virusrex comments

Mainly because they are give bad advice from those doctors who follow the "consensus". 

Completely baseless claim, the diets you recommend are also included between those that are abandoned by the vast majority of patients after a couple of years, that means that the be claim, the diets you recommend are also included between those that are

Nah, treating obesity with Ozempic is like treating dehydration with an artificial blood transfusion rather than simply giving them a glass of water.

You have presented nothing that can make that analogy correct, Ozempic do NOT replace the measures that let people lose weight, instead it makes those measures easier to keep. To correct your analogy the drugs would be like giving them access to a water fountain instead of asking them to hydrate by licking dew drops.

Wasn't it only recently that the American Diabetic Association recommended filling half your plate with starchy

Since the recommendation is for NON-starchy vegetables the problem would not be the ADA but reading comprehension,

https://diabetes.org/food-nutrition/eating-healthy

This makes evident another complication, more than half of the American public failt at English literacy proficiency, which means they do not have the minimum level of skill reading and writing to function properly in society, this is reflected for example by people misunderstanding a simple sentence and getting the opposite meaning.

The public will forget or not care in a few weeks.

Not likely, specially in a medium so competitive and saturated, even minor things end up causing series to last much shorter than predicted, a studio that is perceived as negligent and supporting North Korea can be subjected to organized protests so not all companies will take the risk of airing it, specially for just another "isekai" clone from a small studio and cheap production.

There is hope for the series only as long as the news of the NK involvement do not spread too much, but if regular people begin to talk about it it is difficult that it will survive.

These drugs have way too many severe side effects. 

Compared with their benefits no they don't, they have been approved for their use on weight loss precisely because this has been proved scientifically, the extra benefits that they have for other health risks only make them even better compared with not using them.

Might as well ingest norovirus

That irresponsible suggestion has no comparison, pretending approved and proved medical interventions are the same as risky infections only makes it obvious the intention to mislead people into rejecting things that may increase their wellbeing when used under medical supervision as intended.

One of the main problems with treating obesity is that the training that doctors get is too much affected by Big Pharma and Big Food.

The current recommendations are based on clear evidence of benefits and risks, you on the other hand have repeatedly recommended things that increase importantly the risk of cardiac problems and do not conform with the medical consensus. That is much worse than the accepted best possible treatment against obesity.

I would never take drugs for weight loss. I have read many bad stories about Ozempic when people stopped taking it. Many seem to have regrets.

Even if your personal situation would indicate a much early death if you don't use them? of course that is your decision to make but for many people that is the choice and it is very clear the benefits they obtain.

Anecdotes are the lowest form of of evidence available and because of that they can't contradict what is found from studies in hundreds or thousands of people proving something different. If someone for example says they knew of 3 cases of prostatic cancer that were treated with surgery but died soon afterwards suffering from multiple complications that made them regret their treatment and the person says they would never undergo that surgery that would also be his choice, but it would not disprove that for most patient surgical treatment is a very important part that helps them recover their health.

You clearly aren't capable of or interested in responding directly to points that you perceive as contra to your own biases.

I did so successfully, the one that refused to do that were you excusing yourself from discussing the arguments.

My point, and that of the author of this article, is that ultimately it's the person's own responsibility to maintain a healthy weight through eating the right foods sustainably. 

Which does nothing to negate the fact that drugs can be part of that responsibility and can be indicated as one way to maintain their health, which is contrary of what you wrote before.

*Prescription pharmaceuticals can help on that path** but they can't be taken indefinitely without side effects*

When those side effects are less important than the benefits obtained then there is no problem, that applies to every medical intervention, all have negative aspects but they can still be used (even indefinetely) as long as the benefits are more important.

That's not to say, of course, that many dieticians, endocrinologists, and cardiologists do give good advice to their patients, but it's still up to the patients to follow that advice. 

The point is that that advice can include using drugs to significantly increase the efficacy of the rest of the recommendations, when that applies for a patient there is no merit in saying the drugs have negative side effects, everything else the doctors recommend is the same.

