We live in interesting, if they were not so frightening, one could almost say amusing times!
Politicians who previously have criticised Trump for his unacceptable deeds, behaviour and statements can now be seen to bend over backwards to join his band-waggon. They don’t know where the waggon is heading but they don’t want to be left behind. A prime example is UK’s Boris Johnson who now even criticises other politicians for having more back-bone than himself and therefore being less enthusiastic about America’s future leader.
But this is not a political blog, and I will therefore try to focus on matters related to alternative medicine.
The first band-waggon jumpers were, as far as I can see, the guys from NATURAL NEWS; I reported about them in a previous blog and therefore will not go over this again.
More indicative of the things to come is the article by John Weeks, the recently appointed editor of JACM. John also featured on this blog before, and now he has published an article in Huffpo entitled “Trumpism and the Bigotry of the Antagonists to Integrative Medicine and Health”. In it he takes a very different approach to the matter of Trump and alt med; he states that:
The group, from Australia, USA and Great Britain – the 3 last two named Gorski and Ernst – each used Trumpian tactics. One pre-emptively names the report as “one of the most blatant examples of quackacademic confabulation I have seen in ages.” Another’s label is “tooth fairy science.” Like the Florida judge deemed mistrustful to Trump by his heritage, the study is questioned based on the professional background of two members of the team: “If you want to know why NCCIH supports so much pseudoscience, look no further than it having chiropractors and naturopaths in high ranking positions.” Never mind that each of these NIH employees has a separate research doctorate along with a clinical doctorate.
The study is then blasted for coming from the NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health – once again de-faming the work based on origin rather than substance. The study is “worthless.” The NIH team “actively misleading” the public. These scientists’ tools apparently “exaggerations, sloppy research and misleading conclusions.” The NIH scientists are “”sincerely deluded cranks.” Such name-calling—and particularly the routine attributions of quackery—recall Trump’s epithets placed on each of his opponents, for example “Crooked Hillary.”
(I discussed the paper in question here)
Isn’t that hilarious?
In the Trump-era, one no longer seems to need good evidence, critical thinking or even just plain logic; words suffice, even if they are nonsensical.
The principle is adorably simple and effective:
- you are faced with some criticism,
- you find it hard to argue against it,
- therefore you elect to attack your critic personally,
- you claim that the criticism is insulting,
- you re-name any criticism ‘TRUMPISM’,
- and all is forgiven!
Weeks is not even original; others have used this method before him. In fact, advocates of alternative medicine thrive on ad hominem attacks, and without them they would go nowhere.
What they fail to realise in this particular case is that, in the final analysis, Donald Trump is one of theirs.
You don’t follow me?
Let me explain:
White middle-class American males are desperate; they see themselves close to bankruptcy. To remedy the problem, they had to elect someone who knows all about bankruptcies, someone who has been bankrupted several times before – because LIKE CURES LIKE!
Get it now?
I think this is one of those instances when the use of seemingly ‘ ad hominem’ attacks might well be argued to be justified. In other words, a report on the efficacy of homeopathy which is produced by NCIH.and the demonstrable quacks associated with that organisation, may be packed full of truth, but, given the background of the contributors, is very unlikely to do so. Which wouldn’ t be the same, for instance, as saying that the report couldn’ t be trusted because the authors were, say, Trump supporters.
As to the claimed medical qualifications-whether they be real or imaginary or degree-mill purchases-then surely their foolish invalidity overrides and invalidates any claims about ‘ad hominem’ attacks? As I say, it’s possible nonetheless that there COULD be some sense in the study, but one has to start from somewhere in analysing it, and the fact that one of their main items of support seems to be a papier-mâché pit prop would seem to weaken their case, strict interpretation of ‘ad hominem’ or not.
Try not to rub it in. You may not live in Texas but you will also have to live with the consequences of the triumph of the stupid. This consequences of this disaster will likely fall most heavily on those who were most desperate for positive change. Now that this new Emperor is in the spotlight, it will soon be clear that he has no clothes. Unfortunately he will still be Emperor.
