bjoyx

No.

It's Mastercard in Japan

https://www.costco.co.jp/GlobalCard

Have GMO advocates scientifically backed up their safety claims?

The burden of proof lies on the side deploying self-replicating novel agents into the environment.

Unscientific propaganda.

The best scientific evidence we have suggests moderate consumption of alcohol protects the heart.

From the Harvard School of Public Health:

More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between light to moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes. [20] The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25-40% reduction in risk.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/...

You are feeding a political movement that supports allowing a man, dishonest or not, to be jailed for protecting his sources, which will set a precedent that inhibits ALL genuine journalistic investigation.

Source protection is when journalists (including heads of international organizations engaged in journalism) protect the sources of their information that enables said journalism.

A "journalistic courtesy" that people like you would make illegal so as to shutdown journalism that goes against your agenda.

False dichotomy. They could also show 3rd party timer and flight widgets in the search results.

1. They should have stockpiled masks in advance of this epidemic 2. People can make their own masks at home

If we can’t trust epidemiologists to protect us from an epidemic why should we trust radio wave scientists to protect us from radio waves?

My point is that so-called "fact checking" here was incorrect.

Dr. Ho Pak-leung, a microbiologist and director of the Centre for Infection at the University of Hong Kong, described the video in the misleading post as “fake news” in an email to AFP on January 30.

In a mask shortage the question of whether masks can be sterilized and reused should never have been dismissed out of hand.

We have medical professionals working without masks as we speak due to the shortage.

Many of our trusted experts have been feeding us misinformation exacerbating the problem.

This was "fact checked" weeks ago as false (lol)

https://factcheck.afp.com/novel-coronavirus-health-experts-w...

Earlier measurements are likely to be biased downward:

https://www.academia.edu/41743064/Systemic_Risk_of_Pandemic_...

Higher than 2.0

"The mean estimate of R0 for the 2019-nCoV ranges from 3.30 (95%CI: 2.73-3.96) to 5.47 (95%CI: 4.16-7.10), and significantly larger than 1. Our findings indicate the potential of 2019-nCoV to cause outbreaks."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.916395v1

This link has a paywall with no way to get around it (clicking "web" and going through Google doesn't work)

Terrorism is closer to the threat posed by crush deaths from vending machines

This is a fallacy. In the case of terrorism "past performance is not an indicator of future results".

An attack with e.g. a biological weapon could cause, on a single day, 1000x the cumulative number of deaths we had over the past decade.

There is no possibility of the number of crush deaths from vending machines rising like that.

Remember Minority Report? What happens when "big data" applied to the dragnet flags you as dangerous because of a false positive. Let's start by comparing patterns in the data of known terrorists to everyone else and put the closest matches on a no-fly list.

Translation: "I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger" -> "I’m making this speech because I want to moralise and scaremonger"

How about a reverse signal: will she still love you without the ring?

Stephen Wolfram