This is not what I said at all, but addicts (food addiction is one addiction) can only clean up for good if they take responsibility for their lives.

Which is still very easy to say, very difficult to actually do, so if something makes it much easier then there is no point in just rejecting that because it is not perfect. There is no value, no point in saying people should do something without offering a way to actually do it.

Which comment do you think is more useful

"You just have to stop your addiction"

"This therapy followed in this way makes it 50% more likely you can stop your addiction"

Since last year I have lost 15 kg without using any drugs. Another 5 kg to go.

Something worth praise, drugs (and any other help) is something that can be useful for some people, not something that should be imposed on everyone, that is a completely different thing.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote,

It is quoted and the arguments that follow have no logical problem, saying that a result should be achieved without explaining how to reach that point is not useful, specially for a problem that has not been able to be solved with huge efforts. There is no misrepresentation, you offer no alternative and just say one solution (limited as it is) should be not tried because it is not perfect.

If you are unable to refute logically any of the arguments used to disqualify your point that is also not the same as things being incomprehensible, at much it is an excuse to avoid addressing those arguments when they disprove yours.

I agree, and I believe Owzer does as well. That's another reason he's distinguishing between this and what he considers "acceptable" corporal punishment.

No he is not, he is talking about this article where a child was beaten up to the point of the lesions requiring weeks to heal, he says this can be punishment without being abuse, which has no merit.

suggests that there are some applications of violence you would consider either less serious or even potentially justified

Pulling out a kid by the arm to save him from running into the front of a speeding car can be described as physical violence, but obviously not a beating and not abuse. Once again pretending all use of physical force is equivalent is where you abandon reason to justify something that has no justification.

Isn't that exactly what our remaining smokers believe? 

No, it is not, which is why smokers are not allowed to keep their habits anywhere. The law makes it very clear that the consequences of second hand smoke (even if based on "averages and probabilities") are enough to scientifically know it causes damage and make regulations and laws that forbid people to behave in certain ways. We as society can definitely know that things like smoking or using physical violence to educate are negative and best avoided, your argument of "averages and probabilities" is still nonsensical.

But even if they can say, for example, that 95% of torture confessions are unreliable, they can't say 100%.

But that is enough to prove the conduct is unreliable and since it is morally unacceptable that facilitates concluding this is something that have to be avoided and punished when it happens.

that's why we hadn't gotten rid of torture

The much easier explanation is that some people enjoy torture and will try to justify that enjoyment by grasping at straws, for example by arguing that nothing in medicine is known because it is all based on probabilities.

I mean, when you justify beating up a kid (a conduct that is illegal) using as an argument the existence of torture you are not helping your position, instead you are making it much more clear why it is not valid. Looking it from the other way is like someone saying "torture can be justified, after all we still beat up kids to educate them"

Are you saying that you have access categorically to all the records on gain of function research in the world and can say that Covid-19 was not a lab experiment?

That makes as much sense as saying that you could only discredit the claim that covid came from space faring magical unicorns if you have access to every single record on astronomy and biology.

The real situation is that the information available clearly and unequivocally points to the natural origin as the hugely more likely correct explanation, and that include the records you tried to use to supposedly justify the opposite explanation, when scientist find a straight forward, elegant and easy way for the coronavirus to adapt to the human cell receptors and the actual pathogen that is adapted did it in a clumsy, complicated and dirty way (that requires more mutations coming from the known ancestors) that means the scientists you are trying to blame are not related to the process, once again nature is capable enough to do it as it has been doing for thousands and thousands of years.

It is strange that the researchers in China who worked in the Wuhan lab which was under the auspices of the Chinese military have disappeared!

Did you even read the article you are commenting? the multiple failures in how the pandemic was dealt with in China and the political costs these failures have are more than enough to explain the people responsible for those policies being punished by the CCP, some were even punished for cooperating with international experts. There is zero need for any conspiracy about the origin, much less when the available evidence says the natural way explains the situation without the self contradictions and impossible complications the laboratory theory requires.