“White middle-class American males are desperate; they see themselves close to bankruptcy. To remedy the problem, they had to elect someone who knows all about bankruptcies, someone who has been bankrupted several times before – because LIKE CURES LIKE! Get it now(?),” stated Edzard. Edzard’s ignorance of political reality, the state of America’s economic duress as suffered by its working class, the blatant failure of the Abominable Care Act(and Obamaism in general), and the “road-to-nowhere” outcome of progressivism has reared its uninformed head again on this blog. Not surprising are the supportive comments by one of his drones.
Trump might be the one “politician” who will make good on his main promises, unlike the jug-eared resident currently living in the WH. Perhaps even Edzard might understand the cyclical nature of economic cycles and the inevitable recoveries which come about after declines. America’s “recovery” has been the slowest in its history in large part because of Obama and his Democrat acolytes and their views of Marzian utopianism. Obama’s social engineering and wealth-redistribution policies have demonstrated themselves to have been unmitigated failures based on lies to Americans. Obaminationcare’s costs doubled within two years of its conception(inception?) and now have been estimated to have balooned to nearly 4 times its original costs. Of course the costs are likely much higher than this because Obama and his companion leftists failed to enforce the employer mandates consistently and only recently started to tap citizens’ wallets relative to individual mandates. In other words, the US government has no clear idea how much the program has or will really cost the country.
I expect Trump to pluck about the only well publicized good things from O-Care(must accept pre-ex conditions, kids on parents’ policies to age 26) and to assign competent(i.e. not leftist, partisan hacks) professional business people to arrive at a market-based solution which is superior to the ACA, and still protect those who had acquired health insurance via the disgrace O-Care scheme.
“Triumph of the stupid,” claimed David Tyler. Well, Trump’s “stupidity” helped him to multiply a $1 million investment 10,000 times while building a world-renowned brand. Trump’s net worth is likely faaarrrrrrrrrrrr greater than the total net worth of every regular poster in the history of this forum. Yep…..David must be correct that Trump is stupid!?!
Edzard claimed the Trump has been bankrupted “several times before……” I don’t believe Trump has EVER personally declared bankruptcy. Perhaps Edzard would like to prove me wrong, or else admit that he was spinning(Edzard is quite good at this) the truth?
good to know that you are a right winger!
Be kind. Logos only referred to Obama as ‘jug-eared’.
At least he didn’t refer to him as a closet gay, or to his wife as a man, or post an image of them as monkeys.
As to Trump sticking to his promises, well- we’ll see as time goes on.
Though he does back-pedal in this regard as much as Boris Johnson does.
Of course I wouldn’t criticize Obama’s race or depict him as a monkey. Such would be racially insensitive.
Obama has demonstrated himself to be a good father and husband. He is still personally popular with Americans but his policies have been debunked at the voting booth in 2010, 2014, and now in 2016. Clearly, however, the lefitist programs he, his political drones, and the propagandist, oleaginous media have shoved down the throats of Americans have been soundly trounced as ineffective and unwanted. In other words, if Obama is on a ticket, people vote for him, not his policies. When he is not on a ticket and his policies alone are at issue, Americans rightly flush them down the toilet.
There Edzard goes again…..assuming things about which he has no knowledge. You may consider me a patriot of America, my friend.
I do not befriend people who support a man like Trump; he is a disgrace.
Awww, Edzard. You don’t fool anybody. You don’t befriend anyone who doesn’t share your world view. How welcoming and accepting of people you are……….
your support of Trump is revealing. it shows that you are more irrational than I had assumed.
and your constant ad hominem attacks fit into the picture rather well, I am afraid.
I have tried to be polite with you; I will not try any further.
Do you really think you have been polite with me? Your definition of the word doesn’t reconcile with its literal meaning.
My support of Trump is as necessary as it was for Obama. Both were elected as US presidents and I am an American citizen. I really wish you would quit assuming things about others; you have no idea whether I voted for either The Donald or Hillary.
Ad hominem attacks, eh? You’d need a calculator to sum the number of insults you and your followers have tossed my way. Perhaps it’s only OK to insult people who don’t agree with your world view? Your myopic vision of how you believe our world should be is on full display, and it’s not a pretty thing.
You claim that your support for Trump is as necessary as it was for Obama.
I take this to mean that once a leader has been democratically elected, then all opposition should cease, and the people should forget their differences and unite behind the elected leader?
I did support Obama after his election and gave him a chance. Unfortunately, it became obvious within his first year in office that he was not a talented president. BTW, I also voted for Hillary in 2008 before she committed political suicide by jeopardizing national security via her email errors(and her copious, mendacious iterations regarding them).
