liberal posters in here did, then they fucked up and didn't read the article.

So again... you completely misread and/or didn't understand the article and you are actually one of the clowns you so happily shitted on in here.

lol @ your self ownage.. love it.

you never fail to disappoint with your shit tier posting Seano...
 
Meanwhile in Everett Washington... I highly doubt these tweaker junkies give a fuck about Trump or politics.

 
Many people in these communities support Trump because they believe Obama caused the opioid crisis. I, for one, happen to believe that Obama deliberately caused the so-called "opioid crisis" in Appalachia. Obama's defenders will deny this all day, but based on everything else Obama has said and done, I just don't believe it. He knew damn well what he was doing. It was meant as a government-sponsored "fuck you" to a predominantly white community of honkies / rednecks / hillbillies for which he harbored deep-seated contempt. Perhaps he viewed it as revenge for the popular belief in the Black community that the CIA deliberately circulated crack cocaine to destroy black families. Perhaps it was just old-fashioned racial animus. Either way, I'm sure he did it on purpose, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. Consider this article from Medium, a far-Left SJW publication:



I realize that this article declares "Obama did not start the opioid crisis." It is Medium after all, and I fully expect them to say that. However, I disagree with this conclusion because it predates January 2018 Senate report which found that ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion is at least partly to blame for the opioid epidemic. Obamacare's expansion made opioid pills cheaper and more widely available, and "created a powerful incentive for millions to get prescriptions and end up either getting addicted themselves or selling the pills on the black market." That much was obvious to people living in affected regions, and it is almost insulting that it took a Senate committee report to confirm what Obama's defenders had vociferously denied.

On top of that, Obama prioritized killing local industries, particularly the coal industry, under the auspices of promoting "green energy" alternatives and/or natural gas / fracking. I've addressed this in other posts at length, and I won't do it again here. Suffice to say that Obama deliberately and needlessly killed the coal industry. It was not the fault of some spontaneous rise in the natural gas / fracking industry. It was not inevitable. By destroying the livelihoods of the hardworking families of Appalachia, and by prioritizing "pain management" via government subsidized healthcare, Obama created conditions for unemployed breadwinners to become hooked on powerful opiate pain killers, and he flooded the region with an endless supply. As the Medium article above notes, "reduction in opioid supply was desperately needed, and close scrutiny of opioid manufacturers more than warranted," but Obama declined to act.

Obama's defenders will no doubt point out the lack of a memo declaring Obama's intention to "poison those honkies for centuries of slavery and oppression." Frankly, I would be surprised if there were a paper trail proving Obama's intent here. But I just can't bring myself to believe this was an unintentional "perfect storm." Just like Lois Lerner did nothing wrong at the IRS, just like Peter Strzok did nothing wrong at the FBI, just like Eric Holder / Lynch did nothing wrong at the DOJ, just like Hillary did nothing wrong with Benghazi or her e-mails, I cannot believe that all these "perfect storms" happened by accident. And I doubt the millions of people who were affected by the "opioid crisis" hold Obama blameless. At the end of the day, their only recourse is to succeed in spite of Barack Obama's overt attempts to destroy their lives. Oh... and to vote REPUBLICAN henceforth.

So, to summarize, Obama deliberately caused the "opioid crisis" by
  • Killing off local industries
  • Providing greater access to powerful opioids
  • Refusing to take steps to mitigate or limit the spread of opioid addiction
Bringing this around to your post, it's fucked up to ridicule communities that suffer from rampant opioid abuse for supporting Trump when it was Obama's deliberate actions that created the conditions for this "opioid crisis." They know it. I know it. You know it. No wonder they support Trump. No wonder they hate Obama and the Democratic Party. Thankfully, these communities are healing under President Trump.
Learn this on info wars, brains?
 
