So the danger is if there's violence it'll invite a crushing response from Xi, and if it's peaceful the protesters will just be ignored. Poor people of Hong Kong.
Well yes, you were a little slow to wake up to Hong Kong reality post-1997, but that's how it is.
In reality it's actually rather worse, because Hong Kong people are not being granted the status quo. Instead they are seeing their freedoms actively eroded, and with the extradition bill, it was finally and unavoidably clear that the Hong Kong government is uninterested in protecting their rights of the citizens or upholding the Basic Law. And it expects the people to go along with it, all the while being told that they're not to be trusted with full democratic rights. Which is an insult to any educated population.
Apparently the population has risen against that insult.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I never said physicians say people bring it on themselves. I said it.
Yes, and I explained why physicians aren't in a position to share your attitude. When people become sick, it isn't much use telling them they shouldn't have done whatever it was they did, or telling them they don't deserve treatment because they haven't been virtuous enough. Physicians treat sickness; dishing out homilies is not a recognized part of their duties. Some still do it of course, but it's basically a free extra, like smiling.
So to drag this back to what was covered in the article, it was reporting a study published in the Lancet, a journal that leans heavily towards physicians as its target readership, and it was reporting a study that was headed by a physician, and the subject of the study was the value of a particular medication in the context of particular treatments and outcomes. There is no part of this article in which physicians aren't relevant to what was reported, and the reported study was about treatment of patients with high cholesterol, not exploring "how could they avoid having high cholesterol in the first place?".
I take it that your reply to me is to explain that your original comments had no relevance at all to the study, and were never even intended to. Is that about the size of it?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
A Brexit deal is not Brexit. No deal / clean break Brexit is Brexit.
An entirely spurious claim. Not one national newspaper or broadcaster uses the word according to your cooked-up definition. It always was, and continues to be, used to refer to Britain leaving the EU. Nothing more, nothing less, and no special conditions applied.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
People (and pharmaceutical companies) are always thinking of how to cure problems, but not thinking of how to prevent them in the first place.
Untrue. Eat healthily and don't smoke: you just gave the most medically uncontroversial advice possible. It's hardly something that physicians neglect to suggest their patients, and as basic advice it was around before you or I were born. But they also have to diagnose and treat, and a physician saying that people "bring it on themselves" doesn't move diagnosis and treatment forward in any way at all. They even have to treat people who bring it on themselves - which applies to a very high proportion of their patients: ask any doctor who has treated someone who was injured in an "accident" or while exercising or playing sports.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
That's not Brexit.
Brexit is simply the UK (including Northern Ireland) leaving the EU. It's a neutral term and doesn't need redefining by a Trump cultist.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
No doubt about it, Japanese youth these days are like youth everywhere else around the world. Soft and flakes of snow. So they had to yell and get a haircut. Oh the horror, how will cope with the real world.
It's not getting a haircut. It's being outnumbered, isolated, and forced to have your head shaved as an act of physical and psychological intimidation in front of others. The ultimate purpose of that is humiliation.
Some people are indeed "snow flakes": less equipped than others to laugh off humiliation or physical violence. There are many valid reasons why they might be. We're not all jocks, or posturing libertarians, nor do we all want to be. We don't all view the world in terms of who's a "snow flake" and who isn't, with only the non-snowflakes being considered worthy of basic respect.
In the real world, people don't have their heads forcibly shaved: I've never personally witnessed it, and I wouldn't consider it remotely normal or acceptable if I did. Where it does usually happen is settings where things can be hidden from general view - prisons, the military, schools, sports teams. It also flourishes in sex-segregated settings, and in situations where the normal social order has broken down (such as newly liberated France in World War II.)
3 ( +4 / -1 )
My faith in humanity has been restored.
Great. I'd hate to think that Musk had suffered doubts over his faith in humanity because his right to call someone a "child rapist" was infringed.
What an ordeal it must have been for the persecuted billionaire.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
I would personally like to thank all the idiots who did stupid things with their drones and ruined it for the rest of us.
Right. Who could ever have imagined that a device available to all, and that can be flown over roads, railways, powerlines, as well as residential, commercial and industrial property would be misused or might cause accidents, and would require careful regulation?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Many hospitals overseas have antibiotic policies
Useful to know. Many anything overseas have many anything.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
He wouldn't be the only royal to "cast a shadow". His uncle was notorious. A monster.
Not notorious enough for it to be clear who you're talking about.
Andrew's father was the only son among five children, and his mother was the eldest of two daughters - which is why she's the reigning monarch.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
I have said it before and will say it again: Women can do anything in Japan.
Yes. They remind me of people.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Posted in: Chinese people are useless at private commercial companies because their performance is poor. We wouldn't invite applicants for job interviews in the first place if it turned out they were Chinese. We'd reject them at the stage of document screening. See in context
This is exactly why China is the number two economy in the world and Japan is third.
