In principle, that is a good idea. But you might never learn about the crippling effects. There are powerful forces trying to stiffle any negative publicity. Few people are aware of the negative effects of other vaccines.
Yes. Similarly, few people are aware that, as you recently told us on JT, vaccines are "directly injected into the blood". Are you finally ready to publicly correct yourself?
Seems like the right thing to do before you "educate" us about any other vaccine-related issue. After all, it's so basic that a person who doesn't understand this isn't really in a position to understand anything about vaccines at all.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
The EU are bullies. The Brits just aren’t that into you anymore. Getting over your hurt feelings and be mature about.
They're sufficiently into the EU to be asking for trade on the same terms as before.
As a non-member, without offering concessions (such as freedom of movement), they can't possibly get that, under any circumstances, and for them to pretend that they can is delusional. Hence the descent to threatening a no-deal exit, which would be damaging to both sides, but will be particularly damaging to Britain. Specifically, to British people, British trade, British jobs, and the British economy. Which is kind of an odd thing for a country to unilaterally do to its own people.
Your jibe may seem to you to sum the situation up nicely, but Britain has made a treaty with the EU, and in line with centuries of practice, is required to honour it. That's the actual issue, not the irrelevant point you make about "hurt feelings". To break the terms of a treaty is a disastrous new direction for Britain, and will permanently damage its reputation. This is particularly unnecessary considering that the treaty in question has Johnson's own name on it, and was something he described in his characteristically infantile hyperbole as "a fantastic moment".
You suggestion that the EU are "bullies" when what they're doing is challenging Britain for breaking a legally binding agreement is laughable. Britain signed the agreement, and it was Johnson who signed it.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Good. Flu vaccinations should be free too.
They certainly should. 3000 yen or so per person is sufficiently high to deter some people outright and make others put it off "till later". If reducing the spread of influenza is a national goal, and it should be, an easily available vaccine that you don't have to pay for is the way to go.
It should also be mandatory for most professions: there are very few that should be let off the hook on that, because most people come into contact with many others at their workplace, and not just their coworkers but members of the public as well.
3 ( +8 / -5 )
Posted in: I suffered psychological anguish from TEPCO and I'm also angry with the central government. To me, that is the truth. The facility has asked us to speak the truth so it is not in a position to say ‘Don’t say such things.’ I will quit as a guide if expressing my feelings is considered being critical. See in context
If I were Tepco and under such stupid fire and accusations I would immediately close down everything.
Close down? They don't have that choice. All their nuclear reactors are already out of service. And TEPCO is now 56% owned by the government of Japan, because the government put in a vast amount of money to prevent TEPCO's collapse. That's right, it's been nationalized.
And here's the situation: Daiichi was destroyed - 3 reactors gone within a day or two of the earthquake, the others beyond saving. Daini is to be decommissioned, ending forever TEPCO nuclear power generation in Fukushima Prefecture. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Niigata Prefecture is generating nothing, and has been shut down for even longer than Daiichi and Daini, due to an earthquake in 2008. There was a limited and short-lived restart, killed off by the 2011 earthquake. The plant is now known to be sitting on fault lines, and the rules aren't as "flexible" as they were pre-2011. So the future of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is in doubt too: and if that goes, it's the end of nuclear power for TEPCO.
TEPCO continues to generate power from non-nuclear sources, but if it were to relinquish those plants there would be little problem finding takers for them.
As for the cold, dark, and return to candlelight you fantasize about, after March 2011, Japan got through an extended period with no nuclear reactors generating power, and after the first few critical months of adjustment - in particular the first summer - was able to meet electrical demand without any problem. Nuclear power in Japan is a shadow of what it was, and it never generated more than 30% to start with. It will never return to that peak. Yet we still have with all the air conditioning, heating, and LED lighting we need.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
And since the CDC now also admits that 96% of the Corona deaths had 2 or more co-morbidities, what we are looking is essentially a picture where people who would have died anyway are now counted as Corona deaths.
