virusrex comments

Posted in: China factory output rebounds on zero-COVID relaxation See in context

China was prepared enough to keep its economy growing the whole time, unlike many countries in the West.

Pretending covid is the only economic factor that affects a country economy is a baseless claim not supported by any experts opinion. China decelerated its growing because of their measures, so the only thing that can be said is that they grew in spite of it, not thanks to using it.

Power? Almost every country imposed restrictions on its citizens.

When vaccines were not available and the restrictions were not as costly (in resources, civil rights and lives) which is what makes it so different.

China willingly choose to disregard the best scientific evidence available and the recommendation of international experts and persist on something that was counterproductive and unsustainable, it was warned that without doing what other countries did they would cause uncountable unnecessary deaths, which is exaclty what happened.

The continued with their strategy until it actually it put in danger their power

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Prosecutors file charges in set shooting by Alec Baldwin See in context

Hutchins’ death already has led to new safety precautions in the film industry.

The trial is likely to be complicated and may take a long time to be decided according to some reports, but at least it has some positive consequences that are already being implemented. Sad that a life had to be lost to abandon practices that have been unnecessarily risky.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Under-funded WHO seeks reinforced role in global health at key meeting See in context

The WHO doesn't do anything useful for anyone except the industries that profit of the treatment of diseases

Public health official from many countries, that see directly the postiive effect of WHO backed activites have, clearly disagree with your personal and deeply biased claim.

The WHO provides cures in many developing countries, or even better it provides strategies and resources to prevent health problems in the first place.

Now they want the green light to set policy globally and outside of the sovereign powers of democratic nations. No thanks.

Limiting the power of any international organization only benefits the international companies, that can then pressure individual countries to accept deals that are deeply disadvantageous, in this specific case your position means supporting the conglomerates by reducing the leverage that can be used against them.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Posted in: We’re living in the age of being connected or reachable 24 hours a day by one device or another. Is this a good thing? See in context

Except for very specific situations (emergency respondent on shift for example) not. It is a development that have a negative effect on mental health between other things and have to be regulated carefully.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Under-funded WHO seeks reinforced role in global health at key meeting See in context

They should be disbanded given their track record

What track record are you talking about? supporting scientifically sound measures and fighting against disinformation efforts to convice the people serious diseases and unnecessary deaths should just be tolerated?

Credit to the member states for not providing the funding requested.

Because that will let people keep criticizing the global public health authority for not having enough resources to do what is necessary to improve public health? this would mean putting personal political preferences as a higher priority than the health and lives of the people that benefit from the actions of the WHO.

the UN is just a money laundering organization.

the UN is useless

The WHO is not the UN, and it is widely recognized because of their efforts to improve the lives and health of people around the world, do you have any source where a reputable health institution says the WHO is useless?

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Posted in: World 'dangerously unprepared' for next crisis: Red Cross See in context

"Scientific consensus"?? Where in the world is there such a thing? 

It is very common, there are countless things proved so completely and above any rational doubt that it is perfectly valid to describe the position of the scientific community as in consensus.

depending on which its result would be either extrapolatable to a boarder universe or deemed statistically significant or not, much of which depends on variable control to be able to determine if what you suppose cause certain effect indeed cause it or not.

That is completely wrong, it is extremely simple to do studies to confirm what the authors of the scientific literature conclude about something and when that is overwhelmingly in one direction then it can be called a consensus. there is no supposition involved, for example

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04805-y

many people may fail to recognize that there is a broad consensus in favour of the vaccine among doctors

quite strong support for the consensus in the article, Are you going to argue that well recognized scientists and scientific journals are also wrong because they clearly refer to the consensus?

There is no such thing as "one" science, science is a method. And it's a method that in and itself begs and accepts all types of questions, doubts and x factors.

You are confusing between a consensus and dogma, when all valid arguments lead to the same conclusion then there is consensus, and the validity of the arguments depends obviously in following correctly the scientific method, the contradiction exists only on your mind because of your personal confusion about what a consensus means and how it is reached.

