Casey Means, MD, for Surgeon General...Implications for Pain?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
i dont have opinions? im not opinionated? thats a new one.

i was comfortable with Levine in a senior policy making role. do i like the idea of young men being chemically or surgically neutered? or of young women getting top surgeries? of course not. but thats doctor-patient stuff, not lawmaker stuff




She told NPR in 2022 that "there is no argument among medical professionals [...] about the value and importance of gender-affirming care." Since then some high-profile medical professionals have called for caution in this medical field, including British pediatrician Hilary Cass. Those physicians are often cited by lawmakers seeking to ban this care. Cass was mentioned recently during Supreme Court arguments about whether such bans are constitutional.

Rachel Levine calls state anti-LGBTQ bills disturbing and dangerous to trans youth

Shots - Health News

Rachel Levine calls state anti-LGBTQ bills disturbing and dangerous to trans youth

"There is still widespread agreement about the medical utility of transgender medicine and transgender medicine for young people," Levine maintains. "There is always ongoing research to study any of our medical protocols, and that would include transgender medicine. We should always have robust discussion and analysis of our treatment protocols, and they need to be based on data."

She says those standards of care should then be applied carefully to individual patients. "That's how we do pediatrics and that's how it should be done," she says.

That is separate from what's happening with the proliferation of anti-trans state laws, she says. "This is really a politically and ideologically motivated effort developed by a think tank in Washington in order to attack the LGBTQI+ community, starting with the trans community," she says. "And unfortunately, it has been very successful."
From my POV, the framing is warped, as one would expect from a person with a mental disorder.

There is no attack or war on a "community" called "LGBTQIA+".

There is only legitimate concern for children and girls in sports.
 
i dont have opinions? im not opinionated? thats a new one.

i was comfortable with Levine in a senior policy making role. do i like the idea of young men being chemically or surgically neutered? or of young women getting top surgeries? of course not. but thats doctor-patient stuff, not lawmaker stuff




She told NPR in 2022 that "there is no argument among medical professionals [...] about the value and importance of gender-affirming care." Since then some high-profile medical professionals have called for caution in this medical field, including British pediatrician Hilary Cass. Those physicians are often cited by lawmakers seeking to ban this care. Cass was mentioned recently during Supreme Court arguments about whether such bans are constitutional.

Rachel Levine calls state anti-LGBTQ bills disturbing and dangerous to trans youth

Shots - Health News

Rachel Levine calls state anti-LGBTQ bills disturbing and dangerous to trans youth

"There is still widespread agreement about the medical utility of transgender medicine and transgender medicine for young people," Levine maintains. "There is always ongoing research to study any of our medical protocols, and that would include transgender medicine. We should always have robust discussion and analysis of our treatment protocols, and they need to be based on data."

She says those standards of care should then be applied carefully to individual patients. "That's how we do pediatrics and that's how it should be done," she says.

That is separate from what's happening with the proliferation of anti-trans state laws, she says. "This is really a politically and ideologically motivated effort developed by a think tank in Washington in order to attack the LGBTQI+ community, starting with the trans community," she says. "And unfortunately, it has been very successful."

First off, Dr Levine is factually incorrect, because the clear majority of the entire western scientific community outside of North America no longer practice gender affirming care. The United States is now an outlier.

Secondly, this BS is why your party lost control of all 3 branches of the federal government. Funny that you and others fail to admit this.

“You and Kamala are for they/them while republicans are for us”
 
First off, Dr Levine is factually incorrect, because the clear majority of the entire western scientific community outside of North America no longer practice gender affirming care. The United States is now an outlier.

Secondly, this BS is why your party lost control of all 3 branches of the federal government. Funny that you and others fail to admit this.

“You and Kamala are for they/them while republicans are for us”
oversimplification. her quote was from 2022, and this statement is nonspecific ""There is still widespread agreement about the medical utility of transgender medicine and transgender medicine for young people"

but i do admit trangender issues did not help the cause.
 
oversimplification. her quote was from 2022, and this statement is nonspecific ""There is still widespread agreement about the medical utility of transgender medicine and transgender medicine for young people"

but i do admit trangender issues did not help the cause.

Couple more years and Trump will turn.
 
You're really good at criticizing other opinions but seem to have none of your own.

You have expressed being a moderate on this topic in the past.