If the standard of "had comorbidity so would have died anyway so this disease was not the cause" was applied to other diseases, the happy result would be a huge drop in cancer fatalities, as well as fatalities from most of the other major diseases affecting the population.
Which is why that standard isn't applied, and why it is both meaningless and useless. This whole thing arose because some people with an ulterior motive seem to have been unaware of what information is entered on death certificates, and what it actually signifies.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Stop allowing distorted pronunciation in the classroom PERIOD!
One person's idea of distorted pronunciation may be different from another's. The native English speakers who are teaching in Japan aren't all from the same country, so there's a lot of variation in accent, and it goes even further than that, as American and British speakers don't even stress the same syllables a lot of the time.
Most people who learn another language, even to a very high level, have imperfect pronunciation to some degree. So it's not necessarily reasonable to expect children in school to have good pronunciation of English, even after a few years of learning: they have very little actual exposure to the language, and many have never really needed it to genuinely communicate with an English speaker. A couple of insincere "conversations" with an ALT don't count.
Also, it's noticeable that in some countries where English is closer to a native language, and is the mother tongue for at least some of the population, the quality of pronunciation is very variable. Examples in Asia would be the Philippines, India, Pakistan, and the other subcontinent countries, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong. A form like Singlish is ultimately a variant of English, but if you were to apply strict pronunciation standards, you could say that some Singaporean speakers have terrible pronunciation. It's even worse in Hong Kong, even though people were, officially at least, taught in English at school. The Chinese tonal languages, especially those of the south, don't do English many favours, and speakers of those languages have to work hard to break what comes naturally to them. Not everyone succeeds, by any means.
-5 ( +5 / -10 )
The circumstances were completely different in 2016 - a lame duck president whose term was about to expire and whose party was unlikely to win the next presidential election.
That was absolutely not the case in February 2016, the Democratic nominee had a good chance to win the election, and the race remained close throughout. Trump actually won against the polls (which were not in his favour), and still lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. So the information available between February and November, when the Republicans were refusing to even consider the Obama Supreme Court nominee, was that the Democrats were on course to win. Even with that information, they would not accept an Obama nominee.
Now, with an election in about 50 days, Trump is very likely to be dumped by the electorate. If it was inappropriate then for the possibility of an incoming Republican president to miss out on the chance of putting forward his nominee - and that is precisely what the Republicans were arguing, on the grounds that it must reflect the voice of the people - then according to their "rule", it is equally inappropriate now, with the possibility of a Democrat being elected president in 50 days and then assuming office in four months' time.
As they made this the issue in the last election-year vacancy, when there were 11 months on the clock, they are obliged to uphold that principle. They did force the rest of the nation to observe it.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The Biden Rule. How soon we forget.
The Biden rule, based on what he said in 2016 was the opposite: that a President had a constitutional duty to nominate a candidate, even before the election. How soon you forget.
And what the Republicans argued then was that it must wait until after the election. As they prevailed, they have set the precedent and the new rule has been sold to the American people, and directly in their name. To requote my earlier McConnell quote: "Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy".
It is up to the Republicans to show consistency in this and push it back to after the election. The so-called Biden rule was ignored in 2016, and that is the new reality that was forced on the country by the Republicans.
Are you saying you want to introduce the Biden rule now?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Amazing that liberals think people have short memories.
The other way round.
In Obama's last year, when there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the Republicans dreamed up a "rule", previously unknown, unheard of, and certainly unmentioned by Republicans, that a president should not be allowed to make the selection in an election year. He stated it like this: "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy."
The US is currently just six weeks away from an election in which the incumbent could be slung out by the electorate, in which Democrats may take the Senate. The President is trailing in the polls, as he has been throughout the race.
So the short memories are on the Republican side, where their rule, which they concocted from nothing and then imposed on the nation, is now to be abandoned immediately before an election. It lasted just four years, one change of president in their favour, and has been dumped the first time an opportunity to keep to it.