Many people in these communities support Trump because they believe Obama caused the opioid crisis. I, for one, happen to believe that Obama deliberately caused the so-called "opioid crisis" in Appalachia. Obama's defenders will deny this all day, but based on everything else Obama has said and done, I just don't believe it. He knew damn well what he was doing. It was meant as a government-sponsored "fuck you" to a predominantly white community of honkies / rednecks / hillbillies for which he harbored deep-seated contempt. Perhaps he viewed it as revenge for the popular belief in the Black community that the CIA deliberately circulated crack cocaine to destroy black families. Perhaps it was just old-fashioned racial animus. Either way, I'm sure he did it on purpose, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. Consider this article from Medium, a far-Left SJW publication:



I realize that this article declares "Obama did not start the opioid crisis." It is Medium after all, and I fully expect them to say that. However, I disagree with this conclusion because it predates January 2018 Senate report which found that ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion is at least partly to blame for the opioid epidemic. Obamacare's expansion made opioid pills cheaper and more widely available, and "created a powerful incentive for millions to get prescriptions and end up either getting addicted themselves or selling the pills on the black market." That much was obvious to people living in affected regions, and it is almost insulting that it took a Senate committee report to confirm what Obama's defenders had vociferously denied.

On top of that, Obama prioritized killing local industries, particularly the coal industry, under the auspices of promoting "green energy" alternatives and/or natural gas / fracking. I've addressed this in other posts at length, and I won't do it again here. Suffice to say that Obama deliberately and needlessly killed the coal industry. It was not the fault of some spontaneous rise in the natural gas / fracking industry. It was not inevitable. By destroying the livelihoods of the hardworking families of Appalachia, and by prioritizing "pain management" via government subsidized healthcare, Obama created conditions for unemployed breadwinners to become hooked on powerful opiate pain killers, and he flooded the region with an endless supply. As the Medium article above notes, "reduction in opioid supply was desperately needed, and close scrutiny of opioid manufacturers more than warranted," but Obama declined to act.

Obama's defenders will no doubt point out the lack of a memo declaring Obama's intention to "poison those honkies for centuries of slavery and oppression." Frankly, I would be surprised if there were a paper trail proving Obama's intent here. But I just can't bring myself to believe this was an unintentional "perfect storm." Just like Lois Lerner did nothing wrong at the IRS, just like Peter Strzok did nothing wrong at the FBI, just like Eric Holder / Lynch did nothing wrong at the DOJ, just like Hillary did nothing wrong with Benghazi or her e-mails, I cannot believe that all these "perfect storms" happened by accident. And I doubt the millions of people who were affected by the "opioid crisis" hold Obama blameless. At the end of the day, their only recourse is to succeed in spite of Barack Obama's overt attempts to destroy their lives. Oh... and to vote REPUBLICAN henceforth.

So, to summarize, Obama deliberately caused the "opioid crisis" by
  • Killing off local industries
  • Providing greater access to powerful opioids
  • Refusing to take steps to mitigate or limit the spread of opioid addiction
Bringing this around to your post, it's fucked up to ridicule communities that suffer from rampant opioid abuse for supporting Trump when it was Obama's deliberate actions that created the conditions for this "opioid crisis." They know it. I know it. You know it. No wonder they support Trump. No wonder they hate Obama and the Democratic Party. Thankfully, these communities are healing under President Trump.
Dude... I read all that.

You’re gonna need some more sources is all I can say.

Also, if “these communities” are healing under Trump, we should expect to see the opioid death rate drop sharply, correct?

There data is incomplete. All of the information was based on legal prescriptions for the elderly and/or disabled.
It did not take into account any illegal usage of the drug. And they included all voters. So they didn't include 50% of the opioid related deaths, as they are associated with illegal usage and they included all voters. They also didn't use include private insurance data.



Its inherently biased. Its associating one man, at one moment in time, to a 20 year epidemic.



Or how its meant to cause a negative reaction. In this case the objective was to show Trumps election was a result of the opioid epidemic.
It associates Trump with an epidemic and it associates his votes with the afflicted.


Incomplete facts portrayed in a certain way almost guarantee it. I think your thread is a good example of it.
You saw this study and figured you ram it down Trump supporters throats.
I saw it and thought it was irresponsible.
Neither of us voted or support Trump.


Not in the court of public opinion, where this is being discussed.