"Qualifications" aside, were you comfortable with Levine in a senior policy making role, guiding America's healthcare system?
apparently, trump has felt comfortable so far - if he had, he would have fired her on day 1 and he is instead going through the usual channels to replace her.
 
First off, Dr Levine is factually incorrect, because the clear majority of the entire western scientific community outside of North America no longer practice gender affirming care. The United States is now an outlier.

Secondly, this BS is why your party lost control of all 3 branches of the federal government. Funny that you and others fail to admit this.

“You and Kamala are for they/them while republicans are for us”
this is actually not true.

to be clear, most gender affirming care is medication based, and not surgery. and most of gender care is medication related.

yes, there has been a subtle shift towards a more nuanced approach, but the blanket statement that other countries are "no longer practicing gender affirming care" is not.



(theres a nice map showing the status of gender care by country)
 
this is actually not true.

to be clear, most gender affirming care is medication based, and not surgery. and most of gender care is medication related.

yes, there has been a subtle shift towards a more nuanced approach, but the blanket statement that other countries are "no longer practicing gender affirming care" is not.



(theres a nice map showing the status of gender care by country)

No you’re wrong.
Just because something is legal in a country it doesn’t mean it is still actively pursued.

The overall scientific community in all of the world (excluding North America) has pulled back significantly on “gender affirming care”, and are recognizing that these patients need psychiatric help, not doctors who will just agree with anything said by mentally disturbed patients.

The US is an outlier.

And it’s stupid hill to die on for the Democratic Party.
 
please post information that supports your claims.

i did a search and found no such information that there is a "significant" pull back.


it is stupid because the Republican Party is making personal decisions such a huge issue. but then again, the Republican Party appears to be the party of divide and disparage.


in case you forgot, i am an independent and have been so for all of my life.
 
Yes exactly. Someone more like this…🤦🏻‍♂️

View attachment 403539
LOL - yes, that was the picture of health! Oh, and being fat is genetic, in no way shape or form related to lifestyle choices... smfh

If someone has a PhD in business and economics, and has published 1000 papers on the subject, yet they've mismanaged their life so much that they're bankrupt and homeless, then they do not deserve to be in a federal advisory position pertaining to their field of study, EVEN IF THEY ARE TRANS... Why? Because they have demonstrated unequivocally that they are not fit to be in such roles based on their failures in making sound life choices. A successful business man without a PhD in economics, is a better pick than an economist who can't manage a business or their own finances.

Likewise, Levine paints a picture of health that American's should be RUNNING away from. Levine is fat, out of shape, and suffers from crippling psychiatric illness. Basically, Levine never figured out his own health, and therefore is not suited to advise American's on their own. I'll take someone like Casey Means over someone like Levine any day of the week.
 
Last edited:
interesting pack of assumptions.

Levine is fat, out of shape, and suffers from crippling psychiatric illness.

tell me, how are you making the assertion Levine has psychiatric illness? Levine is 67 years old.

and what kind of shape do you expect Levine to be in? double standards much?

you are choosing someone who couldnt make it in residency. who couldnt make is a a practicing physician and had to choose to sell wellness (ie not scientifically backed) products to make a living, one business (truemed) actually doesnt make products but works as an intermediary for people to use their HSA/FSA money to buy alternative treatment, and the other (Levels) that sells continuous glucose monitoring (a dubious treatment) to healthy people trying to convince them that they essentially are sick. of note, she is a partner in both (with her brother for Truemed and with 5 others for Levels) so she actually hasnt run a business by herself.

she does not have an active license, and she is board certified in absolutely nothing.


and if that were the case, how can you support Trump? he is a "businessman" that has failed multiple times in multiple businesses, declared bankruptcy multiple times, and (supposedly) cheats in golf?
 
tell me, how are you making the assertion Levine has psychiatric illness?
I looked at him.

and if that were the case, how can you support Trump? he is a "businessman" that has failed multiple times in multiple businesses, declared bankruptcy multiple times, and (supposedly) cheats in golf?
In inflation adjusted 2025 dollars, Trump's net worth is estimated to have been ~$1.2B a year after his father's death. It is currently estimated to be ~$5.5B. He's doing okay.

Also, I don't support Trump in a vacuum. I support him relative to his opposition - based on his already existing track record of managing the US economy during his first term, compared to the oppositions track record during their firs term. His opposition was the Biden/Harris puppet abomination. Let that sink in...

That's how I can support DJT. Enough said.
 
