This has been extensively debunked. Read the original methods of the BMJ article that you linked. They took every single minor error, like prescribing medicine 15 minutes late, and if the patient died, even of an aggressive cancer that they had already, it would be counted in the 'medical error that caused the death' statistic.
Of course practicing doctors and nurses are going to swear up and down that it isn't true. They are the perpetrators. Ask any person who has had to spend time in a hospital recently, and watch your "de-bunked" turn back into a "re-bunked." These jokers can't even keep the charts straight. It is fast-food-tier service for a life-and-death commodity.
Reading the source that Nature cites, it seems like the content has been made temporarily unexaminable ‘in light of COVID’, rather than the section actually getting cut from the textbook.
https://ncert.nic.in/rationalised-content.php
Could any Indian with a new physical textbook perhaps confirm? It’s a rather concerning policy.
The headline also seems awfully clickbaity. What the policy seems to have done is shifted basic evolution down to younger grades and moved the more advanced concepts to more senior grades. However, this shifts more advanced concepts up to grades in which science as a subject is not compulsory. Regressive as this is, this isn’t what the headline suggests.
It still teaches Mendelian genetics (chpt 8), but then entire book seems severely dumbed down compared to older NCERT textbooks I've read before when bored on India trips.
It might be because now you can't graduate high school in the 10th grade anymore in India - now you can only graduate at the 12th grade or transfer to a vocational college for 11th and 12th.
I'm a former Rhodesian (present day Zimbabwe) who moved to South Africa after things went south in Zim. For context, I'm white, so it's not like I have a racial gripe against Musk. Elon went to one of the fanciest private schools in the country's capital and lived in one of its richest suburbs. Yes, technically Boys High is a public school, but people from outside South Africa don't know what the Model C school policy was. His father was extraordinarily wealthy and if you do read interviews by both Elon and Errol, they both admit this. His mother was an international supermodel and his family was generally pretty well connected in the greater scheme of things. The entire story about him struggling during college (where he went to an Ivy League university paid for by his father) is complete bullshit. I don't dispute his ingenuity in starting Zip2 (funded by his father too by the way), but he wasn't starting from the bottom with no help - that's the grossly inaccurate part that Elon still pushes for optics and people who are too stupid or unaware of how SA works lap it up.
Two billion people can read it to some degree because of Islam. A minority of them actually use the script to write things daily.
And there are plenty of people other than this guy making contributions to it, you’ve only just read a singular post by a single person outlining his most common gripes with companies that do not consult native speakers for their translations. It’s not an exhaustive list of people working in the sphere. Imagine if you read a blog post by Linus Torvalds, and thought: ‘wow, it’s crazy that no one else is making contributions to this cool open source kernel?’ - that’s exactly what you’ve done in your comment.
>A minority of them actually use the script to write things daily.
how do I interpret that? something like "hundreds of millions of arabs constitute a minority of 2 billion"? or are you saying that vast majorities in the arab countries don't use arabic script to write things daily?
Could you provide a source? There's nothing I can find about Sunak being connected to the WEF in any way. Although the hashtag #wefpuppet has exploded on Twitter by what looks like a bot network.
Sunak, an Oxford and Stanford educated billionaire, is perhaps the best candidate the Conservative party can unsurprisingly put forward at the current moment. Given his background as a successful investment banker at Goldman Sachs, one can only wonder about what his economic policies would look like.
I guess he was pretty successful, but I think it's mostly his wife's inherited money and you have to count her offshore holdings to make him a billionaire.[0]
It will be austerity 2.0 and the predictions are of a deeper recession because of tax increases and spending cuts (both already announced in general terms by Hunt, ally of Sunak and tipped to remain Chancellor).
Increasing the corporation tax is his policy, for instance.
A lot of the government's debt level issues also stem from the response to Covid when, hmm, Sunak was in charge of public finances...
Is Sunak not an MMT-er ? I heard him waxing lyrical about reducing the deficit early this year on i think it was Nick Ferarri's LBC show. He was pushing all the buttons for monetarism aficionados.
If he is an MMT-er then we might dodge austerity but i can't see him standing up to the bond markets after what the UK has just been through so that will hold him back. Also if he is an MMT-er there's the need for higher taxation and no-one has figured out how that side of MMT should work fairly yet i don't think?
> No one can seriously defend MMT now after central bank monetary policies during the pandemic led to inflation everywhere.