Not once in the news or out of any draconian politician quoiting "science" were the mentions of the statistical significance of such studies or whether the science was good enough to extrapolate to the entire population.

That is your problem, pretending that the news are the original sources of scientific information, if you want the scientific details you have to go to the sources, as in the peer reviewed articles published in indexted journals.

How can you trust that as the rabid scientific zealot you seem to be, is a testament of your blindness.

Not at all, it is simply your completely mistaken understanding of the meaning of the consensus, evidenced as your quick degradation to personal attacks instead of arguments.

When you say "shut up, is science" you automatically become the LEAST scientifically versed person and anti-science. You become dogmatic and religious.

Nobody is doing that, that is a strawman fallacy you are trying to impose as the real argument which is "Use actual arguments, valid data to discuss, the scientists of the world have done it and reached the same conclusion, using falsehoods to pretend this is not the case is not valid"

In most governments and committees there is an understanding written or not, I do not know,

Yet you claim there is no consensus, with this you are recognizing your claim is baseless and depend completely in something you accept you ignore.

Can you bring any respected institution of the world that refutes what is written in the article? if you can't no matter how much you search then it is very much likely there is a consensus about it.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Posted in: World 'dangerously unprepared' for next crisis: Red Cross See in context

Yes, very much so.

Meanwhile the experts of the world in infectious diseases, public health, vaccines, etc. consider them a huge success that have saved countless lives and protected the health of even more people.

Obviously the opinion of those experts (and every respected institution of medical science in the world) is a much better standard to judge if the vaccines have been successful or not.

Personal beliefs that depend on inexistent evidence (and ignoring very clear evidence of the contrary) are simply wrong.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Posted in: AI: World likely to hit key warming threshold in 10-12 years See in context

Who said the climate isn't changing? There's some anthropogenic change, but also various other inputs such as solar activity, ocean currents, precession and much more that make accurate prediction extremely difficult.

When you said the scientists predictions have not been accurate you are demonstrably wrong, the current understanding completely supports that human activity dependent climate change is ongoing with serious negative consequences for all life in general and obviously humans also in particular.

Can you provide actual evidence that the antropogenic change is just not hugely more important than any other factor? because if you don't then it is still the scientists making very accurate predictions against your personal claim that they did not.

There's the infamous Michael Mann hockey stick, Tim

What about it? it has been clearly demonstrated as accurate and valid

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

Tim Flannery's claims that eastern Australia's dams would dry up permanently in the early 2000s

Flannery is not a climate science expert, and the consensus never supported his personal conclusions, when you disregard the opinion of the actual experts based on people that are not a representative of them you are recognizing the actual experts have been right, and therefore you have to go outside to find anything to disprove.

University of East Anglia Climategate scam

No scam whatsoever, just exaggerating and misrepresenting the contents of completely normal e-mails to present the contents as completely different of what they actually said, at this point even climate change deniers avoid using this as an argument because it was disproved so completely that it backfires as a disproved falsehood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.

it is difficult to be more clear against it

Whereas other scientists who make milder predictions and propose solutions that don't serve vested interests are being ignored because what they say doesn't generate alarm that tends to fill pockets and strengthen power bases.

Power bases not strong? huge companies with vested interests in denying climate change support anyone that tries to present false information that can mislead people to believe this, it is impossible to get more support than that.

The real reason that scientists that make different predictions are not being recognized is because they are wrong, and terribly so. This has been demonstrated with actual scientific arguments.

So your arguments to disagree with the content of this article are conspiracies, misrepresented "scams" that were proved not to be so and the word of people that have been proved wrong repeatedly.

This obviously means the professionals in the article are much more likely to be correct, even if only because they did not have to use deficient arguments to defend their conclusions as you did.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: World 'dangerously unprepared' for next crisis: Red Cross See in context

True. Basic internet research shows this to be factual, so no need to post multiple links for something that is common knowledge

The inability to provide even one single link to support the claims made obviously indicate they are as indicated misinformation and strawman fallacies.

A small group of "experts" shot their mouths off with untruths.

Since those "experts" are actually antivaxxers pretending the experts said things they never did this is correct, the misinformation came completely from antivaxxers.