And in your head, that demonstration of mendacious amnesia can be presented as: it's everyone else who has short memories.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
I admire famous people who risk the thrashing of their reputation to voice common sense opinions that the media and elites will ridicule.
People have been admiring Van Morrison for his music while deriding him as a miserable git for about 50 years now. So there is zero risk to his reputation, which he established a long time ago and which can be summed up by the word "churlish". It doesn't go unnoticed, or unmentioned.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
Fact is, Trump followed the advice of Fauci and Birx. What else would you demand him to do?
The point where he eventually deviated is that he correctly recognizes that you can not shut down the economy forever.
Er no, he deviated whenever and wherever he felt like it, and continues to do so. Here's some Fauci advice, and it's plain and simple: "I'll say it yet again. You should not congregate in crowds"
That's been something he has repeated many times in the last six months. Now here's Trump deviating from the advice by encouraging people to gather in crowds:
Those people now go back to spread the disease among others, in the home, in the workplace. Where they set off further outbreaks, those businesses/schools/offices/factories/stores often have to close or send people home. People die. Healthcare workers get infected. The economy takes a hit.
Insisting on not wearing masks, and ignoring state and national guidelines and rules, is the height of arrogance, the height of entitlement, and the height of stupidity. And it has nothing to do with bringing the economy back to normal, it just perpetuates the COVID problem that America is refusing to take seriously enough to overcome.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Half a day of battery for the watch? lol.
Apple states 18 hours, which they cunningly describe as "all day battery life", a slightly devious way of acknowledging that it may well not last a full 24 hours while sort of implying the opposite.
"Our goal for battery life is 18 hours after an overnight charge, factoring in things like checking the time, receiving notifications, using apps, and doing a 60-minute workout. And because everyone will use Apple Watch differently, we tested several other metrics as well."
And actually, they really state "up to 18 hours", a slightly devious way of admitting that it may not last even that long. So while you sneer that someone says it goes for half a day, Apple say the device - with this kind of performance, let's not call it a watch - is sorta capable of 18 hours. Under other use cases listed on that page, they think it gets 14, 11, etc. Note that 14 is just over half a day, and 11 is less than half a day.
So there's the reason that when you see Apple Watches on people's wrists, the display tends to be off. It's an awkward "in-between" device that doesn't reach the feature level of a smartphone and can't come close to the performance level of a wristwatch. It's practically designed to crap out when you need it, which is why no one with anything serious to do would rely on a smartwatch. They use real watches.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
By the way, your link is not that useful: first, these choice of nationality stories are often presented sketchily, and are inaccurately reported (due to widespread lack of understanding) even when they are from Japanese sources like Kyodo. Second, you've reinterpreted what they actually did say, which wasn't flatly wrong, as something they didn't say, which was.
The story more or less correctly states that she "decided to choose Japanese over American nationality": you decided that means she "applied to become a Japanese citizen". It doesn't.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
No. You are Japanese if you hold a Japanese passport / become a citizen.
Passports are irrelevant, and and are only going to confuse you even further. Try not to think about them. They're simply travel documents/proof of nationality.
Osaka's most likely status as someone born in Japan to a Japanese and a foreign national is that her birth was registered (as required by Japanese law) within two weeks. At that point, she is officially entered in the records as a Japanese national, like any other Japanese newborn. As the child of a foreign parent, she had additional rights to another nationality, something with which Japan doesn't specifically concern itself and over which it has no legal authority or influence.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Since becoming Japanese in 2019 she has certainly done well in the rankings and especially her 'endorsement' earnings. Ditching her US nationality was a very astute move.
She didn't become Japanese, she has been Japanese since birth, and that status has never changed.