The US has essentially a two-party system which is adversarial/oppositional by design. Thus I don’t believe all opposition should cease; rather, the programs desired by both parties should be negotiated democratically. Such negotiations between our leftist president and Republicans has been mostly dormant for the last 8 years since Obama: 1. has virtually zero bargaining skills and, 2. was almost entirely feckless in his “negotiations” with GOP leaders throughout his presidency.
Look it up Logos. He has filed for bankruptcy at least 6 times per news reports, and in doing so renigs on his promises to pay many, many of those he employed to do work for him. This is just another way of doing business for him. He still profits but could care less who he hurts in the process. It appears you approve of these tactics and can identify with his ability to con honest folks out their money, like he has done selling fake nutritional supplements. He has no conscience which fits his severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He is the king or dictator in his mind, and everyone owes him.
Please provide a link which demonstrates that Trump has ever filed for personal bankruptcy.
Disingenuous! You have introduced the word “personal”, which was not previously used, either in the original post or by SCox.
Here is a link that endorses the assertion that was actually made:
Get real, Stephen, or else learn how to read. My initial comment clearly stated that I didn’t believe that Trump had ever filed for personal bankruptcy.
Where’s the link, SCox?
Logos, All you have to do is look up Trump’s bankruptcy cases on any legitimate fact checking site, as Politifact. It is a matter of public record. Trump has also openly claimed on TV to know someone who’s child became autistic from vaccination as if he knows anything about medicine and real scientific data that clearly disproves such nonsense. He also has sold magical nutritional supplements for profit, just one of many ways he has conned the public, like his fraudulent Trump University. I’m sure you can appreciate the con!
I don’t believe Trump has ever declared or filed for personal bankruptcy. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
By the way-the fellow Logos COULD be right in saying that Trump could be the only politician to stick to his main promises. This however is hardly a neutral statement.
The type of promises made is rather important also. Hitler stuck to many of HIS promises, until events, combined with his own stupidity, arrogance, and sheer incompetence overtook him.
And anyway, Logos undermines his/her own argument immediately by pointing out that he also expects him NOT to stick to his promises with regard to Obama are, something he’d referred to constantly as a ‘disaster’
Other broken promises, or statements he made and later denied, are too numerous to mention. His support for the illegal invasion of Iraq, for instance. Or his crooked ‘university’ scam. Or his refusal to pay suppliers.
Perhaps Americans disliked Hillary more than they disliked Trump?
Barrie, you have been listening to far too many leftist media talking points when you compare Trump to Hitler. Only in LALA land could someone make such a claim and expect it to be believed. Likely many on this site will believe such drivel, unfortunately.
This is a mistake commonly made.
The fact that I mentioned Hitler and Trump in the same sentence not necessarily indicate that I am making a direct comparison.
If I were to say that I dislike Thatcher, but on the other hand do like sausage, then surely only the determinedly obdurate could conclude that I am comparing Margaret Thatcher to a sausage.
That apart- I do wish you would desist from your references to the imagined sycophancy towards EE of his correspondents.
I dispute your use of the word ‘debunk’ in relation to Obama.
I dispute your argument that references to Obama’s skin colour are merely ”racially insensitive’.
The distinction you attempt to draw between Trump’s business bankruptcies, and any personal bankruptcy he may or may not have suffered, is no more than hair- splitting. These were his companies, and he would have been the first to claim any success that had accrued. And part of the reason for his success so far is that he’s used his business ‘career’ as tha basis for his claims about his financial competence.
Trump ‘University’ is a phrase that still resonates.
Finally, your use of the word ‘patriot’ is just silly.
You’ll know, I expect, what was said about ‘patriotism’ some time back.5
I accept that you now claim that your remarks about Trump and Hitler were independent of one another.
So…you dispute my use of “debunked.” Why? Obama’s signature achievements, if one would refer to them as such, have been disasters.
I didn’t state that referring to Obama’s skin color was “merely racially insensitive.” I stated that to do so would BE racially insensitive; and it certainly would be, don’t you agree?
There has been no hair-splitting regarding my comments on Trump’s non-existent personal bankruptcy. I stated that I didin’t believe such had occurred and nobody has yet provided proof that I was wrong.
