You refute things I haven’t said, and spin things, nowluke. A bit like Avmed.
Brandishing your supporting narrative and and then claiming that it 'proves' you're cured and thus now at baseline risk
”Brandishing”? That seems a rather emotive word to describe mere quoting.
I’m merely quoting the words of my specialists and the results of scans. I realise you simply dismiss those opinions and results (unless they are against my interests) because they’re from mere specialists, but all I have to rely on is their opinions and expertise.
And I haven’t said, anywhere, that this “proves” I’m “cured” and now at baseline risk. What I’ve pointed out is, among other things, the incongruity of my being allowed to continue to drive and pilots who self-certify being allowed to share the sky with RPT jets, and the patently biased approach to dealing with doubt. And who makes money out of that approach?
It is churlish to suggest you have not undergone surgery in the broader sense, an endovascular procedure is of the same nature as keyhole surgery or imaging guided interventions.
”Churlish” is another strange word to describe merely responding to andrewr’s implied statement that I had undone surgery involving the blood supply to the brain, when that is simply not true.
And you know that. Your response implicitly acknowledges it: “Surgery in the broader sense”. “Of the same nature”. Once again, selective specificity.
I realise it’s in Avmed’s interests to allow or encourage people to believe I’ve undergone “brain surgery”, but that’s not being objective.