There is a reason why the scientific consensus is not on the side of the antivaxxers.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Posted in: World 'dangerously unprepared' for next crisis: Red Cross See in context

Yeah, well I'm more inclined to listen to doctors who have successfully treated many thousands of patients,

Unfortunately those same doctors (that you keep bringing) are apparently completely unable to provide clear scientific evidence that should be terribly easy to get from treating that many patients, or do it by falsifying or fabricating that data, exactly as it would happen if they acutally found out that the data proved their opinions false.

When your argument is that you trust more people that have been proved to disseminate false information just because they say what you want to say while the actual scientific consensus must be wrong even with the well curated data from literally millions of people then you are only demonstrating a bias, not an argument.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Posted in: AI: World likely to hit key warming threshold in 10-12 years See in context

 I believe in science but never trust a scientists who will say or agree with government for funding.

Making up invalid generalizations (and strawman fallacies) is not an argument to disqualify the findings, do you have actual scientific data to disprove the conclusions wirtten here? if not then your personal beliefs are not relevant.

AI, please tell us what we want to hear.

Which of the methodologies can lead to this claim? a personal disagreement with what is reported is not an argument to conclude this.

The key message here is that all the experts have failed to make even vaguely accurate doomsday predictions of the last few decades

Without a reference to prove this claim this has no real value, just a vague accusation without any actual details, climate change has been proved beyong any reasonable doubt and the predicted consequences already began to be seen right now, this completely contradicts your comment.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Posted in: World 'dangerously unprepared' for next crisis: Red Cross See in context

@virusrex, exactly. Information as opposed to the very common misinformation such as "safe and effective, you won't catch covid, you won't spread covid. Or the most dangerous pathogen this century.

On the oposite, the examples are all clear falsehoods, including the claims you make about experts that supposedly guaranteed you wont catch or spread covid no matter what variants appeared, something you have been repeatedly asked to prove with a source which you have never been able to do.

Making up false things nobody said so you can "debunk" them is just another form of disinformation, it means you could not do the same with what was actually been told.

Indeed. And who is providing these profits? Is it the generic drug lobby? Or is it big pharma, whose influence of regulators (including revolving door) and media (MSM, social media, factcheck.org,...) is very well documented?

When the information is veridic, well substantiated and congruent with the scientific consensus there is nothing wrong with repeating it, in the cases where the information is false as in the article the profit does not even have to be economic, just fomenting distrust in the scientific methods so it can be later used to manipulate people into other forms of invalid irrational beliefs can be justification enough for people to engage in this unethical behaviour.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Posted in: World 'dangerously unprepared' for next crisis: Red Cross See in context

True that!

Unfortunately that also includes information you have used in your comments, for example that covid deaths are significantly overcounted for patients that had no contribution of the infection to their death, that the risks from vaccines and drugs are hidden, that excess deaths attributable to covid are instead because of other causes, that vaccines cause decrease of the immunity against covid, etc.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Posted in: World 'dangerously unprepared' for next crisis: Red Cross See in context

The best thing they can do to be better prepared for the next pandemic is to eliminate big pharma's unhealthy influence of regulators and media.

None of the worst problems from the pandemic (as mentioned in the article) depended on pharmaceutical companies, if anything that would be much more closely correlated with disinformation spread by antiscientific groups that put the population at risk by making false claims about both the disease and the measures that helped promoting unnecessary deaths.

And to avoid the emergence of the next pandemic, they must actually put an end to gain of function research.

Exactly zero pandemics have been originated by gain of function research, meanwhile the measures that actually helped against this one were done in many ways thanks to this kind of research being done for over 10 years before it began. Pretending a conspiracy theory has more value than the well characterized benefits of researching pathogens only helps demonstrating an irrational bias against science when it supports something that runs contrary to a personal belief.

Public trust is being eroded by bad actors that spread false information for personal profit, this is nothing new but it is specially important when pandemics and other future health problems are put into consideration.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Posted in: Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement See in context

Do they? I am aware of a case where the state refused to allow a child to receive blood from unvaccinated volunteers...