There's no reliable way without documentary proof to know whether she has actually "ditched" her US nationality. I don't believe she has ever spoken on the record about doing such a thing (come to that, it's not really anyone's business). Handily, there is some documentation of the process that is accessible to all: the US publishes lists of people who renounce US nationality,up to date to about the most recent quarter. Feel free to check her status there.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Britain was not a benenficiary of the EU-Japan deal either. The UK voted to leave before that deal was concluded and the negotiations reflected that.
To say Britain was not a beneficiary makes no sense at all. The EU-Japan trade deal came into effect on 1 February 2019. Trade between Britain and Japan was covered under that deal, and continues to be through to the end of the transition period at the end of this year. That is nearly 2 years as a beneficiary. You can't just dismiss 2 years worth of trade under those new terms as "no benefit". And as the UK-Japan deal is reported as "largely a rollover of one the UK enjoyed as a member of the EU", does that mean you're saying the new deal is not beneficial? Or are you simply stripping out all the parts that echo the EU deal and saying they're entirely worthless?
Also, Britain has benefited and continues to benefit from other EU trade deals. That continues to the end of the transition period. After that ends, it will be out of those deals and in need of new ones to replace what it had. Those deals won't happen immediately, where they happen at all, and there is no guarantee that they will equal what the EU has under its existing deal. Britain is, however, trying for more rollover deals, including one with Canada and another with South Korea, so how can you argue that the deals originally negotiated by the EU were of no benefit? If they weren't, why is Britain now trying to get them?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Look at the papers again; your dose comparisons of the Belgium and British studies were wrong. Your numbers were wrong.
Oh you're looking well out of your depth here. It's never a good idea to take on a specialist when you've got no knowledge of the subject you're dabbling in.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
There were lots of people who are against Brexit constantly posting negative opinions such as "Well, even if the UK does manage to get a trade deal agreed, it won't be anywhere near as good as what the EU has arranged with Japan".
A reasonable assumption. The UK was negotiating from a position of weakness - the need to get a trade deal, any trade deal, finalized to show some post-EU success - against a country known to be quite adept at getting its way, or if you prefer, burying the devil in the detail. That certainly put Britain at risk of getting a worse deal: it may be an idea to wait and see what this one actually says.
As I've patiently pointed out in the past, and will continue to do, Britain has two problems. One: It has to to knock together a number of deals to replace those it benefited from as a member of the EU, or it loses what it had. That's a lot of work just to stand still.
Two: the existing EU deals contain "most-favoured nation clauses" that prevent third countries from being offered better terms than those in the EU deal. As part of the original EU-Japan trade deal, Britain was a beneficiary of this clause in its trade with Japan. But as a former member seeking to make its own trade deal with Japan, Britain is at a disadvantage: not only can it not receive better terms for anything agreed between the EU and Japan; it cannot offer them to Japan as part of its negotiation for concessions from the Japan side. And, what is potentially worse, when it makes a deal with the EU in the future, it is unable to offer or be offered better terms between the UK and Europe than exist between Japan and Europe.
Were you aware of this? Ultimately Britain at best will replace some of the trade deals it had under the EU with near-equivalent deals. It is equally likely to end up with worse deals out of haste to move forward and deliver results. Other countries will smell that weakness and do whatever they can to exploit it.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
wipeout- I absolutely get why you have protection for certain brand names and regional labels - Champagne is a good example. However, I can't imagine that the Japanese are waiting to relabel Spanish Cava as English sparkling wine or New Zealand lamb as Welsh lamb. And even if they did, the impact would be tiny. The market for these products is negligible - it is a pyrrhic victory.
I'm guessing here, but whether the individual market is tiny (Welsh lamb exports to Japan for example), the overall export market for it may be a lot larger, so I would assume they'd want to get the same protections for it in every market where they finalize a trade deal. That at least doesn't seem illogical.
I also assume that it's not simply about the Japanese themselves labelling cava as English sparkling wine, but about knockoff products from third countries being sold in Japan, in addition to anything that Japan produces itself. An example would be "cheddar cheese", which is not protected, and as far as I know is never going to be, so can be produced in very large quantities by countries with a huge dairy industry - like Australia or New Zealand - and sold everywhere in the world.