The jury is still out it seems.

No it is not, when you have to go back to 2021 (and even use Rand Paul!) to refute evidence being published later you are accepting you understand your position is mistaken and you are instead interested in misleading people with outdated, discredited theories.

There are many reports that show the lab origin is realistically impossible according to the evidence, and these report have been available for almost two years without being contradicted by further evidence

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

Conspiracy?

You are not a student of history, it appears.

There has been exactly zero pandemics caused by pathogens artificially developed, zero. Natural zoonoses on the other hand explain every infectious disease that affect humans almost without exception. Pretending this very likely explanation is false (even if proved scientifically on this case) just because you think differently only evidences antiscientific bias.

Sure it's not easy, but as I said before, pharmaceutical intervention can be helpful but it's not sustainable.

Based on exactly what? what projections say so and what data is being used for that? Specially important is what alternative measures can be used instead that have the same efficacy? If there is no alternative to something effective the obvious solution is to increase the efficacy (so the intervention is more cost effective), not just pretend that not using anything would be as beneficial. Specially important is that the drugs do not just help losing weight and several other health benefits have been found that can tilt the balance towards being cost effective.

Generally speaking, neither are the vast majority of the diet methods and supplements marketed to people concerned about their weight. 

If a drug makes much more likely to keep diet and excercise for the patients that means the life style changes become sustainable, specially important is when studies have demonstrated the weight can be maintained lower ever after months of not using drugs to support those changes. No need to get anything "marketed" patients will simply be much more successful following the instructions from their dietician, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc.

most people could manage their weight and health at a healthy level if they took responsibility for their health instead of ignoring it or outsourcing it

Big news, this is still magical thinking, if it was so easy no country would have obesity as a public health problem, pretending the multiple factors that make this "solution" not a realistic possibility can just be ignored is what makes your criticism useless, once again saying "addicts should just abandon their addictions" is as useful (not at all).

When you list the many problems other approaches have to deal with obesity your are disproving your own point, the drugs are not perfect, but at least they are effective, so compared with things that are at the same time ineffective and have their own disadvantages you are arguing why the drugs should be used.

But in any case, the problem is going to take a long time to significantly mitigate if it can be really mediated at all. 

And during that time millions and millions will die premature deaths because they fail in their lifestyle changes, many of those deaths can be prevented by including pharmacological help, so there is no reason in saying it should not be used as the experts recommend. That would be like denying a patient a blood transfusion to keep him alive until he can get a more permanent solution for a bleeding.

Absolutely. And the risks associated with taking such drugs are high.

Not even remotely as high and frequent as the risk that come from a failure to mantain lifestyle changes, which is why the FDA approved them to be used for the purpose of weight loss.

Or do you have any evidence that this approval is a failure on the part of the FDA? if this argument holds no weight.

Better to keep to moderate diet and maintain weight by exercising properly in combination, as advised by the medical consensus.

Which for some people includes pharmacological intervention, there is no medical consensus that says it is better to risk a likely failure instead, that claim is only yours.

 but if people don't take responsibility for what they eat and continue to consume low-quality food that causes a range of health problems 

Which again is like saying that if people don't abandon their addictions then they will have health problems, the issue is not understanding this necessity, the issue is that saying this is very easy, doing it is not.

I'm not discounting psychological factors that prompt people to overeat, but ultimately people are responsible for what they put into their and their children's bodies

Physcological factors are not the only ones, there are also socioeconomically or genetically important factors for example. Saying that people are responsible for their health does nothing to improve the public health problems, for that it is necessary much more than a moral judgment, practical, effective solutions are what is necessary, for some patients drugs can be part of that solution, part of being responsible for their own health.

Blindly following what is said or sung on a pharmaceutical commercial is a major misinformed decision.

Fortunately that is not what the scientific consensus says should be done, pretending this to be the case is just misleading people, the FDA is obviously not a pharmaceutical company, so why pretend it is when it approved the drugs?