Making irrational demands to complicate an already strained system is the part that is worth criticism. If there is absolutely no evidence the blood represents any extra risk those making the irrational demans are at fault.

We've known for a while that that is completely false

In significant quantities and specially in a way that represents any detectable risk this is completely true. Compared with the natural infection vaccines produce much less mRNA and proteins.

Indeed, there is an ever increasing number of peer-reviewed studies from all over the world documenting these severe adverse effects

You repeatedly make this claim only to never produce such studies, the ones brought explicitly contradict the claim in the conclusions or have been rebuked by post-publication peer review as making conclusions not supported by the evidence presented.

This means the claim is still completely false according to the scientific consensus.

No, these are not false claims. They are very well documented, though not yet officially acknowledged...

They are completely false, no evidence of a higher rate of death on vaccinated people (and strong evidence of the opposite) means the claims have been demonstrated as false.

Maybe they shouldn't have tried to force people to prove vaccination status?

When people take irrational decisions that increase the risk for others it is valid that they will have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. People are free to have irrational beliefs and to put others at an increased risk because of them, but they will have to also assume the consequences of their actions until they prove their choice is better with solid objective evidence.

So those people who are against that kind of discrimination have just doubled down with a ridiculous claim of "purity"

If people take pride in making an irrational decision and refusing to accept logic arguments and evidence it is not surprising that they become more and more distanced with reality. Putting others at a higher risk to try to avoid this obvious consequence of pandering to irrationality makes no sense.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Posted in: Pet dog, cat involvement suspected in 2 fires in Japan in 2022 See in context

Possible no doubt, but it is difficult to "blame" the pets, when the owners are the one's who should be ensuring that they can't turn them on. Nearly all "push-type" starters on gas stoves can be locked.

The article is not blaming the pets, that is obviously invalid, the responsibility resides solely on the owners. What the article is doing is making this risk better known, so owners take proper care of properly turning off their appliances so these accidents are reduced.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement See in context

Notice how they can't say it's inaccurate, only "unfounded".

That is what scientific accuracy means, people making baseless claims can be characterized as such, the burden of proof is theirs, without evidence their claims can be ignored.

If HIV can be passed in blood, why not synthetic mRNA that persists in the body? 

Because mRNA has no realistic way to self propagate? that completely defeats the mischaracterization of the vaccines as "persistent" nobody expects the mRNA or the protein to disappear completely in every person in days, what is important is that this represent a much more limited risk when compared with the natural infection, that has been demonstrated not only to spread in many organs and tissues of the body but actively persist there by replicating and producing many different viral proteins.

The mRNA in the vaccines is not infective, pretending otherwise (by comparing it with a virus) makes no sense.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Posted in: Anti-insect laser gun turrets designed by Osaka University; expected to work on roaches too See in context

The costs of protecting an entire field with these lasers may still be an issue, but the ability to ensure one-shot precision kills can help to reduce them considerably.

This comment reminded me of  "One-Shot Bug Killer!! Interceptor Doll HoiHoi-san", development on this direction may be better received than the kitchen laser turret mentioned.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement See in context

The pharma industry is getting scared now and is doing anything it can to smear people who won't take its covid jabs. 

Sure, as much as the international astronomy scientific community is scared of flat earthers.

thanks to more and more information coming out about severe adverse effects that the media can no longer suppress

You mean fake reports that are easily found so, and contradicted by the actual available scientific evidence? that is not a reason for the scientists and doctors of the world to worry, people that reject science have always existed, and their irrational rejection of evidence is well known.

First they told us these jabs were Safe and Effective™ and that the spike protein would hang around the injection site to do its job.

They are. It does.

But whether by poor injection technique, poor understanding of the lipid nanocapsule technology or whatever else, the spike protein has found its way into the blood and organs of countless people, and is doing a lot of harm to a lot of people.

No it is not, trace amounts going systematically is an expected thing to happen from every kind of local application, this is just a strawman that antivaxxer propaganda pretends is unexpected and important, it is neither.

