Like academics and entertainers… he’s out of touch.
Link: https://youtu.be/c5MgI7zpHKs?is=ExvD1zB8LXALO0Mq
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
migration led by adults. We do have child smuggling which is a different issue.
Pope also is wrong on migration in general. He messed up modern migration with traditional migration. Yes, traditional migration is primarily due to war and natural disasters like famine. But they are no longer the primary case in modern migration. If they still happened that’s because of bad policy. For example, Syria civil war and Libya civil war caused 4 millions migrants and refugees that’s because neocon helped create Syria civil war and Libya civil war with the goal “Assad has to go” and “Gaddafi has to go”.
Modern migration is primary economic migration, assisted by modern transportation and technology which make migration easier. For example, majority of illegal immigrants crossing US-Mexico border have smart phones, which would be deemed as luxurious group of people 25 years ago.
Since it is economic migration, it has to be subject to economic laws (demand and supply, merit based …). You even always said US economy needs migrants. But Pope didn’t talk about this primary reason at all. Humanitarian consideration is a secondary thing in modern migration. Also, since it’s family migration, it will bring a welfare issue to the hosting countries where welfare policies are primarily family based. If you claim, as you always do, our welfare is not good enough to our domestic citizens, how could you think that our welfare will handle welfare of large quantities of family migration? How could you agree with Pope? You can’t be right on both sides.
Secondary…and that’s not acceptable.
(no message)
Of course every person has worth and dignity. But from a practical point of view, he said there are millions of migrant children every year, and it's just not possible for developed nations to absorb this number annually.
He also called upon us as individuals to help. My wife and I are not in a financial position to take in a migrant family, but you certainly are. Do you currently have a migrant family living with you? Are you personally paying for hotel rooms for them?
Finally, I read your link against my previous policy, so as a courtesy, I'm linking again to Dr. Risch's paper so you can, in intellectual honesty, return the favor.
Link: Dr Risch paper
that include Quotas for various types of immigrants...so, we can indeed accept some amount, being the wealthiest country on earth...without asking citizens to take them into their homes. Trump, unfortunately is not following those laws, nor is he affording immigrants "Due Process" before arresting or deporting them...this is wrong and inhumane. It is also one of the reasons Pope Leo issued his statement. On a personal note, which I believe I've posted before...my wife and I joined with other parishioners to work under Catholic Charities on a resettlement program (organized by a Presbyterian ;-)) to find housing for an Afghani Muslim family many years ago...it took no money on anyone's part...just the effort to get them moved into an apartment in the Bay Area. It was very rewarding...and the family we assisted was over joyed...invited us to a large dinner at their new home...and many months later invited us to their daughter's Muslim wedding...complete with Henna decorations on our hands ;-).
Stop looking for ways to NOT help, much less respect, immigrants...anyone can...and everyone should.
As for Dr. Risch's papers...my comments after looking at page 1. of his April, 2021 paper
> He "Shanked" the first one, and even you admitted it. right when NYC hospitals were using refrigerated tractor trailers as make-shift morgues...not impressing the FDA or anyone else with his "brilliance"...i.e. a waste of precious time for everyone working to defeat a raging pandemic.
>At the same time, Pfizer presented an oral treatment design based on the biochemistry knowledge from SARS-CoV-1 of how the virus entered human lung cells and caused damage (March, 2020)...and got FDA approval to complete the design in prep for human testing
>In March, 2021, Pfizer's design began human trials
>In April,2021 Dr. Risch produces his "Mulligan" paper, but no biomedical data...RCT, or otherwise...to explain how HCQ+ would actually treat COVID-19.
>In Fall 2021 Pfizer presents conclusive RCT data that its product, PAXLOVID, works extremely well in treating the disease, along with a clear and verifiable explanation of HOW it works from a biochemistry perspective.
Bottom line...as the linked paper explains...HCQ+ Never Could deliver on its promise...a combination of very poor studies...and no biochemical chance of success.
Now...how about answering the question every proponent of any medical treatment should..."Have you ever had a financial interest in the use of HCQ+ for the treatement of COVID-19?" Note that it's perfectly legal in South Carolina for a physician to prescribe "off label" such a treatment...his/her call...and his/her responsibility...
Link: https://academic.oup.com/jmcb/article/13/3/175/6163292
You write, "HCQ+ Never Could deliver on its promise...a combination of very poor studies...and no biochemical chance of success."
This is false. Totally false. The paper you linked to examined hydroxychloroquine as the only drug used (which is HCQ, not HCQ+), when it has to be combined with zinc and azithromycin. It also referred to the flawed studies using only hydroxychloroquine and NEVER mentioned HCQ+.
Why does hydroxychloroquine have to be used with zinc and azithromycin? As Dr. Zekenko AND Dr. Risch AND Dr. Fareed have pointed out, hydroxychloroquine is the agent which introduces zinc into the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So when you say it had no biomechanical chance of success, you made a false statement.
Again, the studies were not poor. For the millionth time, your hero the Great Fauchino had a personal medical philosophy of not accepting observational trials as valid, so that's where you're getting the studies were "poor."
As to Paxlovid, don't you find it odd - very odd - that RCTs were IMMEDIATELY conducted on vulnerable-aged patients within five days of symptom onset? Why? Because, although not identical, Paxlovid was designed to mimic HCQ+ and by this time Pfizer KNEW how HCQ+ was supposed to be used. (You probably don't remember but you once linked to an "expert" who pooh-poohed the five-day window, saying if HCQ+ worked within five days it should have worked after that....that opinion didn't age well.)
While I appreciate you engaging me in this conversation, every point and link you've brought out is just wrong and I've explained why. I realize you may be incredulous that your hero the Great Fauchino, the FDA and most of the medical establishment got this wrong...but they unfortunately did.
Consent Management