I looked at him.


In inflation adjusted 2025 dollars, Trump's net worth is estimated to have been ~$1.2B a year after his father's death. It is currently estimated to be ~$5.5B. He's doing okay.

Also, I don't support Trump in a vacuum. I support him relative to his opposition - based on his already existing track record of managing the US economy during his first term, compared to the oppositions track record during their firs term. His opposition was the Biden/Harris puppet abomination. Let that sink in...

That's how I can support DJT. Enough said.
Your economic points are inaccurate.

At the end on trump’s first term the economy was in the toilet. Yes, there was the pandemic but he was not a good economic steward through it

Biden OTOH had a booming economy at the end of his term.

Support whoever you want but your economic rationale doesn’t hold water
 
I looked at him.


In inflation adjusted 2025 dollars, Trump's net worth is estimated to have been ~$1.2B a year after his father's death. It is currently estimated to be ~$5.5B. He's doing okay.

Also, I don't support Trump in a vacuum. I support him relative to his opposition - based on his already existing track record of managing the US economy during his first term, compared to the oppositions track record during their firs term. His opposition was the Biden/Harris puppet abomination. Let that sink in...

That's how I can support DJT. Enough said.
Well said
 
Your economic points are inaccurate.

At the end on trump’s first term the economy was in the toilet. Yes, there was the pandemic but he was not a good economic steward through it

Biden OTOH had a booming economy at the end of his term.

Support whoever you want but your economic rationale doesn’t hold water
As a fiscal conservative I disagree with a lot of what Trump has done economically. He added to the deficit however he was under significant unprecedented duress during the end of his first term so I don’t think it’s fair to use that time period. Prior to Covid, the economy was booming. Covid and the massive dump of money into the US economy resulted in a monetary death spiral leading to stagflation. Biden did nothing to help the situation. It wasn’t until Trump took office that prices and inflation finally began to drop. Currently gas is the lowest it’s been in years. You can see this right?
 
As a fiscal conservative I disagree with a lot of what Trump has done economically. He added to the deficit however he was under significant unprecedented duress during the end of his first term so I don’t think it’s fair to use that time period. Prior to Covid, the economy was booming. Covid and the massive dump of money into the US economy resulted in a monetary death spiral leading to stagflation. Biden did nothing to help the situation. It wasn’t until Trump took office that prices and inflation finally began to drop. Currently gas is the lowest it’s been in years. You can see this right?
thats actually wrong, but is a talking point of right wing social media.

inflation started rising Dec 2020 from 1.2 to 1.7 at start of biden's term (presidents begin Jan 20), peaked at 9.1 on June 2022, and fell gradually to 2.4 Sept 2024, creeped back up to 3 but down to 2.8 the first full month of trumps term. it is now 2.3.

and here is data, which i should add you must have accidentally forgotten to post, in line with your call for data from your post on a different thread.


1748000279800.png
 
I looked at him.


In inflation adjusted 2025 dollars, Trump's net worth is estimated to have been ~$1.2B a year after his father's death. It is currently estimated to be ~$5.5B. He's doing okay.

Also, I don't support Trump in a vacuum. I support him relative to his opposition - based on his already existing track record of managing the US economy during his first term, compared to the oppositions track record during their firs term. His opposition was the Biden/Harris puppet abomination. Let that sink in...

That's how I can support DJT. Enough said.
um....

stock market was up.

US lost 2.7 million jobs.

real weakly earnings were up.

unemployment rate was up.

trade deficit went up.

federal debt went up. (and went up not just from covid. it went up every year during trump presidency. see graph below)

illegal immigration (as ascertained via apprehensions at border) went up.

murder rate went up.

1748001080971.png
 
now bidens numbers as of when he stopped running for president - not final.




employment went up, to the point where 9.3 million more people working than before covid. noted in both reports.

unemployment rate went down and stayed lower for longer than during trumps presidency.



inflation - that he inherited from the disasterous trump policies esp gas - went way up but then has edged back down. noted in both reports.

trade deficit continued to go up

federal debt went way up.

illegal immigration (via apprehension numbers) went way up.

murder rate dropped.

oh and the number of insured went up after going down under trump.


as for the stock market, the stock market keeps going up irrespective of who is in office. well, except for bush. only bush was able to mess up the stock market (twice)...


so im not seeing how you can make such big claims that the economy was so much better under trump. even before covid, his numbers are not superior to bidens.
 
um....

stock market was up.

