Appointed by God?

From Patheos:

Last year a poll showed that 29.6 percent of white Protestants in America believed that Trump was appointed by God. That figure, according to a fresh poll, has risen to 49 percent.

That figure is contained in Trump the Anointed? published by Religion in Public.

Researchers Paul A Djupe of Denison University and Ryan P Burge of Eastern Illinois University compared survey data from May 2019 among white Protestants to a survey they conducted in March of this year.

Last August, Trump sparked controversy when, during a press conference that included a question about trade negotiations with China, he called himself “the chosen one.”

Pointing skywards Trump said:

"I am the chosen one. Somebody had to do it. So I’m taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade. And you know what? We’re winning. I was put here by people to do a great job. And that’s what I’m doing. And nobody has done a job like I’ve done."

On the same day, Trump retweeted a comment by conservative radio host Wayne Allyn Root, comparing the president to the “King of Israel” and “the Second Coming.”

Robert George, professor and former chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, was among the many critics of the narcissist’s comparison:

For heaven’s sake (I’m speaking literally here), Mr. President you are not ‘like the King of Israel.’ You are certainly not ‘like the second coming of God.’ Why retweet nutty, and to religious ears deeply offensive, talk like this?

Jay Lowder, a Texas-based evangelist who identified as a Trump supporter, called it “one of Trump’s most disturbing steps” and encouraged evangelicals to end their “silence” on the matter. 

In an opinion column for The Washington Post last year he wrote:

"Trump is neither the ‘Second Coming of God’ nor the ‘Messiah.’ In repeating the profane quote, he gave a narcissistic endorsement and even thanked Root, a well-known conspiracy theorist, for his words."

Trump later walked back his comment, claiming in a tweet that he was being sarcastic and that the reporters present knew he was just joking...

Didier Raoult: The Donald Trump of science

He Was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for Covid-19.

...“You know, people sometimes say, ‘If the patient gets better, that’s because of the drug, and if they get worse, it’s because of the virus,’” [Jean-Michel]Molina told me. “And of course that’s not true. And that’s why you need to do a well-conducted, randomized, placebo-controlled study if you want to show anything.” 

It is possible that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are an effective treatment for Covid-19. But Raoult’s study showed, at best, that 20 people who would almost certainly have survived without any treatment at all also survived for six days while taking the drugs Raoult prescribed.

“If you haven’t done this stuff, you can look at a report of people responding to such a treatment and figure that the answer is here — right here, and anyone who doesn’t see it must have some ulterior motives,” Derek Lowe, a longtime pharmaceutical researcher, wrote for Science Translational Medicine last month. “But that’s not how it works.” 

He went on: “Alzheimer’s drugs, obesity drugs, cardiovascular drugs, osteoporosis drugs: Over and over, there have been what looked like positive results that evaporated on closer inspection. After you’ve experienced this a few times, you take the lesson to heart that the only way to be sure about these things is to run sufficiently powered controlled trials. No shortcuts, no gut feelings — just data.”

...Other scientists disagreed with this [Raoult's]characterization of the results. “The cure rate is almost identical to what’s been described about the natural course of the disease,” the virologist Christine Rouzioux told French radio. Lacombe called Raoult’s conclusions “magical thinking,” adding: “I very honestly think he hasn’t shown anything at all.” 

It was soon discovered, too, that the second and third studies had been conducted without approval from a state ethics board. In an initial version of the third paper, Raoult wrote that he had conducted a “retrospective study on a cohort of patients receiving standard treatment following a research protocol previously registered.” 

He provided a reference to the protocol that had been approved for the first trial. But that protocol included hydroxychloroquine alone and not azithromycin; Raoult never received approval to systematically test a combination of the drugs...

Tom Gauld

Obama on The White Problem