And no, making up imaginary damages that have no evidence of existing is not an argument to disprove the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it is at much an argument to prove antivaxxer propaganda is willing to use false information to push their beliefs.

And the Project Veritas videos....

You mean the group well recognized to lie and edit videos to mislead people is the source you trust more than the scientific consensus of the world?

That would be the problem, not that the world is trying to fool you, but that you are on purpose listening to people that have demonstrated to lie just because they say something you like to hear.

And immediately descending to personal attacks because you already know your "arguments" are false and give up trying to defend them even before they are destroyed clearly shows you understand they hold no value, it is just vaccine misinformation as clearly described in the article.

-9 ( +11 / -20 )

Posted in: 'Cowboy Bebop' anime creator disappointed with Netflix version from first scene he saw See in context

Anybody seeing the first episode (or even a substantial part) could clearly see Watanabe was not involved at all. The series went all over the place from the beginning, as if many people were trying to make it a different thing on every episode. Maybe with some coherence it could have ended as something worth remembering (even if very different from the original series) but it was clear that the creators gave up very quickly and just murdered the original to give cheap fanservice to american audiences.

Still, not as bad as their adaptation of Death Note.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Japanese judge ordered to pay damages over social media posts See in context

Virusrex...........Who said they were blaming the victim? 

I am, because your comment makes the baseless claim that the family motives is to avoid taking responsibility about some imaginary fault you think they may have, something that is not supported by any information in the article. You are the one saying that the family "may be" at fault here for accusing the judge of behaving badly, even when the courts have already decided this was definitely the case and that the family was right in their claims.

How many times have you seen or heard about a situation where a person who realizes that they feel guilt refuse to deal with or discuss an issue.

How many times have you seen or heard about people in a position of authority doing things that are clearly wrong? there is absolutely no information that even hints that the family had anything to feel guilty for, and the courts have already decided the judge was wrong. Pretending the opposite "may" be true is baseless.

Once again, how can any crimes publicly reported or any topics ever be a part of social discourse if people simply get upset because of their own personal connection?

The problem is not that people got upset, or that a crime was reported, the problem is a judge acting deeply unprofessionally, even after being repeatedly warned he was doing it. The family had every right to complain, Okaguchi acting like a spoiled brat ignoring explicit instructions to behave as his position required.

So your blaming of the family depends on two mistaken things, one is to baselessly assume the family feels guilty of something and is reacting inappropriately to the judge declarations, the second is that the judge was acting professionally by undermining the authority he is supposed to support by ignoring explicit instructions to stop using social media without consideration of the family.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan remains global laggard in fight against live animal testing See in context

Japan is hopelessly behind the curve in many things, and in this case international pressure is not that strong so cosmetic companies don't see a benefit on increasing costs for a market that don't give importance to the problem. Still, signs that the situation is changing are appearing so there is still hope.

Nevertheless PETA as the organization to represent the rights of animals seems a poor choice, other organizations with much better records could have been a better option.

I worked with a Japanese researcher who was unaware of the stick rules around animal testing in the West and said he enjoyed inflicting pain on animals, laughing and saying, "but it's fun!".

That is just a baseless excuse, Any institution in Japan where animal experimentation is done is required by law to have a department in charge of the animals, an ethical committee that approves every experiment and the animals included and (most importantly) every person involved have to be trained in the ethical experimentation in animals, this means the researcher has to know about every rule about animal testing (the three Rs, etc.) in order to be allowed to deal with them. Inflicting pain on purpose is a perfectly valid ground for his suspension, the cancellation of any experiment he is involved and even every single animal experiment in the institution he is working.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Posted in: Japan reports 54,782 new coronavirus cases See in context

It's quite probable that you wouldn't even have caught the virus if you have relied on completely on your natural immune system.

There is absolutely no support for this claim, acquired immunity only comes AFTER infection (and all the risk that come with it) vaccines work by letting people get this immunity without the risks, and work even on people that have been previously infected, which completely contradicts what you believe.

Not catching the virus in the first place while being unvaccinated is in fact the optimal outcome.