Are you for real? The very basis of the study was to show a correlation between Trump being elected and the opioid epidemic?


This study wouldn't have been conducted if Clinton had one.


Are you comparing a Trump to a stroke?
Yes, I am for realsies.

Whether or not Trump won the election, his voters would have still existed, and their counties would still have had higher incidents of opioid use.

You are assuming that if he hadn’t won, this study wouldn’t have been done.

You know, there’s a saying about that sort of thing...
 
Last edited:
Dude... I read all that.

You’re gonna need some more sources is all I can say.

Read the articles and the Senate report I linked (or at least skim them). The causes of the opioid crisis are not disputed. Even Left-leaning publications admit them now. What is debatable is Obama's intent. As I stated previously, I cannot conclusively prove Obama intended to cause the opioid crisis. I doubt there's any way to do that, outside of a paper trail or an admission from the man himself. But based on the circumstantial evidence here (including statements Obama has made regarding this particular community), I happen to believe he did it on purpose, and for vindictive reasons, e.g. a perverse form of "social justice." You either believe it was all an unfortunate coincidence, or you don't.
 
Its is typical and this is a perfect example. My first 5-6 posts in this thread have nothing to do with Trump. They're all about the epidemic and the poorly constructed study.

I disagreed with the study because it was poorly constructed. I feel I have to repeat this because you keep misrepresenting my position.
I disagreed with its publishing under such a headline when it admits its significant limitations.
I disagreed with the the thread because it obvious that this study has produced prejudicial and misleading results.
Because I consider the study poorly constructed, and still published in JAMA I can't help but feel there was an agenda here.
Look no further than the OP. You don't see an agenda in Trump Country = Opioid Country?

I don't care about your 5 posts to other people. What I wrote summarized our exchange.

You keep repeating that it's poorly constructed, you don't explain how. Even in your wordiest response to me, all you say is it exists to politicize a tragedy and that it cherry picks data without actually explaining how any of that is actually true.

Re-read your alleged critisims

I disagreed with the study because it was poorly constructed. I feel I have to repeat this because you keep misrepresenting my position.
How is it poorly constructed?

I disagreed with its publishing under such a headline when it admits its significant limitations.
Which is not about the study but your emotional response to the headline -
Association of Chronic Opioid Use With Presidential Voting Patterns in US Counties in 2016.

Sorry, what exactly is wrong with that heading? "Association" "Chronic Opioid Use" "Presidential Voting Patterns." It doesn't even mention Trump or Trump voters. What part of that triggered your disagreement?

I disagreed with the the thread because it obvious that this study has produced prejudicial and misleading results.
How are the results prejudicial and misleading. Regardless of your emotional response to the headline, was there prejudice in the actual study methodology? What was the prejudice in the methodology that produced prejudicial or misleading results.

Because I consider the study poorly constructed, and still published in JAMA I can't help but feel there was an agenda here.
So because you don't like the study's construction, while not stating how it's poorly constructed, it must also have an agenda. You've assigned it an agenda based on your feelings about it's construction?

Even if it was poorly constructed...that wouldn't mean there was an agenda. And it is at that realization that discussing something with you stops making sense. If you're going to assign agendas to things just because you don't like them then we're discussing your imagination, not the study itself.

Poorly constructed might be factually true. Agenda as the reason for poor construction is fabrication.

Look no further than the OP. You don't see an agenda in Trump Country = Opioid Country?
More of your substituting your imagination for actual analysis. Why should the headline of the Sherdog OP have any bearing on the validity of a JAMA study. Think about how inane that position is. Are you really judging studies based on WR headings? :eek:

All in all, it's a pretty vapid and superficial bit of criticism. Because you don't like the Study Headline or the WR thread headline, you've decided that the study must be poorly constructed. And because the study is poorly constructed, it must also harbor an agenda because there's no other explanation for a poorly constructed study with bad headlines that you don't like, except "agenda".

No one can debate that because we'd be debating your emotional response to words that you don't like. It would be like arguing with a child for why they like one flavor of ice cream over another. It's emotion, not reason.
 
Back
Top