US lost 2.7 million jobs.

real weakly earnings were up.

unemployment rate was up.

trade deficit went up.

federal debt went up. (and went up not just from covid. it went up every year during trump presidency. see graph below)

illegal immigration (as ascertained via apprehensions at border) went up.

murder rate went up.

View attachment 404021
This is all crap data which I said you can’t count bc of the pandemic. What do you do? You cherry pick Covid data ….sigh
 
Last edited:
This is all crap data which I said you can’t count bc of the pandemic. What do you? You cherry pick Covid data ….sigh

Exactly. I think the best indicator of whose economy was better was quite clearly the election. If Biden’s economy was better, Trump would not have won, end of story.
 
Your economic points are inaccurate.

At the end on trump’s first term the economy was in the toilet. Yes, there was the pandemic but he was not a good economic steward through it

Biden OTOH had a booming economy at the end of his term.

Support whoever you want but your economic rationale doesn’t hold water
You are uninformed on this issue.

The economic impact of the pandemic was human driven, largely by Democrat politicians enforcing draconian lockdown policies. That's not a Trump issue - nor is anyone debating this. The only thing Trump did was sign a large stimulus package to stabilize the economy in lieu of the lockdowns and supply chain shortages.

A comparison of national debt growth under Trump and Biden reveals significant differences in fiscal responsibility. During Trump’s PRE-COVID years in office, national debt increased by approximately $1.1 trillion per year, whereas the Biden-Harris administration averaged ~$2.1 trillion per year over their 4 years (even if you take away their first year, which covered the tale end of the end of the pandemic, the average spend doesn't change).

National Debt change per presidential year (measuring Q1 debt change year-over-year) - Trump-Pence v Biden-Harris.
Year 1:
Trump-Pence +$1.25T (2017)
Biden-Harris +$2.3T (2021)

Year 2:
Trump-Pence +$0.95T (2018)
Biden-Harris +$1T (2022)

Year 3:
Trump-Pence +$1.2T (2019)
Biden-Harris +$3T (2023)

Year 4:
Trump-Pence (COVID stim) +$5T (additional $2.2T in COVID stim) (2020)
Biden-Harris + 2.2T (2024)

The numbers don't lie. See for yourself:

Trump was no penny pincher, so I don't give him a pass on this issue (especially with this new budget being looked at by the Senate) but, by comparison to the administration that succeeded him, he kept spending under better control, and focused on economic growth through private sector empowerment.

From a fiscal policy standpoint, Biden-Harris failed. Frankly, so did Obama, who literally doubled the national debt during his 2 terms in office (started at 10T, and finished at 20T).

1748104831213.png
 
um....

stock market was up.

US lost 2.7 million jobs.

real weakly earnings were up.

unemployment rate was up.

trade deficit went up.

federal debt went up. (and went up not just from covid. it went up every year during trump presidency. see graph below)

illegal immigration (as ascertained via apprehensions at border) went up.

murder rate went up.

View attachment 404021
See my previous post.

Also, to think the murder rate was up because of Trump, and not because of idiotic Democrat driven social movements to defund police in the areas with the highest murder rates (resulting in new all time high murder rates among Blacks, and a rejection of the BLM organization by the American public in the years following these foolish movements), and months of BLM riots whereby cites were razed, reveal the deep seeded Trump Derangement Syndrome you're suffering from. There is treatment if you want it.
 
Exactly. I think the best indicator of whose economy was better was quite clearly the election. If Biden’s economy was better, Trump would not have won, end of story.
Says it all right there.
 
You are uninformed on this issue.

The economic impact of the pandemic was human driven, largely by Democrat politicians enforcing draconian lockdown policies. That's not a Trump issue - nor is anyone debating this. The only thing Trump did was sign a large stimulus package to stabilize the economy in lieu of the lockdowns and supply chain shortages.

A comparison of national debt growth under Trump and Biden reveals significant differences in fiscal responsibility. During Trump’s PRE-COVID years in office, national debt increased by approximately $1.1 trillion per year, whereas the Biden-Harris administration averaged ~$2.1 trillion per year over their 4 years (even if you take away their first year, which covered the tale end of the end of the pandemic, the average spend doesn't change).

National Debt change per presidential year (measuring Q1 debt change year-over-year) - Trump-Pence v Biden-Harris.
Year 1:
Trump-Pence +$1.25T (2017)
Biden-Harris +$2.3T (2021)

Year 2:
Trump-Pence +$0.95T (2018)
Biden-Harris +$1T (2022)

Year 3:
Trump-Pence +$1.2T (2019)
Biden-Harris +$3T (2023)

Year 4:
Trump-Pence (COVID stim) +$5T (additional $2.2T in COVID stim) (2020)
Biden-Harris + 2.2T (2024)

The numbers don't lie. See for yourself:

Trump was no penny pincher, so I don't give him a pass on this issue (especially with this new budget being looked at by the Senate) but, by comparison to the administration that succeeded him, he kept spending under better control, and focused on economic growth through private sector empowerment.

From a fiscal policy standpoint, Biden-Harris failed. Frankly, so did Obama, who literally doubled the national debt during his 2 terms in office (started at 10T, and finished at 20T).

View attachment 404061
@Ducttape just got 1 upped
 
You are uninformed on this issue.

The economic impact of the pandemic was human driven, largely by Democrat politicians enforcing draconian lockdown policies. That's not a Trump issue - nor is anyone debating this. The only thing Trump did was sign a large stimulus package to stabilize the economy in lieu of the lockdowns and supply chain shortages.

A comparison of national debt growth under Trump and Biden reveals significant differences in fiscal responsibility. During Trump’s PRE-COVID years in office, national debt increased by approximately $1.1 trillion per year, whereas the Biden-Harris administration averaged ~$2.1 trillion per year over their 4 years (even if you take away their first year, which covered the tale end of the end of the pandemic, the average spend doesn't change).

National Debt change per presidential year (measuring Q1 debt change year-over-year) - Trump-Pence v Biden-Harris.
Year 1:
Trump-Pence +$1.25T (2017)
Biden-Harris +$2.3T (2021)

Year 2:
Trump-Pence +$0.95T (2018)
Biden-Harris +$1T (2022)

Year 3:
Trump-Pence +$1.2T (2019)
Biden-Harris +$3T (2023)

Year 4:
Trump-Pence (COVID stim) +$5T (additional $2.2T in COVID stim) (2020)
Biden-Harris + 2.2T (2024)

The numbers don't lie. See for yourself:

Trump was no penny pincher, so I don't give him a pass on this issue (especially with this new budget being looked at by the Senate) but, by comparison to the administration that succeeded him, he kept spending under better control, and focused on economic growth through private sector empowerment.

From a fiscal policy standpoint, Biden-Harris failed. Frankly, so did Obama, who literally doubled the national debt during his 2 terms in office (started at 10T, and finished at 20T).

View attachment 404061
If you look at this graph and the primary take home message is which president did better for the economy, you are part of the reason we’re F’ed.
 
Exactly. I think the best indicator of whose economy was better was quite clearly the election. If Biden’s economy was better, Trump would not have won, end of story.
so by your definition, the mood of the country - which goes a long way to determining election winner - is the key determinant of the economy? i would argue it is the perception and that is highly influenced by politics.


even given the starting point of both presidents, and the significant change in numbers for the better of one and for the worse of the other due to a pandemic, with the tenor of the article.



more importantly, i would agree that it was the perception of the economy being touted as poor by trump supporters and the really poor job of talking up the economy by the democrats that had an impact on the election results.


that, and there were other factors more americans voted for trump than harris, such as the woman factor and the "unknown" factor and dem supporter idiocy with certain specific issues, such as palestine (the reason harris lost michigan).
 
See my previous post.

Also, to think the murder rate was up because of Trump, and not because of idiotic Democrat driven social movements to defund police in the areas with the highest murder rates (resulting in new all time high murder rates among Blacks, and a rejection of the BLM organization by the American public in the years following these foolish movements), and months of BLM riots whereby cites were razed, reveal the deep seeded Trump Derangement Syndrome you're suffering from. There is treatment if you want it.
actually, murder rates trended up a little higher in 2019, before the pandemic, after trending downwards the first 2 years of trumps presidency.

so not entirely correct.

remember that occurred in May 2020, the protests occurred thereafter. any actions to defund the police did not start until after that time.

and truth be told, almost no defunding occurred, except in trump supporters minds.



We find no evidence that BLM protests led to police defunding. In cities with large Republican vote shares, protest is associated with significant increases in police budgets.
 
Top