Central bank monetary policy did not lead to the current inflation, just like it did not lead to inflation in the post-GFC era. Unlike what some folks predicted back then:
> We believe the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called "quantitative easing") should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed's objective of promoting employment.
At least per the SF Fed's research, about half of the current situation in the US is/was supply-side issues, and about a third is the demand side of things:
I'm not an expert on this but i believe that is a statement not in opposition to MMT. Providing more money leads to inflation is something the MMT doctrine states and it claims the need for taxation to control this.
AIUI the contentious point of MMT is on crowding out private investment.
Hours of debates, and you still don't know his policies.
They are specifically not austerity 2.0, that is why they are raising taxes (Osborne reduced taxes significantly whilst cutting spending). All the measures to raise taxes were in order to sustain spending levels because there is no way to cut the large spending areas in the short-term. His approach has been to do that in the most fair way possible (the increase in corporation tax is combined with the introduction of a new small company rate which stays the same).
...and what was the alternative to furlough once the govt announced lockdowns?
No need for snide comments, especially when you're actually incorrect.
Hunt already said that there will be huge spending cuts.
What we're waiting for are the details of where these will fall, not if they will happen.
The increase of the corporation will hurt the economy further and remove a competitive advantage (new rate will be same as Germany's...). Again, this is not my opinion but what the reports from economists and analysists say.
This is a classic austerity approach to reduce debt. The conflict within the party is between that and reducing debt relatively to GDP (but perhaps not in absolute terms) by going for growth (making the cake bigger) but as we've seen that latter strategy is problematic because the markets do not really want to here about even further debt.
The rise in corporation tax for MNCs won't hurt competitiveness. The US had a 35% rate with no issues. We can raise ours to 25% with no issues. The only reason we reduced our rate to the level we did was because of tax havens in the EU, we have a global corporate tax deal which the EU will comply with (saying vaguely that you are right because "economists and analysists" say so is weak).
The issue with "going for growth" was that it wouldn't have boosted growth. The spending cuts were only required because of the tax cuts, the tax cuts aren't happening. When he was Chancellor, Sunak was cutting spending and this will likely continue (it has to, spending is far too high, the NHS became massively bloated during Covid). Reduction of debt will be gradual, the strategy is not austerity (as has been repeated ad nauseum, this happened after 2018 as well...some people just never stopped saying austerity was happening even when spending was rising significantly).
They know how to construct arguments and give reasons. They don't just make random claims to authority that are totally unverifiable. I would look at the "scientific method" to see that your laziness has baited you into being the person you accuse others of being.
No, any kind of spending cut doesn't not equal austerity 2.0. Labour would also be cutting spending, so that is austerity 2.0?
NHS spending is close to Germany levels, which is regarded as ludicrously inefficient, even for a private system, because of the emphasis on choice. I suspect that the difference between me and "people" is actually being aware of what NHS spending is.
Yeah it will probably be austerity 2.0, which is why I don't see him lasting more than 3 months unless Starmer absolutely bottles it. He can rule out a national election all he wants (https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-sunak-rules-out-nationa...), but by January I think he will be forced to let people vote again.
Liz Truss was elected Tory leader by the party's membership. MPs were, by and large, not very happy about it. Sunak was expected to win. Truss did what she did, her MPs turned on her, and she was forced to resign. Then there was another leadership contest with different rules which, after some horse trading between potential candidates, didn't give party members a vote and resulted in the uncontested appointment of the person the MPs wanted all along—Rishi Sunak. This does not sit well with some party members, although calling it a coup is excessive.
"Globalist elites" is an old dog whistle. Because the EU can't be blamed for the ruling party's failures any more, GB News (UK's InfoWars) had to recycle the old scapegoat.
There is a series of nested political dog whistles[0] that people are invoking when they use the word "globalist" to refer to - let's be clear - right wing conservatives who aren't right wing enough.
The idea behind these dog whistles is that multinational corporations and rich investors are actually a front for global communism. Yes, ruthlessly profit-seeking investors like George Soros, the man who broke the Bank of England's ERM peg[1], were actually "cultural Marxists" the whole time! Somehow. Ignore them being the worst examples of capitalism, an economic system Marx thought was evil that would eat itself. They said they like racial diversity and feminism, so they're clearly "cultural Marxists".