There seems to be enough proof for ‘gain of function’ research and the practice of in China, funded by the US.

The thing is that the "proof" completely debunks the lab origin theory for covid, not only the published works from WIV follow a completely different direction for the adaptation of coronaviruses, the epidemiological evidence clearly shows the animal market is the only realistic possibility ofr the origin of the outbreak in Wuhan. This is why no respected institution of science in the world consider the lab origin as even remotely likely.

To imagine that viruses and bacteria aren’t targets for weaponization is naive.

But even worse is to think something that have naturally happened hundreds and hundreds of times during the history of humanity must have been artificial just because it could theoretically be so, as logical as finding wet pavement after heavy rain and blaming it on a conspiracy because people have access to hoses.

The only real solution to the obesity epidemic is for people to take responsibility for what they eat,

A "real" solution that solves nothing is not a solution, is mostly just wishful thinking, There is no mystery about what is necessary to have a healthy lifestyle, the problem is how to implement changes in a sustainable and realistic way, else the problem (and things like alcoholism or other addictions) would never become a serious public health problem.

Well, probably no real problem for the American works, but if the reports end up being believable it could mean a lethal blow for Dahlia in Bloom, the public would not support it and likely would complain loudly if it is aired.

Conceding that the studies were not aware that would still means that the people responsible for subcontracting the work should be identified and something done. Seeing how the industry in general is obviously sacrificing quality for cheap labor I would not be surprised if many more examples are found in the near future.

Well, that's the thing, when people want to make up stuff without actual support from objective evidence the only things left are vague, unsubstantiated claims.

Every new tool that ends up useful means new benefits, but at the same time risks that need to be identified and corrected as much as possible, preferentially before the risks become a serious problem. In this way the article makes a valid warning about a possible negative outcome from a more widespread use of GLP-1 agonists, from stigma to exaggerated expectations and later disappointments.

Fortunately this is not the first time this kind of situation is present and professionals have at least some idea of what kind of problems may happen in the future and how they can be dealt with, the important part is that to prevent those problems society in general requires having at least a minimum of scientific literacy, so they can identify invalid propaganda from people trying to make a quick buck, mostly by exaggerating either the benefits or the risks of the drugs.

Usually this is quite easy, one side will say that the drugs are miraculous without any risks, and the other that the drugs only represent risks without any benefits. The actual experts on the other side will align with the scientific consensus that shows the drugs have strong benefits when used responsibly but also risks that require vigilance from a professional.

Actually, that's not true. Punishment can be defined as the intentional infliction of harm within socially acceptable limits by an accepted authority figure (often even by the victim himself, at least partially) justified with at least a sincere belief it would contribute to the positive aim of improving the victim's behavior.

There is no way beating up a kid so it would require 2 weeks of recovery is included in the socially acceptable limits, that is stretching the definition too much to the point of invalidity. As long as it can be described as a beating there is no way it can be justified, there is a reason why it is illegal.

sadly we have to accept it is still "socially acceptable".

No, definitely it is not. There is a huge difference between a single slap that would produce discomfort and a beating both would be corporal punishment, but not both would be considered a beating. Trying to make both equivalent is condoning it with invalid excuses.

The scientific view, of course, is not unknown. The problem is that the scientific view is on averages and probabilities.

This makes absolutely no sense, when the scientific consensus is clear that means the conclusions are well known, that averages and probabilities do absolutely nothing to refute this, most of what is applicable to human health and formation deals with averages and probabilities, from smoking in public places to the type of diet is followed, that does not mean we suddenly don't know if smoking causes cancer.

Your justification that "some children" would not have problem is as valid as someone justifying smoking constantly in your face saying that "some people" would not have cancer even with constant exposure to secondary smoke, worthless.

*This creates an incentive for parents to rationalize while the odds are, as a whole not favorable, they can maneuver themselves and their kid into the clean part of the probability cones, that in their local case beating is the best solution even if overall it may not be.*

Which in no way justifies their actions, it just explain why they mistakenly took that choice even when illegal.