Where that leaves English sparkling wine I don't know. That market is still developing, as there are parts of southern England that have soil and climate that are almost ideal for producing something equivalent to champagne (obviously they can't legally call it that). Taittinger is the first champagne house to plant vines in England, which they started a couple of years ago and recently expanded. Actual wine production is still several years away. But if that does become a much larger market in future, it could be worth protecting, though it has to be said, "English sparkling wine" sounds pretty generic; more so than, say, prosecco or cava.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
We should only pay when we wish to activate our phones, and we should be able to buy our cell. time or GB when we wish to use our phones.
I bought my phone precisely because I don't want to pay 8000 yen a month or have the phone cost wrapped into a contract. The phone was about 20000 yen new, my monthly charge is less than 1800 yen. My only mistake is that I might have been able to get a cheaper phone that I'd have been just as happy with.
There are tradeoffs, like the expensive per-minute cost of calls from my MVNO provider, but I don't need to make calls often, and even if I did, I could use Skype most of the time. I suppose this wouldn't work for everybody, but for me, I don't live my life by my phone, and I don't need it to be a buzzing communications hub that I can never escape from.
Over several years, I would estimate that I've saved several hundred thousand yen which I can put to far better use elsewhere. I've spent no time thinking about new phone features, whether an iPhone would do it better, or considering replacing the phone I use now.
If cost is important to you, you could go that route. But if making calls whenever you like for however long you like is indispensable to you, cough up.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Great news, looking forward to some affordable British cheese for once.
So did you notice much of an influx when Britain was part of the EU-Japan free trade agreement? Or newly affordable European cheese?
This report doesn't mention much about affordability of cheese, it mentions brand protection, which would prevent Japan from producing cheeses under certain names such as Wensleydale etc. That's unlikely to do much for you one way or the other.
But more to the point "protection" from what exactly?
I think it comes down to dilution of quality that can affect the reputation of a product overall. Sometimes that reputation has been maintained for centuries, and domestic laws have kept quality high. Protection names and origins have strict requirements about ingredients and methods of production. Not everyone agrees on whether this is desirable: some European countries like Italy, France and Spain are very strong on protection; other countries, like the US, would prefer a free for all. Individual consumers also don't agree on which approach is best.
Ultimately, no one is going to mistake the candle shavings sold as Kraft Parmesan for Parmiggiano Reggiano from Italy, but quality erosion tends to be more insidious than that.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Maybe they can have a Australia style mixed with a Canada style agreement. At least go for that. And if they also opt for a Canzuk FTA with open borders, it might lessen the impact of the divorce.
They can't "opt" for CANZUK, because it requires the agreement of three other countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Any of those countries might take exception to the idea that their wish to participate has been taken for granted. I would suggest Canada in particular as a country that has grown well apart from the UK in the 20th century (culturally, politically, socially), but I wouldn't be betting on Australia or NZ either. Britain isn't quite the blessing to them that it seems to imagine.
Nick Cohen writing in the Observer this week dealt with (and dismissed) CANZUK in about 3 lines, describing it cruelly but accurately as an "Anglo-Saxon Narnia". And basically CANZUK, which seems largely a creation of CANZUK International, is the dream of a handful of rightwing politicians in all four countries. Most people have never heard of it; most politicians never mention it.
On the idea of a Canada-style agreement with the EU, or indeed "Australia style mixed with Canada style":
With almost no time left on the clock, it's time for British politicians and the deluded public to stop talking as if they are going to be selecting from a menu. The EU has already flatly rejected a Canada-style agreement, and is not going to suddenly buckle and offer one. If British people don't understand why they can't have one and won't get one, that's not actually the EU's problem. There's been four years of hubristic crap talked by British leaders and negotiators, who don't seem to understand or accept that they are in a very weak position in relation to the EU. They are certainly not going to be dictating terms.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
yeah, I agree its normal, and necessary. But I also think that if there is no vaccine prior to the election, the people involved with these trials would be more than happy with that.