Trump has had a successful business career prior to his winning the presidential election. Don’t you think having such extensive experience in business prior to the presidency is superior to having the presidency filled by an inexperienced community organizer? Apparently America’s voters think so.
[blockquote] Perhaps Americans disliked Hillary more than they disliked Trump?[/blockquote]
So why did nearly 2 million more of them vote for Clinton than for the second ‘person of colour’ (albeit orange) to be elected POTUS?
Ever hear of the electoral college…you know, the votes that matter? Besides, you have no idea whether Ol’ Hill, the gal with the lyin’ eyes, had more votes cast for her than for Trump.
Here’s why: she won’t win the actual numbers of votes cast. States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the margin of difference is less than the number of absentee ballots. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is 67% Repub and 33% Dem; there were 2 mill absentee ballots in California alone. When it’s all said and done, Trump will likely have had more votes cast for him than for Hillary, not that this matters one iota.
It seems from your comments that you are “hung up” on the color of a person’s skin as meaning more than its containing a different amount of melanin. Liberals in the USA often focus on race in their politics, unfortunately, since to do so gives them a tool to encourage racial divisions and then to offer “solutions” to a problem that they have in part created/exacerbated. Via deductive reasoning, I surmise that you are a liberal. Ironically, the lib-hating Trump might well be the most liberal Republican the USA has elected president since before most of us were born.
Your statements on the popular vote are patently false. All absentee ballots are counted and the final tally will likely show Clinton winning the popular vote by a significant margin.
Snopes has a good summary: http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/13/who-won-the-popular-vote/
Thanks for that, Kyle. I was pretty sure that was the case, but couldn’t recall where I’d seen it.
Now why doesn’t that surprise me?
But we must grant him/her one success: s/he has successfully steered discussion towards the minutiae of the US election and its victor’s financial dealings and away from the charlatanery/quackery that was the subject of Edzard’s post.
My statements are true. It is possible that my conclusion relative to the statements might ultimately be proven wrong.
Weeks’ immature bait and switch tactics do in no way invalidate the criticisms of the study in question. As for Thorpe’s mention of Hitler and Trump in the same sentence, the tactic of inciting hate among the voting public, coupled with the guise of making their country ‘great again’, while hardly unique, is nonetheless an accurate portrayal of the emotional appeal attending the political campaigns of both politicians.
* Not unless it’s the same electoral college system that Trump derided as “undemocratic” after a previous election.
* Inept attempt at diversion. My comment was a response to your “Perhaps Americans disliked Hillary more than they disliked Trump?”, not the voting system. But then, you already knew that.
You can’t have it both ways:if I have no idea, then neither do you and your “disliked” comment above has no foundation.
Au contraire. It was merely a snipe at the fakery that permeates Trump: immediately visible in his skin, but not only skin deep.
Regarding your first points…I recommend that you research the defintion of the word “perhaps” and that you also contemplate the liklihood that a “?” at the end of a sentence does not denote a declaration. Furthermore, you must’ve missed the points of my 2nd paragraph in the post to which you have here responded. Assimilate the comments from it, consider my use of the word “perhaps,” and hopefully you will come to the logical conclusion that I believe(I have not averred) that Trump will likely be found to have won the popular vote if all absentee ballots were to be counted. Such counting is not required, but it would not be surprising if the media were to attempt to gain access to the ballots in the future.
Stephen, you are obviously a smart person. Do you really believe Trump hates blacks, Latinos, and other people of color? Many folks who align themselves with a particular political party simply accept all of the bogus prattle that their pols proffer. I would hope that posters on a site like this wouldn’t fit such a description. Please give some examples of Trump’s fakery regarding skin color, as well as your thoughts regarding them.
Instead of pretending that I wrote things that I didn’t (eg characterising your ‘disliked’ comment as a declaration), you might like to respond to what I actually wrote, not what you wish I’d written – but I won’t bate my breath.
And you are clearly a wannabe devious one, the way you habitually misrepresent what others write. But you’re pretty inept at it. Perhaps you could consider giving up and try your hand at ‘good faith’ debate instead?
If I believed that, I might have asserted it. But, as you already know, I didn’t.
I already have given you an example. He dyes his skin orange (or wears orangutan makeup?) – that is usually called “fake tan”. My thoughts on it are that, if he told me that grass was green, my first instinct would likely be to check.