Unfortunately we are already experiencing disasters thanks to climate change, and it is too late to completely prevent them from happening and affecting ecosystems in the whole planet.

Of course these obvious consequences are not enough to silence anti-scientific zealots that still try to pretend the scientists are wrong just to justify acting in a self-centered matter, it has become too obvious that disasters are coming so the excuse they desperately try to use is that these are just "nature", but even that is quickly becoming ridiculous the more and more it is clear everything depends so strongly on human activity.

then they would be antibiotics, right?

The whole point is that the drugs are not considered nor used as antibiotics but may have antibiotic properties. It is not as simple as being approved or not, but that a clinical effect can be observed, a likely scenario is that the mechanism of action for their antibacterial property becomes better understood and new drugs are designed to exploit that mechanism effectively.

It is infinitely safer and at least as effective as the new expensive drugs that received EUAs....

That is not true, ivermectin has been definitely demonstrated as useless against covid, and it has well known toxic effects that are specially dangerous precisely for the patients for whom it would be necessary.

I never said anything about covid. I just said that Ivermectin is not horse medication like the media and big pharma were pushing.

Again, nothing has changed about ivermectin, it is used for the same things it was used before, absolutely nothing in this article indicates things have changed. Not even for the drugs being investigated because there is a huge difference between something having an effect in vitro and that something ending up being clinically significant on patients.

However, there have been many studies that have shown ivermectin to lower the viral load for people infected with covid. 

Not to any degree that would have importance, which is why the current understanding is that is worthless for covid patients, even worse it brinks toxic risks specially for the patients that are vulnerable so it is worse than not using anything.

You are jumping to conclusions way too quickly without letting further research investigate.

It is not me who concluded ivermectin is worthless but the scientific consensus, no institution of medical science disagrees with the conclusion that the drug should not be used for covid, none. They have done enough research to prove beyond any reasonable doubt this, it is not believable you did a better job than all the scientists of the planet evaluating the evidence.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/982852

Most randomized trials showed no effect of the drug. A couple of larger trials which seemed to show dramatic effects were subsequently shown to be fraudulent.

I mentioned ivermectin because it is in the same class of medication as triclabendazole

Again, no it is not, chloride channel inhibitors are not the same class as microtubule formation inhibitors, they are nowhere near being the same thing, that would be like saying wound dressings and vitamin K are in the same "class" just because both can be used to stop bleeding, they do not have the same function at all, as easily proved as they are not interchangeable.

Satoshi Ōmura and William C. Campbell (inventors of ivermectin) got a nobel peace prize for it in 2015 and it is not just some horse medication.

In countries like the US that is still the main use it has, because that is where it is effective. The nobel prize was not about any effect beyond what is actually useful for, which has nothing to do with bacterial nor viral infections.

Personally I don't like the uniforms, but at least they are not similar in any way to the esthetics that originated the "spawn from the abyss" mascot.

 "itadaki joshi Riri-chan," literally "sugar baby Riri,"

Literally would mean a baby made of sugar, that is obviously not the case, it is not even figuratively, the English would be an equivalent term.

My only question is WHY?

That would be blaming the victim, there is no realistic scenario that would justify beating up a child since non-violent ways to enforce discipline are available. Mistakes do not need to go "unpunished" just because it is not allowed to hit a child, plenty of effective and easy punishments can be done without ever resulting to violence.

we don't know what his child did

And it does not matter at all, the adult broke the law and the child is a victim, trying to shift blame toward the victim is morally reprehensible.

and everyone raise their children as they see fit. 

Invalid argument, using physical violence is wrong and illegal even if the parent thinks is justified.

I got spanking and as I look back at what I did they were justified say what you want to say I am just fine!

As said previously, seeing how you justify physical abuse of a child and even tried to blame the victim that clearly shows you did not turned up as fine as you think you did.