Relying on unrealistic scenarios for an optimal outcome makes no sense, it is like saying that nobody driving so nobody has to wear a seatbelt is the best way to avoid traffic accident deaths.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Posted in: Japanese judge ordered to pay damages over social media posts See in context

 the parliamentary committee said in its opening statements that Okaguchi continued to make posts despite repeated warnings by the Tokyo High Court and even after expressing regret over the posts.

Horrible attitude from someone that apparently is drunk with power and think he will always be right so there is no need to take anybody else into consideration.

Maybe the family fears been scrutinized for their responsibility or lack of in this unfortunate situation.

Blaming the victim and her family instead of someone that has already been found guilty of acting wrongly? not only unjustified but also irrational.

Your baseless assumptions about motives and reasons are unnecessary when they are clearly included in the claim.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: The role of experts is presenting proposals. Politicians should first fully comprehend our proposals and then decide on measures by taking into account what impact the proposals will have on society and the economy. See in context

Unfortunately this is too often the case, politicians want the recognition that science experts have, but they don't want the advice that frequently contradicts what they want to do, so they make committees and then ignore them completely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: We'd never expected that the box would be stolen. We're sorry for failing to deliver the support provided by residents. See in context

This is precisely the problem, taking donations means taking also the responsibility of protecting them, not thinking that they could be stolen is not a justification, it just says the town office did not did what it was supposed to do.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Dentsu officials admit to Tokyo Olympic test event bid rigging See in context

Finally things are getting interesting, not likely that the top officials of Dentsu will be caught but at least the company is apparently being investigated seriously.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Posted in: Promising gene therapy delivers treatment directly to brain See in context

Huge advancements have been achieved in the last few years thanks to new and improved technologies, children that until now were doomed to a short, miserable life now have a chance to live a much more fulfilling and productive life even if not a completely normal one. It is difficult to understand how much this means to their families.

Risk, difficulties, huge costs remains, but going from "impossible" to "very difficult and risky" is a huge improvement, if things continue as right now for a few more years many other genetic diseases could get a cure soon and the current ones would be treated much more economically and easily. One very important point of this article is that the example of AADC deficiency is considered an "ultrarate" health problem, that makes absolutely no economic sense to cure for a company, but that still benefited from the research being done. This is part of a relatively new trend in gene and cell therapy research that is focusing on personalized treatments, so development of treatments is no longer something prioritized for relatively common diseases but instead as a general process that can be tailor fitted to patients that have problems because of a single gene mutation.

This means that instead of trying to commercialize one single variety of gene therapy companies would have the incentive to commercialize the process of the treatment so it could be used on any of many different diseases, no need to plan for a few dozen patients a year but for thousands.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Heavy snow continues across much of Japan as cold snap maintains grip See in context

Plenty of stuff on the "manipulation of the curve", funding cut if disagree with "the science". And look up the fields of the "97% scientists are agreement with "anthropogenic global warming". Then there was the peer-review scandal emails out of East Anglia "climategate"; the head of the IPCC was a railway engineer, IPCC reports full of errors and exaggerations; Co-op meetings held in person with dignitaries flying in by private jet....

Absolutely nothing you write is an argument against the overwhelming amount and quality of the evidence that supports human activity derived climate change, a position supported by every single institution related to the field in the whole world, not the fake scandals that had no importance, no what any single organization or institution says about it but what the whole scientific community of the world supports as valid.

There is a scientific consensus even about the scientific consensus of climate change, with metanalysis of how the reports of consensus themselvels reach a consensus.

You don't need to trust anybody, the primary sources are there for anybody to analyze, can you find any problem with their data and methodologies? then write your own report about it because those that have been published until now have been immediately debunked as primitive and invalid themselves. And if you can't argue scientifically against the data then the only logical reason is to accept it in the same way that all other scientific findings with such strong evidence supporting them.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Posted in: Ex-PM Mori casts doubt on Japan's excessive support for Ukraine See in context

Going by the kind of person Mori has demonstrated to be, his disapproval would clearly indicate that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do.

8 ( +19 / -11 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.