“* Not unless it’s the same electoral college system that Trump derided as “undemocratic” after a previous election.* Inept attempt at diversion. My comment was a response to your “Perhaps Americans disliked Hillary more than they disliked Trump?”, not the voting system. But then, you already knew that,” wrote Stephen, a man with apparent comprehension(perhaps literary expression limitations?) problems. Your response to my “dislike of Trump vs. Hillary” comment necessarily dictates the interpretation that you treated my comment as a declaration; your failed attempt here to walk it back is blatant. This is especially so given the explanation for my personal belief that, in the future, Trump likely will have been determined to have won the popular vote. Allow me to dumb down the electoral college for you by comparing the presidential election to a tennis matich wherein a 5-set loser can have won 9 more total games in the match than the winner. Perhaps only you would suggest that the loser played better than the winner because the former won more games. Perhaps only you would try(unsucessfully, embarrassingly) to argue that a spectator’s generalized remark that the winner played better than the loser should be challenged. LMAO…you just can’t make this stuff up! You apparently simply like to argue for argument’s sake. I suggest you hone your chops a bit more, Stephen.
You have written things either purposely or mistakenly that confer certain meanings which you subsequently deny. For example, you mentioned “color of skin” and indirectly referred to Obama; I’m just waiting for you to decry such an interpretation as my “pretending you wrote things you didn’t write.” Again, Stephen, hone your debate chops a bit more, please.
(On the off-chance that you are not being deliberately dissembling with that assertion) You need to learn that [your inference] ≠ [my statement or implication].
Now, in addition to pretending that you know my mind better than I, you are compounding your deliberate misrepresentations (and ludicrously false analogy!) by inventing a quote:
and attributing it to me. (Clue: I don’t use septic (that’s Cockney rhyming slang) spelling.) I don’t generally defend assertions that I haven’t actually made.
Now, instead of positing makey-uppie ‘quotes’, why not eschew disingenuity and use the quoting facility so thoughtfully provided by the author of this blogging software (or, if you lack the wit to do that, use a simple copy-and-paste for quotes)?
I’m out of this unless you start indulging in good-faith discussion.
I came to the same conclusion and am also out – no good discussing with such a guy [I could find some adjectives but prefer not to]!
You did, in fact, mention a second person of color in a previous post; this was taken to be a subtle reference to Obama’s race. I have previously stated, and now you have agreed, that your implication might not necessarily agree with a reader’s inference of same.
I think you would be better served in merely posting what you mean without confounding yourself by trying to keep up with the linguistic/vocabulary skills of others. If communication, not arguing minutia for the sake of argument, is your goal, I’m in to continuing this conversation. Your delight in back-and-forth comments/criticisms of writing styles doesn’t further our discussion regarding the election. Perhaps you have nothing more to contribute in opining on the election and are instead providing a diversion?
Regarding your contrived allegation that I made up the “color of skin” quote, please note that my use of quotation marks in that sentence was not to quote you directly but, rather, to emphasize the spurious nature of your attempted walk-back from your *person of color* statement. FYI, quotation marks can serve more purposes than simply to directly quote another person. You’re welcome for the grammar lesson.
If you wish to converse about the election, go for it!
What do you mean by stating that you accept that I ‘now’ claim that my statements about Trump and Hitler were independent of each other? As I said before, they always were. I haven’t changed my position between then and now.
And you didn’t answer my question about whether, as you claimed, any nation should immediately fall in line behind its elected leader, and drop any objections.
Regarding your first question, my response to it was clear. Obviously Lighthorse inferred the same meaning from your mentioning both Trump and Hitler(and their promises) in your post: that you were implying a comparison between the two. Ergo I accept your clarification. BTW, you didn’t mention the two leaders in the same sentence; rather, they were mentioned in contiguous sentences, both of which mentioned “promises.” Accordingly, your post would necessarily be interpreted as I originally had.
Regarding your second question, the US is essentially a 2-party nation. The parties on some issues are complimentary and on others adversarial. Therefore, I don’t believe there should be an immediate acquiescence of Trump’s policies by America’s citizens. Besides, such would be largely impossible because of our system of government. Everyone theoretically has a voice in a democratic republic. If Trump fails, he’ll be gone. If he succeeds(or at least given a chance to succeed), America will be all the better for it.