There is a reason why the WHO, who usually abstains completely to criticize governments because it would jeopardize collaboration efforts that save lives in emergencies, openly and strongly criticized the Chines government way of dealing with covid once it became clear they were putting obstacles to international investigations.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-health-organization-criticizes-china-over-delays-in-covid-19-probe-11609883140

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/China-rebuffs-WHO-report-claiming-slow-COVID-response

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/06/health/who-china-share-covid/index.html

The lack of opportune cooperation with international experts (including the WHO) eroded a lot of the image chinese scientists had in the field of infectious diseases, and that continues even now.

Interesting how quickly things have changed

Nothing has change about ivermectin, it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to be worthless against covid, and likely for any viral infection that shares the same mechanisms.

No change of narratives, no change on indications, not even any mention of ivermectin in the article, the one antiparasitic mentioned is triclabendazole that acts inhibiting microtubule formation and adenylate cyclase activity, meanwhile ivermectin act on chloride channels on the membrane of the muscle cells of the parasites paralyzing them, just because drugs are categorized together according to their ability to kill parasites that does not mean they have the same mechanism of action, as in this case they can be completely different.

Still in my generation it was a common and not questioned punishment at home for most of us

Thus progress has been achieved.

Almost no one left who would have run the economy and nearly all children being alone and unattended while the beating parents would have been under investigation or in prison.

So you think parents would have persisted without change even when the action was recognized as abuse, unnecessary and against the law as it is now? That is not a realistic expectation.

lol*

Most people do not find child abuse entertaining.

The classification introduced in 2015 allows companies to label their products as beneficial to health based on scientific evidence submitted to the Consumer Affairs Agency, but they do not undergo government safety or efficacy inspections.

The problem is that the scientific evidence required is not the equivalent to what is asked for pharmaceuticals (which are clinical trials). For supplements indirect data or cells results are enough to give approval, and since that kind of data is no guarantee of actually having any positive effect it means the supplements are approved as long at they might be beneficial and without the controls necessary to prevent health risks such as what recently happened.

I'm saying there was no indication that he believed he was punishing her. Maybe he is just a sick masochist?

That makes absolutely no sense,

First because there is no realistic way anybody could think the beating is not punishment, the daughter obviously was in pain, enough to merit a visit to the hospital, that is enough to constitute punishment and abuse.

Second because being a sick masochist would make a person to ask for pain to be inflicted on them, not do it unto others which would be a sadist (which would still mean the intention is to punish the girl, so it would still be both physical punishment and physical abuse).

Most of the more "respectable" journals would never accept a paper critical of vaccines

When it is based on falsehoods, faulthy methodologies or invalid conclusions not supported by the evidence no, and they should not, no matter if the report is for or against vaccines. That is the whole point of peer review (pre and post publication) Cureos has been demonstrated to publish obvious falsehoods before since it does not care about the scientific value of the manuscripts and that they are destroyed after publication by valid and correct criticisms, which is why it is the choice of authors that know they could never survive proper review.

You always say this but there is no evidence all doctors do this

No evidence except that all the respected institutions of science in the world clearly support the vaccines? that doctors and scientists openly vaccinate themselves, the family members under their care and openly recommend doing the same to everybody else (including their friends and family that obviously also listen to those recommendations).

Many doctors do not recommend their family and friends to get the shot.

Many? any actual reference to support this claim? how do these doctors magically exclude their friends and family from their public declarations? when the conspiracy makes no sense unless you bring up more and more impossible conditions it should be clear it was not a rational position to take from the very beginning, at some point the convolutions necessary for it to be even remotely possible would make a rational person realize there is no way for this to happen.

Even Dr. Paul Offit recommended his son not to get the booster. 

Under what conditions? a primary source for this would be necessary for context, recommending a person to skip one booster to get a better one a month later could for example be something perfectly supported by the scientific evidence.

Unless of course a primary source clearly debunks this claim, which is why antivaxxer groups routinely do to mislead people into making bad health care decisions for profit.

Many thousands of health workers world-wide did not want to get the shot, preferring to lose their job.

Health care professionals that pretended their personal bias were more important than the evidence should lose their jobs, they are not acting professionally by pretending the scientific evidence is less reliable than their own personal opinion.

