No, I wanted you to quote the article. Here, I’ll do it for you: "The survival rate of patients with alcohol-related liver disease who receive a deceased donor liver transplant has steadily improved to reach 80–85 per cent at one year after a transplant.

Studies show that living liver transplants for alcohol liver disease have similar survival rates to other forms of liver disease.

But a study from the University Health Network showed that 86 per cent of those with alcohol-induced liver damage who were referred for transplants were rejected. Only 14 per cent of those who applied were accepted, and just six per cent received a liver transplant. There is a concern that patients with alcohol use disorder will relapse, damaging the new organ, though studies show the risk is around 15 per cent."

… Which refutes your opinions. Gee, can’t imagine why you didn’t want to quote that.

I don’t have to imagine why that board wouldn’t want to find every excuse in the book to deny the patient the transplant either… Seems like they have several hundred thousand of them: "Using the most recent data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information on hospital bed costs (2016), Huska’s time at the Oakville hospital likely cost over $450,000 - ($3,592 per day for ICU care) with an additional 61 days in a ward bed which likely cost about $1,200 a day

A liver transplant in Ontario is pegged at about $71,000 to $100,000 in Ontario based on data from 2019."

I’m not debating that she stopped drinking after diagnosis. I’m debating the rest of your opinion: "Stopping to drink for a few weeks after you realize you are about to die from drinking… doesn’t really make a difference here. Unfortunately, she was an alcoholic for most of her life and, before diagnosis, did not show any capacity to quit

So, even if she did stopped drinking 100% after May… it was just too late"

So again, please back your statement up with a direct quote from the article. I’ll wait, but excuse me if I don’t hold my breath.

That’s your opinion. Where does the article state that?

“This means she kept drinking while out of the hospital”, which directly contradicts the statement by the boyfriend saying she stopped drinking.

Everything else is like, your opinion, man.

Please quote the article where it states her prognosis was not good enough for him to donate. All I’m seeing is a statement that her prior alcohol consumption was a factor in that decision.

I’m sorry, maybe I’m just daft this week, but I missed the concept “the doctors believed her liver is so far gone, a partial would lot [sic] work” in that.

I quote: “Huska, he said, stopped drinking as soon as she was diagnosed with Alcohol Liver Disease on March 3 and had also registered for an alcohol cessation program to begin once she was discharged.” So where does the article state she kept drinking while waiting for the transplant?

Second paragraph in: 'However, documents show the Alcohol Liver Disease (ALD) team at UHN rejected her in part because of “minimal abstinence outside of hospital.” ’

The article quotes Dr. Jayakumar making a general statement regarding alcohol diseased livers, but the University Health Network declined to comment on Amanda’s specific case outside offering their (patronizing) condolences.

Feel free to quote the article and back up your statement.

Did you bother to read the article? Her partner was a match, and could have donated a portion of their liver to her, if approved, as opposed to a donated liver.

Judge someone all you want for their previous life choices, but the decision referenced in this case should have been between the two of them and their doctor.

After reading through your post history, all I can say is “Bullshit.”

That’s what she said.

Quote by the OP, emphasis mine: “Your body probably will go full panic mode and store back as much as possible as soon as you starts [sic] to eat normally again. I’d advice agains [sic] doing anything so violent, and just lower your food intake to a bit under normal.”

After which you attack the OP for violating the laws of physics. The OP didn’t attack CICO, promote bunk science, or deny climate. Neither am I.

You’ve got the personality of dog shit and an equivalent reading comprehension. Quit gaslighting.

No, we’re not discussing CICO. We’re discussing your inability to recognize that the OP used the phrase “eating normally” to describe dieters returning to their normal eating habits (ie, how they ate prior to dieting), and your resulting attack on the OP.

Normal for them, not your normal. Nobody asked you for your personal definition of normal. Again, reading comprehension. Get some.

You really need to work on that reading comprehension. Valmond stated that people will regain weight when they return to eating normally after dieting.

You claim that’s not how physics work, then move the goal posts stating “if people only eat what they need, they won’t gain the weight back.” Well no shit Sherlock, but they’re not eating normally. They’re gaining the weight back if they go back to eating normally.

Quit being so quick to attack folk and read the fucking post.

Most people don’t count calories. You said it yourself, a few posts below. Are you going to start redefining “normal” now to meet your argument?

Did you miss the “when you start eating normally again” bit?

You can rant all you want about the laws of physics, but you might want to practice your reading comprehension.

I used to be scared to fly in a helicopter. Then I learned how they fly. Now I’m scared when they fly overhead.

Servers weren’t much of a problem, they’re mostly virtual and could be just restored from a backup. The several hundred workstations were a problem. They needed a physical touch. All are encrypted with BitLocker, requiring passkeys stored in AD. Over half are laptops. Most of those don’t have wired ethernet ports, and an account with local admin rights hasn’t logged in since the day they were imaged. Throw in a proper LAPS config, where randomly generated passwords of three dozen characters in length are also stored in AD…

… Yeah, today was a bad day.

What person, arguing in good faith, could state that they believe driving while drunk, at high speeds, while operating a cell phone, would likely not result in an accident? I’d love to see the train of thought laid out for that argument.

This was no accident.

He drove while drunk. He made a decision to become impaired. While impaired, he decided to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. He made a decision to drive unreasonably fast, beyond the speed limit and beyond his ability to safely operate the vehicle. He further made a decision to take a photo while operating his vehicle.

All were his choice to make, and thus the repercussions of his choices were no accident.

Does society want a person inclined to make such decisions roaming about freely? How many years of incarceration are likely to eliminate his continuation of such behavior?