You have the whole concept arse-backwards. There are obviously vaccines prior to the election: some are undergoing trials now.
What there is not, and never has been, in the 10-month window between the emergence of COVID in January and the US election on November 3rd, is any chance that a vaccine would be fully developed, tested, and approved, which would have been the bare minimum needed to convincingly trumpet "success" before the election. Development and testing takes much longer than that - more multi-year than multi-month, and the people who actually know this have always made that explicitly clear.
America didn't even appear to be aware that it had a serious COVID problem until well into March, so there was hardly a clamour for a vaccine, let alone any notion that the development of one might help to boost the incumbent's re-election chances. That makes the actual window even smaller: more like six months than ten.
If you were actually entertaining hopes of vaccine approval between now and election day in 9 weeks' time, you may as well abandon them now. No one needs to "slow down the process"; the process simply isn't that quick to start with. There are protocols, and there are important reasons why those can't be skipped or abbreviated. That is the reality, and in the context of that reality, the election is both unimportant and irrelevant.
On the bright side, Trump can just make something up: it's what he's done throughout the pandemic anyway, so lying about a vaccine should be a natural move for him. He can even claim a full-blown conspiracy, because he does that all the time too.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
There NEVER is. Little and teen girls they just drop dead all the time! Could not be any relation to the jab they got!
There's certainly no persuasive reason to suppose that it even might be because of the jab. The best argument for that would be to show a pattern, and as the CDC link I provided states, they were unable to show a pattern of death related either to time or dosage.
Yes people of all ages do die, and in some cases, the death is so sudden and unexpected that it more or less amounts to what you call "dropping dead". This doesn't bring us any closer to showing that a recently administered vaccine is the cause: if you take all sudden deaths of girls/young women between say 13 and 19, you could certainly find that some of those deaths occurred fairly soon after a vaccine was given. Again, this proves nothing.
Unless a pattern can be shown - and certainly antivaxers are the last people on earth with the knowledge or capability to do so - then there is no reliable evidence of vaccine causing death. On the other hand, if vaccines do cause death, it is almost inevitable that, especially as more people are vaccinated, a pattern both exists in the figures and can be identified.
I appreciate that you can shout as loud as the best antivaxer, but that kind of bluster just washes over me.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Additional figure from the CDC page, to which the above comment ("For both Gardasil 9 and Gardasil, there was no time pattern established between vaccination and death, and no causal link established.") also applies.
Gardasil (2006 to Dec 2017), 187 deaths reported, 67 verified.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
the person you accused began the vital discussion of how many girls have been killed or injured by HPV vaccines, a subject we are being kept in the dark about.
Actually he brought up the subject by presenting as established fact, which it isn't, that hundreds of girls have been killed and thousands rendered disabled by the HPV vaccine, then requested an explanation of this unproven "fact".
A simple explanation, and a good one, is that it's a blatant lie. It is a very common tactic of conspiracy theorists - and they are blatant liars - to present a question which presupposes the veracity of an unproven fact - it's a useful way to advance a lie, and force the other side to engage with something worthless.
This is one of those, and you're 'we're being kept in the dark' is just another favourite conspiracy theory assertion, effectively meaningless and unprovable.
Of course if you have any credible evidence, there's nothing to prevent you providing it. You'll need to do better than Robert F. Kennedy though, he's definitely the opposite of credible.
The CDC discusses claims of HPV vaccine related death (within the US) here:
Briefly, of the claimed deaths, a minority were confirmed to have actually occurred. Gardasil 9: Dec. 2014 to Dec. 2017, 2 deaths out of 7 were verified to have occurred. Note that this means it is known that a specific person died, and that they received an HPV vaccination. For all of the remainder, it is not even known whether such a person died.