It's not because Chinese people are incapable of having similar moronic thoughts to the guy above, I can promise you that.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Anyone who has ever eaten Japanese food will have no doubts about this award. Its the best cuisine in the world by far.
Not for me it ain't, and I actually like it.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
I used to play video games. Then I turned 13.
And when are you hoping to turn 14?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Weren't people blaming man-made CO2 for causing these fires?
Not for lighting them.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Ummm age 12 and above?
Crucial context: US approval
The kid was 11.
Crucial context: In Japan
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Just to emphasize, in case my comment gave the impression that I was referring to specific cases (which was not my intention), or to people who have already been diagnosed, that I was talking about screening in general (of populations, not individuals), and of PSA testing applied, within that context, to look for cancer. There is currently less official support for PSA as the best screening tool, and for screening itself, than there used to be. It's not that screening is being abandoned, but that advice on recommended ages for testing has been modified in light of assessment of the actual effectiveness of screening. The page I linked has some discussion of the risk/benefit tradeoff, I think, and that's always an important consideration in medicine. PSA screening of symptom-free people is no exception, and has to be considered in such terms. The risks - not from the test itself, but from what can happen next if a high reading is returned - are real and not to be overlooked.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
PSA screening is not without significant problems. It's tempting to assume that for cancers, the best approach is to test often, catch it early, and when found, treat it as soon as possible. Cancer is far more complicated than that, not least because the treatment itself tends to be drastic and life-altering. Even a biopsy is not a trivial procedure, for the patient, and that too can be life-altering. Certainly true of a prostate biopsy.
Screening for both breast cancer and prostate cancer has been carefully assessed in recent years, because with large scale programmes finally in place, it has become possible to look back over a few decades' worth of results. To define screening, it is the testing of healthy people for signs of a particular disease. Whether it's actually effective can eventually be judged after some years have passed by assessing factors such as mortality rates across the screened population. That effectiveness can be judged accurately, but only in terms of screened populations, not of individuals. So it should be added that problems with screening programmes such as for prostate and breast cancer don't mean that healthy people considered high-risk (family history, for example) should avoid testing.
What are the problems with PSA?
Among other things, a high rate of false positives, which is undesirable in cancer screening, because at best, it leads to considerable anxiety and stress for the affected patients, at worst to treatments that are unnecessary (including many, many unneeded biopsies - for this reason, advice is often that a patient with high PSA should wait and then re-test). One reason for false positives is that elevated PSA is only a possible sign of cancer, but not a particularly strong indicator; there are other things that can elevate PSA levels.
A second problem is the underwhelming results of PSA screening for cancer. I've added the link below, but in layman's terms, here's what was found, according to one study:
...[F]or every 1,000 men ages 55 to 69 years who are screened every 1 to 4 years for 10 to 15 years:
About 1 death from prostate cancer would be avoided
120 men would have a false-positive test result that leads to a biopsy, and some men who get a biopsy would experience at least moderately bothersome symptoms from the biopsy
100 men would be diagnosed with prostate cancer. Of those, 80 would be treated (either immediately or after a period of active surveillance) with surgery or radiation. At least 60 of these men would have a serious complication from treatment, such as erectile dysfunction and/or urinary incontinence.
The Mayo Clinic page on PSA testing says this:
Studies have estimated that between 23 and 42 percent of men with prostate cancer detected by PSA tests have tumors that wouldn't result in symptoms during their lifetimes. These symptom-free tumors are considered overdiagnoses — identification of cancer not likely to cause poor health or to present a risk to the man's life.
Cancer Research UK even promotes a handy pictorial version of such findings:
These sources, and there are plenty more like it, are very mainstream. To boil down the issues, it's not clear-cut whether males need frequent prostate screening - exactly how frequently is one question, what age range to test at is another, and whether to use the PSA test to do it is a third. There are no completely obvious answers to any of these, and I would be wary of any physician who makes it sound like there are.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Somehow I feel you are speaking to me...
Not specifically. To anyone who happens to believe that "let's see who lives and who dies" is a better approach to infectious diseases than vaccination.
as they say whatever does not kill you makes you stronger
That's a bingo.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
what do you think of the fact that i never had the flu without any shot
I don't think anything at all of it. It's unremarkable. And as I said, that's not how infectious disease works.
Not a doctor, just someone who recognizes that human understanding has moved well beyond that of superstitious medieval peasants.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
@wipeout, i have never ( i mean never ) had the flu in my life
Well great, but that's not how infectious disease works...
i always hear stories of people catching the flu and they got a shot
So you automatically believe them (gullible), assume that the juxtaposition of two things means that the one caused the other (fallacious) and use that as data and your justification for not needing a shot (illogical).
generally speaking i would not recommend people to get a shot, they,re fine without it
So you haven't troubled to inform yourself on the actual age group most likely to contract flu, have you? But despite that crucial gap in your understanding, you're dishing out complacent advice based on age. You're also erroneously stating that the unvaccinated will be"fine", despite the inescapable fact that flu can affect people of any age; flu is contracted by large numbers of people in every flu season; flu is a potentially (and for many people, an actually) fatal illness; flu symptoms can be distressing or damaging; flu can require absence, sometimes prolonged, from work or school; and that a person with flu who recovers and is fine can infect and harm multiple other people. Additionally, influenza outbreaks put a strain on health services. The more sufferers, the worse the problem.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
many times it is completely wrong and provides ZERO protection
There is no year in which it provides zero protection.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
I probably did not get the flu from that shot
It's not probably. You didn't. The vaccine cannot transmit or generate influenza.
