So you're sure he didn't falsely represent medical tests but you have no idea why he confessed to doing it. Just a voice in your head saying "they made him do it".
It is a logical fallacy that a person's purported immorality makes something they say incorrect.
If they lied professionally once for profit it lowers the value of their professional opinion. If you're going to bring an expert to testify for you your opponent shouldn't be able to say "Look here, he's lied in these circumstances before."
Apparently that decision has been reversed:
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/update-make-a-wish-reverses-ban-on-unvaccinated-kids/
Well, no.
""The authorities also confirmed that on April 18, there were indeed, among the death certificates relating to the coronavirus, 152 certificates reported by the Ministry of Justice. And that, that same day, “a total of 16,945 deaths from covid-19 have been confirmed in Portugal”.
A brief look at the article shows you the dead woman was a lung transplant patient.
Transplant patients take drugs to suppress their immune systems, to avoid rejecting the donated organ.
So transplant patient + covid carrier = dead transplant patient.
Fully vaccinated people can carry covid too (they just don't get as sick, statistically), so the fact that she caught it - they claim - from an unvaccinated person doesn't actually mean much.
Pretending there's anything sinister about this is making a mountain out of a molehill, although there's no denying that if she did meet an unvaccinated person it would have been better for her if she hadn't.
"Tom Hanks Reveals His New Bald Look For Next Movie By Scott Campbell 6 months ago"
https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/tom-hanks-reveals-bald-movie-role/
You're right but with a little more emphasis on the smacker than the smackee. Police have special powers when it comes to smacking, and I think that special scrutiny should go along with those special powers when there is the suggestion that they have been abused.
To be clear, that the alleged victim is a credentialed journalist is immaterial to the alleged crime
I disagree. I'm assuming the victim's credentials were visible. I guess whether that is correct will come out.
If I called you - or implied you were - a fascist I apologize. I should not have done that, and looking back at some of my comments I wish i hadn't been so snippy. I meant to be arguing that properly credentialed witnesses documenting a police action should not have to fear a personal attack by the police.
I agree that he is presumed innocent. The fact that there is a video allows us all to look at the second strike.
Cities will settle shit all the time, regardless of culpability, to make things go away and because in the long run it's cheaper.
You're dead right about that. My wording was wrong, and I apologize for putting it that way.
the Independent Police Review office viewed the strike as a “push,”
Watch the video and make up your own mind about whether the second strike was a push or not.
The incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6hOw5TqLi8
The Portland Police Bureau's Rapid Response Team is voluntary. The officers have left it but they are still regular working police.
Assault in the fourth degree is the weakest assault charge. (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.041)
The city lost a civil court case filed by the injured party, a freelance photojournalist. https://abcnews.go.com/US/portland-police-officer-indicted-assault-charge-alleged-force/story?id=78304472
"provable mistakes besides the journal" - as though that didn't matter. It was #1. #2 - the chloroquine study was statistically insignificant. An animal study on a small number of animals in 2005.No human study. A dead end. Of no relevance in light of the subsequent studies involving millions of humans in the 2020s. #3 The assumption that one coronavirus is exactly the same as another. "One coronavirus infects a few thousand, kills a few hundred. That's exactly the same as another one that infects hundreds of millions and kills millions." Out of hundreds of coronaviruses.
I repeat: I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to anyone who thinks you're making the least bit of sense.
"common sense" - that's the thing that tells you the Earth is flat and the Sun and Moon go around it. You only have to look up in the sky to see it. No need for Science. Congratulations! Anyone with a brain can see you're right there with the Flat Earthers.
"99.999% of the population" - A number out of someone's asshole. If 100 people get virus 2 of them will die. If you're young and healthy it won't be you, it'll be your Grandma or your cousin with the kidney transplant.
So much bullshit. Where to start...
This comment isn't going to change anyone's mind who has already drunk the Koolaid but if you're wondering if there's much truth in the above "reminder" the answer is no.
The official publication of the National Institute of Health is The Catalyst, not The Virology Journal. The Virology Journal comes out of the United Kingdom. There is no connection between Fauci and The Virology Journal.
The study referred to was a 2005 animal study, and not very big. No human trials. The people who performed the study worked for the CDC in Atlanta and a lab in Canada.
There are over 400 different coronaviruses. SARS was one, Covid 19 is a different one. Thinking they are the same is like thinking all cars use the same tires. SARS killed 774 people and infected 8,098. Compare that to the numbers for Covid-19.
I have no objection to you having all the 1788 muskets you can handle in your well regulated militia. Not so happy about fruitcakes gunning people & kids down with automatic weapons. I know your logic makes sense to you and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. Just stating another point of view. Other democracies don't have to send out so many thoughts and prayers to grieving citizens.
Why is there no mention of the fact the journal in question has retracted the research letter being referenced?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2782288