Dazzling footwork, but superficial.
No rational person could interpret my mention of Hitler and Trump in -if you insist- contiguous sentences as implying that I was drawing a similarity between them.
The fact that I might wish to is a separate matter. I did NOT on that particular occasion.
As to your perceived duty to support, in a democracy, whoever is elected- I find that odd.
You may have a duty to accept the result- which Trump if you remember threatened not to- but you are not required to support that person. Honourable opposition is acceptable in a democracy.
Do I take it that your ‘duty’ would have been to support Hitler? He was after all elected in a democracy. Would you have reprimanded and lectured those who couldn’t bring themselves to that level?
Still, I shall move on, since this subject is not what this site is about.
Barrie, please don’t be silly. My last post clearly stated that immediate support of a president is not required in the US for the reasons I stated. Why did you infer otherwise? BTW, where did you get that I stated that I had a DUTY to support Trump? America doesn’t elect kings, rulers, or imperial leaders; she elects limited-term presidents.
My explanation of why Lighthouse and I correctly, from a literary standpoint, interpeted your first post, and drew our conclusions that you were comparing the leaders, was clear. Sorry you didn’t understand it. I do accept your subsequent clarification of its meaning.
Your questions about Hitler are beyond silly, Barrie. Nobody in his right mind would accept/condone the atrocities that the NAZI leader prosecuted. Further, I’m left now to wonder if you are comparing Hitler to Trump in this most recent post of yours. If so, please expound on your position. If not, please clarify as to why you are even discussing Hitler in a thread about Trump.
I was not a Trumpite; but he was/is superior to Hillary. My comments in Edzard’s recent threads have been merely to correct the erroneous perceptions of interested parties(within and outside of America) in this forum when it appears that they have received and assimilated leftist propaganda and mistaken it for real news.
Be well, Barrie
This may well be relevant in the context of my post:
I see Donny Fartpants has already started breaking his promises.
Imagine my surprise.
i too am giving up on the troll Logos-Bios
Too far off the scale.
It does not surprise me in the least that you are retreating from your losing position in this conversation. The ignorance conveyed in the majority of your posts in this thread suggest that you either can’t read, or that you don’t allow yourself to assimilate information which fails to prove you are correct in conversation. As with many on this site, you don’t seem to have the mettle to academically out-argue your adversaries; if a conversation doesn’t go your way, you pout and then leave.
Stephen- Don’t in any circumstances accept grammar lessons from Logos-Bios, even should you need them.
Her/his language seems to consist greatly of pomposity and stirrup- pumped verbosity, and it’ s often plain wrong.
Seems to have a loose grasp of Latin plurals too.
Thanks, but no imminent danger of that. 🙂 To adapt-a-quote someone: Debating with pseudo-medders like Illogos-Mortis is like playing chess with a pigeon: they are out of their depth so they just knock the pieces over, crap on the board, than strut about as if they had won.
Ahh…..advice from a man(Barrie) who repetitively asks essentially the same question for which an answer has previously been provided. Yep, Stephen should surely heed his sage counsel! lol
Stephen- Yep, she’s an odd one all right.
Edzard Ernst – you are right. These observations are confirmatory evidence for the Dysology Hypothesis and its anti-veracity spiral of decline
A Call To All Scientists
Following his election in 2016, the USA inaugurated President Donald Trump in January 2017.
As a norm, the conventions of science seek to separate the world of scientific conceptions and discoveries from popular news and politics. However, in 2016 and 2017 the world took a twist towards populist politics, facilitated by voter decision making based upon favouring leaders who disseminate fake facts. For example, Trump has declared by way of publication on social media that he believes vaccinations cause autism and that the scientific concept of global warming is a Chinese conspiracy.
Such unscientific politicization of science must not be allowed to pass unchallenged by the scientific community, including social scientists. However, to have the voice of objective reason in debates of evidence-led veracity versus beliefs in unevidenced claptrap, science should ensure its own house is order, else face the embarrassment of defeat in debate with purveyors of seriously harmful nonsense. For that reason, dysology promoted by scientists, supported and facilitated by the institutions of science, must be detected and corrected as a matter of moral and scientific urgency.
Dr Mike Sutton Feb 1st 2017