Incidentally, the flu vaccine is far from perfect in terms of conferring immunity; and very variable from year to year. What immunity it does give takes can take two to three weeks to develop. You can certainly become ill between the shot and the development of immunity. (Wonder if that's brought up a new memory that you didn't get ill immediately after the shot.)
It weakens your natural immunity, and the rampant abuse of it has made viruses stronger.
I think an exception might be the elderly
In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about, but you'll just speculate anyway.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
What else is there to stop them? Nothing.
Their own calculation of whether they consider it necessary is what stops them. Not Trump's demented, substance-free babble.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
No, I've never had it and I don't see the point.
Not catching or transmitting flu is the point. It is better to not have the flu than to have the flu. And it is better to not transmit the flu than to transmit the flu.
I've also read it doesn't guarantee immunity and there are potential side effects.
Strictly speaking, no vaccine guarantees immunity, and there are potential side effects from any vaccine. There are also potential side effects from any medicine; for a medicine to have an effect, which is the purpose of all medicine, there is always the potential for a side effect - which is defined as any effect other than that for which the medicine was prescribed/intended. Likewise, food and drink can have effects that if they were medicine, and regulated as such, would be listed as side effects. The list of side effects for peanuts would be a long one.
For a medicine to have no side effects, it would also have to have no therapeutic effect. Basically, that's the realm of quack medicine, which consists of substances that most certainly can have side effects, including dangerous and fatal ones (supplements, Chinese herbs) but don't work as claimed in any case; and substances which could be said to have no side effects, such as homeopathic preparations, which are simply water, or sugar pills in which water is claimed to be the active ingredient.
I stopped getting them at my office a few years ago after getting the shot and falling in to 10 days of flu-like misery.
The flu vaccine contains inactivated/killed virus. It can't give you a flu-like illness or any other illness for 10 days.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
There are many scientific studies showing that vaccines can cause diabetes
No there aren't, and they can't.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
"Lawsuits detail deadly U.S. Navy collision off Japan's coast" gives the impression that the Navy was at fault.
So do most accounts of what happened.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
Why if a rioteer attacks a police officer in Hong Kong it is a glorious act of fight for freedom, but if the same thing happens in the U.S. (U.K., France, Germany etc.) it's a crime, attack on Law and Order?
The US, UK, France, and Germany already have freedom. Hong Kong people are on the streets demanding freedom - specifically, universal suffrage - and they took to the streets in the first place because freedoms they already had are under serious threat.
Law and order is a bit meaningless when the government of Hong Kong defers to China, attempts to brainwash the young with pro-China sentiment that the population has no appetite for, and shows its disdain for the citizens and their rights by opening up the possibility of being dragged off to China to disappear into the justice system there. Hong Kong people don't wish to be subjected to China's laws or China's methods of punishment.
They're fighting it, and that's a fight for freedom. They also know that it's now or never.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
What will be the excuse this time for those who blindly support these 'protesters?'
That this is what happens when you try to take away the freedoms a population has enjoyed for the last 40 years or more.
The government of Hong Kong refuses to make concessions, and the people of Hong Kong, by all evidence, are sick and tired of going along with the sham that their government is able to act independently of China. They will no longer cooperate in their own subjugation.
The Umbrella Revolution five years ago should have been a warning to the government that it needed to go extremely carefully with the people of Hong Kong. Instead, they were arrogant enough to assume that it was all over, and then with the astonishing act of opportunism that was the extradition bill, they precipitated the current crisis. This is entirely the Hong Kong government's fault, and they have been colossally incompetent in their handling of the situation over the last five months.
The city has collapsed around them; the population is now hostile both to the government and the police, and increasingly hostile to China. Twenty years is all it took to screw the whole thing up, and to turn a population from docile to rebellious. Lam can continue to limp along as chief executive - she's not elected by popular vote, after all - but the damage is permanent and her refusal to step down makes it worse day by day.
Of course, if it feels good to pin this all on molotov-throwing criminals, go ahead. But you're overlooking most of what's going on. People were out on the streets every day of the last working week. Ordinary people. Office workers in Central. Even kids in school uniform. There is support for the protest movement across the whole of Hong Kong society.
In the early days after the handover, there was a lot of talk about how China intended to make Hong Kong a showcase so that they could persuade the people of Taiwan that unification with China would be nothing to fear. How's that looking now?
0 ( +4 / -4 )