How do you deal with an enraged child pointing a kitchen knife at her mother for example?

Not having enough information does not justify making up a situation that is not likely to have happened at all, there is nothing in the note that would indicate this kind of violent development being the case, no previous involvement of social services or the police. So the (unfortunately) usual situation is simply much more likely to have happened.

You are the one who suggested that it was discipline when you said: "Too many people still consider physical punishment their default way to discipline their children"

Because it is the most common reason why adults abuse children, you on the other hand made the irrelevant claim this could be physical punishment without it being abuse, that is what makes absolutely no sense.

I'm suggesting that you are confusing physical punishment with physical abuse.

To physically punish a child (with slaps) is always physical abuse, you have not argued how slapping a child as in this situation could not represent abuse.

it's been illegal in japan for some time now...

Which unfortunately is not enough to stop these adults that "turned up completely fine".

I will not judge this man because he did the right thing to bring her to hospital and they are not saying anything else than just 2 week injuries (which is hardly that bad) and not general physical abuse

This makes no sense, if an adult came and beat up a minor under your care and produced injuries that would take 2 weeks to heal, would you not judge him either? would it make it ok if he brought the child to the hospital (while opportunely hiding he was the one causing the injuries until the police was involved)? Most people would not, specially because nothing indicates this was even the first time it happened, just the first time he was arrested for it.

Doesn't make it look like he is a monster being objective and he shall have learned his lesson

How many years ago do you think have passed to blindly assume he changed? Some abusers may change (specially when the police is finally involved) but many don't and this sometimes ends up in big tragedies. Blindly assuming all will be nice and fine or that it was the first time for this to happen is not a rational response. The government have a responsibility to fully investigate the case and protect the child from someone that had such an urge to satisfy his rage than he choose to break the law.

Protecting a child from an abuser is not what destroy a family, that would be the responsibility of the abuser, if professionals that deal with these cases end up thinking the child should be under other adults responsibility that would mean this would be what is best for the child.

Actually no, the evidence is clear that the shots are very much responsible. Such as this recent peer-reviewed paper:

Definetely not, a report that could only be published in a journal well known to have deficient peer review, that have been demonstrated to publish false information is not anywhere near enough to disprove the dozens and dozens of reports that prove the contrary.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cureus-journal-of-medical-science-bias/

The simple fact that they could only get their report accepted here (when the supposed importance would merit a much more important scientific outlet) clearly shows that there is something in their methods, data or conclusions that made it impossible to pass peer review in any journal that is at least minimally reputable.

Meanwhile articles clearly proving vaccinated patients are much more healthy and have no increase of pathologies than unvaccinated ones have been already replicated without problem.

Again, pretending doctors and scientist around the world are all hiding information that put their families and friends lives at risk just for profit is impossible to believe. Except of course for people that would do precisely that (sacrifice their loved ones for money) so they think is natural for anybody else to do the same.

Too many people still confuse physical punishment with physical abuse.

Slapping a child is physical abuse, no other way to see it,

There is no indication in the article that the man in this article believed he was punishing his daughter.

Instead of what? providing her pleasure? what other purpose would you think slapping her would have? there is no rational way anybody could believe this is not just an adult physically punishing a child.

Not 'rot'. One of life's many hard lessons. But, hey, let's pamper kids and let them stay home if they don't want to go. That's working so well in Japan.

False dichotomy, it is not a choice just between beating up a child and letting them do as they please, there are many ways to discipline a child without ever having to use physical violence, and many of those other ways work much better. The problem is that adults don't get the satisfaction of beating someone up to release their anger, so these people like to pretend those many other ways do not exist so they can justify keeping the abuse.

Yeah, anecdotal evidence isn't proof.

The scientific consensus from the experts in child rearing is not based on "anecdotal evidence", so when the experts clearly say there is no need for physical violence and that other forms of discipline are much better the ones trying to refute this with invalid anecdotes are the abusers.