And to be clear “I don’t know” wouldn‘t be a deflection. Even “I’m not able to answer that question” wouldn’t be a deflection.” They might not be honest or satisfactory answers but they are answers.
“I’m going to pivot to a BS non sequitur talking point“ is not an answer.
that’s the way: ask a reasonable question, if the response is a deflection, ask it again, if the response is another deflection ask it again, or end the interview. No more “well ok, on to the next question I guess.”
this seems like the other side of the “taking norms and institutions for granted“ coin. Most of the lost capacity that’s being (rightly) lamented didn‘t exist 80 years ago. It‘s not like some sort of irreplaceable old-growth forest— it was created in our parents’ and grandparents’ times
Yeah I did think this sounded funny: “Comprehensive laboratory studies performed in conjunction with the visit were exceptional, including stable metabolic, hematologic, and cardiac parameters.”
The word “exceptional” seems just a tiny bit out of tune with the rest of the sentence.
I wouldn‘t be surprised if something similar was the case with Dr. Barbarella or whatever his name is, although it seems like they’re dialing down the hyperbole a bit.
Again I have no idea if this all applies to Trump and his DO, and I don’t trust his medical team at all.
But it doesn’t seem right to treat the idea of assessing your cardiac age with an ecg as somehow outlandish or laughable. That’s all I’m trying to say here.
Here’s an article from the European Society of Cardiology which talks about using AI to calculate ”the heart’s biological age,” which would seem to be exactly the concept and terminology that people are mocking on this thread: www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Pres...
Not sure what that image is supposed to communicate, can you clarify?
But here’s a recent study from the Mayo Clinic which talks about using ”electrocardiographic age” to estimate mortality risk: www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/...
it does appear to be an ”emerging“ technique, as that meta-analysis I linked to called it. It may not be widely used in clinical practice at this point.
But it is clearly a real thing, a serious idea which has been extensively studied over the past several years.
I’m not sure how else to interpret “clinical settings” in the text you quote. And there were plenty of MD‘s among the study’s authors.
It may be that this is a new technique that isn’t widely used. But the comment I was responding to portrayed it as a nonsensical idea, and apparently it is not.
And actually, this is relevant to me aside from the Trump aspect, because as an aging person with some potential heart issues in my future, I am very interested in the possibility of getting useful cardiac health/risk info from an ECG.
Do I trust that this press release is an accurate depiction of Trump’s health? Of course not. The numbers could be fudged, or maybe they reported only positive data and concealed all negative findings.
But the ecg-based estimate referenced in the press release is an actual thing that is done.
The point is that estimating cardiac age from an ECG is something doctors actually do. So the assertion that it’s a made-up thing that doesn‘t happen is incorrect.
