The quote is not in the link you provided. Where did you get that quote?
The difficulty of adding orange food coloring to cornstarch is an insurmountable chemical process.
Senate Bill 43 was pass last year that allowed for increasing the criteria for involuntary detention including the reasons you mentioned. Instead of adult care facilities, they expnded and made conservatorship eaiser. Some counties have delayed its implementation because of cost issues.
Indefinite detention is unconstitutional, expensive, and doesn’t make sense for treatment. Most people just need occasional detention to get their meds right and not constant supervision.
The statement in question.
Hamas are not good guys by any stretch, but unfortunately they are the folks bargaining for Gazans. In the face of continued Israeli aggression, disregard for international approval/law, and stated plans it’s no wonder they’re demanding that any deals have rock-solid guarantees on an enforceable timetable.
Israel has never offer and has reject multiple permanent cease fires when offered by Hamas. This one offers a “complete ceasefire” and “end to hostilities”. There’s no reason to believe that Israel would accept this one else the US uses some of its leverage.
It’s an annual march.
It was on page 80 of the supplemental PDF. They mention that in the article.
Thank you for your list! I saw this recently and forgot to save it. Glad you’re on it.
I know this is way later than I or anyone whose been screaming for ceasefire wished for, but I’m so glad something has changed. I hope this is the just a start.
The article is quoting an Israeli official. The article doesn’t verify the veracity of that claim. Do you see the difference?
If a Reuters article quotes trump saying he won Vermont in the 2020 general election, it doesn’t mean that Reuters is saying it’s true.
If you do what Israel was doing, you’d need to scale it on per capita basis. So America is about 330 million and the population of Gaza is about 2.3 million. So the population of America is 140 times the size of Gaza. So 1232 or so 9/11’s.
The amount of people not reading the article or the study is astounding.
This is not about Trump.
This is not about your conservative uncle.
This is not about America only.
This is about off label prescribing in ICU and ERs early in the pandemic with low evidence (theoretical pathways) in six countries which either gave explicit approval or unclear guidance that was interpreted as approval. It goes on to suggest that in a similar emergency future, the state agencies sould do better.
In the absence of restriction, the number of expected HCQ-related deaths is likely to be directly related to the promotion of its prescription by scientists, physicians and health agencies. In February and March 2020, the use of this treatment was widely promoted based on preliminary reports suggesting a potential efficacy against COVID-19 [80]. For instance, the use of HCQ markedly increased from mid-March to mid-April 2020 [81], [82] in France before a temporary recommendation supporting its use by the State Council was rapidly rejected [83]. Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a temporary emergency use authorisation for HCQ on March 28th 2020, which was finally revoked on June 15th 2020 [84]. In India, HCQ was also prescribed as a curative treatment to patients with COVID-19 and as a prophylactic treatment for front-line workers based on public authority guidance [85]. Conversely, the British government promoted HCQ use only within clinical trials, explaining the absence of cohort studies reporting the use of HCQ in the United Kingdom in the present study [86]. Consistently, a cohort of a multinational network showed a wide variation in the use of HCQ between countries, with 85% in Spain, 14% in the USA and less than 2% in China [80]. The rush to administer this treatment caused supply shortages in community pharmacies, forcing the implementation of dispensing restrictions [82]. Finally, the results of observational studies and randomized trials in May and June 2020, respectively, convincingly demonstrated that HCQ was ineffective and led to an increase in adverse events [4], [5], [12], [66], [73].
I agree with your overall thesis but your characterizations of the three tyrants are casually backwards.
Mao was a leader of a militant group first. He won political power in that group and that group won a large following of people over several decades. His status as tyrant emerges from that history and cultivated in a desperate militaristic role which is already predisposed to authoritarian rule.
Hitler was similar, his authotarianism, is on display much earlier in the process, and part of his charismatic attraction. It was clear early on that Hitler was going to mow down anyone in his way. Still, he needed to acquire popular and then political power. He leveraged existing sentiment and thuggish groups such as the Freikorp.
Stalin was just a bureaucrat.
Just kidding. I know very little of Stalin’s rise to power except that it was internal to a party that already had seized power.
I wish I had a friend who could just be there while I tried to get it set up. Honestly, I’d peroxide pizza, beer, and video games just so I don’t collapse in a mess of confusion and self doubt when something goes wrong. I don’t mind doing the work, but I don’t know if I have the patience to figure it all out.