Anyone who remembers their WWII history should have alarms blaring in their head, because "cultural Bolshevism" was one of noted meth enthusiast Adolf Hitler's favorite phrases, and he used it in exactly the same sense I described in the previous paragraph. You see, it turns out this is actually just about demonizing the Jews, because it is always about demonizing the Jews. They may not know that they were going down that path, but that is where the logic leads.
"Globalism", outside of the dog whistle context, just means free trade and open borders; i.e. standard liberal[2] free market stuff. The people who lost out on free trade adopted the term to refer to the dog whistles I listed out above.
[0] I'm not even going to glorify it with the words "conspiracy theory". A conspiracy theory is a guess on what the rich and powerful are doing that may be right or wrong.
[1] European Rate Mechanism; it was the on-ramp to the Eurozone before the Euro was a thing. The failure to establish an ERM peg basically doomed the UK to never join the Euro.
Thanks, that's interesting. I had understood that globalism meant something like free trade which is why it seemed so confusing that it was now being bandied around as an insult by conservatives, especially as since Brexit was supposed to deliver a 'global Britain'. Your alternative makes more sense.
His “alternative explanation” is a red herring and mud slinging. “Globalism” refers to an economic structure featuring free trade and free movement of labor across borders. It's parallel to the terms "socialism" and "capitalism."
Many conservative oppose globalism, in particular nationalist and social conservatives. Especially now that, in both the UK and the US, Wall Street/Canary Wharf has aligned itself with socially liberal/economically neoliberal pro-immigration parties.
Obviously the free market types (both conservative and liberal) want to deflect any criticism of these trends. And unfortunately, any criticism of Wall Street/Canary Wharf will draw out some anti-semites. Which is why it's been Labour that's had the problem with anti-semitism: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-labour-a....
But it’s frankly gross to use that to shield globalization as an economic and political trend from criticism.
Globalism has a history, yes, but it’s unclear what reason we have to believe that has any connection to recent events. She wasn’t exactly ousted for going against some Tory ideal of being part of an internationally-integrated economy - those people voted to stay in the EU! - and given the heated “coup” miscategorization the right-winger explanation seems more likely.
Well, I'm a right-winger: a one-nation Tory to be precise. When I say globalism I mean: "structuring society and the economy around the free movement of capital, people, and goods across borders. Generally with the belief that these are good things." (I'm paraphrasing Rayiner's comment above). I do not mean: 'The Jews control everything and $(event) is part of an evil Jewish plot.'
Yeah, I remembered your posting history. I guess I would phrase my question as whether you really think that he used that as part of some thoughtful economic worldview but also felt “coup” was accurate?
This made me sick to my stomach. Absolutely revolting behaviour by the CIA against extraordinarily brave Iranians who risked their lives and even did prison time to help.
If you think that’s bad, you should read up on what the author Tim Weiner did. He outed a CIA informant in the newspaper because he could, which directly led to the man’s death. Timothy Weiner has blood on his hands.
"If you think CIA incompetence leading to hundreds of informants being burned is bad, wait til you hear about a journalist publishing a story that maybe burned one informant for what they consider a good reason."
I read the show notes but didn't listen to the podcast. Is this really true? The linked New York Times article by Weiner never names the subject, but instead reports on a "retired terrorist" [1]. I don't see this an "outing."
That's wrong. Most journalists recognise that when there's a risk of causing someone's death if they release certain details, they have to consider whether or not it's responsible to do so. So while they do exist to sell newspapers (or, more likely, get clicks for online ads) the majority of journalists and orgs aren't quite heartless enough to literally name an informant knowing it'd cause them to be exposed and killed.
In this case though, Weiner did not "literally name" the informant in The New York Times article [1]. He referred to the informant as a "retired terrorist" without giving a name.
In general, you're right about the principle of keeping sources anonymous to avoid harm. One principle in journalism ethics [2] is to "identify sources clearly" so the public can better understand a source's motives. But the other is to minimize harm ("Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort.") to both the sources and the public, motivating anonymity in certain cases.
However, in this instance, Weiner didn't name the informant in the article.
And their employeer. It seems that journalists also cultivate sources and use some spycraft in communications. One does so for their government/country, the other for their newspaper.
John le Carré (the late novelist who was a British intelligence officer in the 1960s) was once asked why states have intelligence agencies when investigative journalists often do the same sorts of things and often report the same information spies do, and he responded that while this is often the case, the problem is that governments tend not to listen to journalists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/upshot/death-by-medical-e...
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/863788?scode=msp&st=fpf...
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-errors-2020/