For both Gardasil 9 and Gardasil, there was no time pattern established between vaccination and death, and no causal link established.
Antivaxers are still stuck in the starting blocks on this one: the usual attempts to juxtapose two events and insist that one caused the other. Without some scientific and logical input, that can barely be considered better than superstition.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Then YOU tell us how many died exactly or even ball park. But you didn't even try.
That's right. But then, it's not me throwing out unfounded claims about the HPV vaccine killing "hundreds of girls and rendering thousands disabled", so I'm not obliged to put a figure on "how many died exactly". If you believe people have died from it, you could show your evidence. It'll be lousy of course, because that's all there is.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
So the US gov has used them as well as parents to get back their children kidnapped NK style to Japan and this Kangaroo judge wants to extradite them?? OK.
Specifically, the report says "parents whose children had been taken overseas by former spouses", without mentioning Japan, so if you're basing your comment on this report, surely you are making an assumption without evidence?
There are many other countries to which abductions (often by the father) occur. Michael Taylor operated in Lebanon and the Middle East, where over many years, starting with the Lebanese Christian militias in the early 80s, he built up a network that he could use in his line of work. He has definitely done some work on getting children out of Lebanon, in fact look up Lucy Kolb, because in that case, he was getting the wife out as well. Under Lebanese law, a wife, even a foreign national, can be prevented by her husband from leaving the country.
The Kolbs are not the only American family that Taylor assisted with their "Lebanon problems". That information is easy enough to find (especially as it's mentioned in court records during some of Michael Taylor's other legal troubles). On the other hand, information on the Taylors rescuing children from Japan is not.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
How do you explain the hundreds of girls who died and thousands who were rendered disabled from the HPV vaccine? And how do you explain the massive rise in autism?
Something that isn't true doesn't require explanation. The HPV vaccine has not killed hundreds of girls, but people like you have simply asserted that it has. It's just more crap put out by the antivax movement, who are as prolific as they are ill-informed and dishonest.
Autism didn't even have a name until 1943. As such, it really could only have experienced a steady rise over the last 70 years, because prior to that, by definition, no one was diagnosed as autistic, even though many people had developmental disorders. The first person to receive the diagnosis is still alive today; that's how relatively recent it is as a recognized and named condition. Autism was increasingly recognized from the 1960s onward, because physicians know more about it, kindergartens and schools also look for signs of developmental disorders in children, and because parents are far more aware of it than they used to be.
We come to a second point, the so-called "massive rise" in autism. This needs to be generally accepted in the medical world before a cause can be reliably identified. It first has to be understood that increased diagnosis, particularly in the way that autism is diagnosed, does not in itself mean that autism is increasing in the general population. Because we know for a fact that in previous decades, autism has gone unrecognized or undiagnosed; we know for a fact that Asperger's syndrome was once viewed separately but is now, at least in some countries, considered to be a form of autism, and reassigning people with Asperger's to autism will increase the autism figures; and we know for a fact that more people will seek the diagnosis when they understand that it can significantly help their child and themselves.
How would you get to "vaccines are probably causing autism" from there? It's multiple steps away. Here's a question that does have an easy explanation though: How did Dr. Andrew Wakefield demonstrate a link between the MMR vaccine and autism?
The answer is that he committed scientific fraud, among other serious breaches. So your choice is simple enough. You embrace Wakefield, or you accept that his cheating was exposed and that he is, was, and always will be a cheat. Which leaves you to try and dig up some more respectable figurehead for the vaccine-autism cause. If Robert F. Kennedy Jr is the best you can manage, you must be desperate.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
He also wrote that he was certain Japan would surrender when Russia declared war on Japan. The Russians agreed to not declare war before August 9th.
Roosevelt was urging the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan, and this was discussed at Tehran in 1943 and at Yalta in Feb. 1945. Stalin agreed to declare war 3 months after the German surrender. The Soviet Union actually set preconditions for doing this. It delivered on its promise practically to the day.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )