The final sentence sums it up nicely: “In the end, the real issue isn’t the mental health of the current President but rather what kind of society we want our nation to become and what kind of leader is best for that society.” This is the classic dichotomy that’s always characterized America.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202004/do-conservatives-view-trump-differently-liberals

For this purpose, Fiala and his colleagues recruited 219 participants through an online platform known as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Called MTurk for short, this site has become the go-to location to recruit people across the demographic spectrum for psychological studies. In this case, the participants ranged in age from 18-79, about one-third men and two-thirds women, and they were distributed across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status in a manner similar to the American population at large. About 60 percent of the participants had voted for Hillary Clinton, and the other 40 percent had voted for Donald Trump, again reflecting that the current president won the elector college despite losing the popular election.

The participants were asked to assess the personality of the president using a personality test that is often used in research on interpersonal relationships. The questionnaire gets at potential psychological disorders of the target person. Each item is worded in simple language such that respondents don’t have to understand the nature of mental illnesses or even be aware that they are evaluating clearly defined psychological disorders.

The key question that Fiala and colleagues tested was straightforward. Namely, do liberals and conservatives view the personality of President Donald Trump in an essentially different manner? In a nutshell, the answer to this question is both yes and no.

In particular, both liberals and conservatives ranked Trump high on six personality traits generally considered by professionals to be disordered:

*Sadistic. Respondents regardless of political affiliation generally agreed that Trump is a bully who acts aggressively toward anyone he perceives as a threat to his ego.

*Narcissistic. They also agreed that he is self-centered and engages in self-aggrandizing behaviors.

*Histrionic. Both camps viewed Trump as excessively melodramatic, one who knows how to stir up controversy for personal advantage.

*Passive-aggressive. Both sides agree that Trump has overtly negative attitudes about specific persons and groups and that he takes out his aggression through passive means such as obstruction and name-calling rather than direct confrontation.

*Paranoid. Respondents on both sides agreed that Trump perceives threats from many quarters; by his words and actions, he shows himself to be on high alert.

*Antisocial. Liberals and conservatives alike concurred that Trump has a general disregard for social norms and that he views himself as entitled and above the law.

When liberals consider that the President of the United States ranks extremely high in all six of these personality traits, they are simply dumbstruck at the thought that a sizable portion of the American popular actually supports Trump and sees him as a good president. If liberals and conservatives agree on the personality of the President, then why do they disagree on whether Trump is fit for the highest office in the land?

…

What really terrifies me about modern America is not what Trump is or what he will do, but that about a third of Americans do not care, they just feel a personal stake in his succeeding. They are willing to forgive him, no matter what he does or how compelling the evidence against him is and long after Trump is gone those people will still be here. One mad President is just bad luck; the followers of that one President are too numerous and too diverse to be just an accident or a statistical fluke. They are evidence of a profound sickness, a deep inner disease. Trump is not the cause, he is just a symptom.

America is like a beautiful woman with rotten teeth.

This looks like some company trying to get some free press by jumping into the uproar over the president’s comments.

1) HOW would you get uv light into the intricate network of alveoli deep inside the lungs?

2) Penetration of light into human tissue is strongly dependent on wavelength- in the uv-infrared portion of the spectrum the shorter the wavelength, the less distance it can penetrate into human tissue- UV-A has a wavelength of 320-400nm, its penetration through the lung tissue would not be very deep- 10′s-100′s microns (assuming it even makes it through the copious mucous and ther fluids present in the lungs of the infected) and certainly not enough to make it into all the alevoli

3) Their rushed little cartoon on this can be seen here: https://aytubio.com/healight/
The fact that UV light can kill virus and bacteria is no big news – a month ago I looked at the efficacy of various UV wavelengths for sterilization of surfaces (I was looking at possible ways to sterilize parts I was printing for PPE), there is no shortage of papers on this…

They cite a single paper:

“Internally Applied Ultraviolet Light as a Novel Approach for Effective and Safe Anti-Microbial Treatment.” Here, the authors show that UVA light exhibits significant in vitro bactericidal effects in an array of clinically important bacteria. Additionally, this is the first study using intracolonic UVA application, which reports that UVA exposure is not associated with endoscopic or histologic injury. These findings suggest that UVA therapy can potentially provide a safe and effective novel approach to antimicrobial treatment via phototherapy on internal organs.

Translation:

“In laboratory conditions the researchers showed- to no one’s surprise- that UVA killed bacteria. The researchers then shoved some UV-A LEDs up someone’s ass and turned them on (for some reason they are PROUD that they are the first people to do this)- and it didn’t seem to hurt them, so maybe it could be used to maybe treat some disease- dunno, crazier things have happened, right?”

The intensity used to kill the bacteria in the lab, and the intensity used in the volunteer’s ass are not available in the online references to the paper I could find… UVA CAN cause damage to human cells.

4) The first references to their “Healight” I found- didn’t do an exhaustive search since its late- was about a week ago.

As soon as the uproar over the president’s suggestion that we pump sunlight into people’s lungs, and bleach into people’s veins idiots on right-wing discussion boards pointed to this as proof that Trump was truly wise and ‘in the know’… (FrankC among them- He parrots- without thinking- any incorrect meme that reinforces his twisted world view)

Of course the fact that Trump back-peddled and lied -claiming he was just making a joke and wasn’t serious at all- undercut all those making that defense… yet again demonstrating that any defense of Trump his followers put forth will be undercut by Trump himself within 24 hours.

Q-anon message boards have been hyping the curative powers of ingesting bleach in relation to COVID for over a month, and I suspect that some of that nonsense made it to Trump’s eyes, since he goes out of his way to cater to those nutcases

Has he ever said, oops, I should have listened to the smart people who told me this was bad?

No.

No pass. He doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about, ever. He likes to pretend he is smart.

He’s not. Never was. And his brain is eroding. And nobody is going to take away the car keys.

Evil.

Trump’s remarks were not evil, but his lies and evasions to cover up his ignorance, to blame it on the liberal press, certainly are. And so is the pretzel logic his followers are coming up with to try and cover for him.

Also evil are Trump’s seizing on any disconnected half truth he stumbles across and passing it off in public to demonstrate to his followers that he’s on top of things and his opponents are just out to get him. He’s distracting his followers by trying to disguise his incompetence.

H