Funny events in anti-woke world

[Seanchaidh]

75% of US scientists who answered Nature poll consider leaving

More than 1,600 readers answered our poll; many said they were looking for jobs in Europe and Canada.

www.nature.com

Would be funny if they moved to Germany

operation clipboard

 

[Cicada 5]

operation clipboard

Is not remotely the same thing as this.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Is not remotely the same thing as this.

not least because it's not a thing to begin with

 

[Cicada 5]

not least because it's not a thing to begin with

What?

 

[Silvanus]

By which you mean invention and misrepresentation.

It's unsurprising that you can't see it, but "If a large power wants to aggressively take over a smaller country in its periphery, that's really just a matter for the two of them" is a message that just might have some application outside of the US/Greenland. Doesn't take much inventiveness to see how.

 

[Seanchaidh]

What?

operation clipboard is not actually a thing. it's a joke.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It's unsurprising that you can't see it, but "If a large power wants to aggressively take over a smaller country in its periphery, that's really just a matter for the two of them" is a message that just might have some application outside of the US/Greenland. Doesn't take much inventiveness to see how.

strip away all context until you have something left that you can over-interpret to your whim.

 

[Silvanus]

strip away all context until you have something left that you can over-interpret to your whim.

Ok, I'm sure he didn't mean anything by it. He doesn't tend to weigh his words carefully after all.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Ok, I'm sure he didn't mean anything by it. He doesn't tend to weigh his words carefully after all.

he does tend to weigh his words carefully, which is why you must strip away all context in order to make a very stupid and speculative point.

 

[Silvanus]

he does tend to weigh his words carefully, which is why you must strip away all context in order to make a very stupid and speculative point.

Oh, I'm considering quite a lot of context. Such as how his actions empowered NATO, and what he'd have to gain from the standard he's saying we should apply to expansionsm.

Or by 'context' did you just mean 'uncritically accept what he says now'?

((BTW, wouldn't want to be speculative, of course. Remember when we were speculating that the build-up of Russian troops on the border pointed to an invasion, despite Putin saying he wouldn't? You warned us then too, of course-- Oh, how silly we all looked when he didn't invade after all!))

 

[Trunkage]

You don't know what the truth is.

All your ideas is so divorced from reality, I'm suprised you even heard of the word truth

Is your definition of turth like Truth Social, where the word truth here just means lie?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Oh, I'm considering quite a lot of context.

Selectively. And I might add, not very well, as...

Such as how his actions empowered NATO,

This is of no particular relevance.

and what he'd have to gain from the standard he's saying we should apply to expansionsm.

the main problem with that is that he's not articulating a standard to apply to expansionism. which makes sense, as it is absolutely unnecessary for Russian leadership to express an opinion about a dispute between two other countries that are currently hostile to Russia. It is frankly bizarre that you would expect Russian leadership to want to intervene in a conflict between two NATO members such that you would read their declining to do so as some kind of international policy prescription. Never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake, after all. Or: Do nothing. Win. Apparently my brain is rotted by memes and Napoleon quotes.

Making it clear that Russia isn't making any claim to dictate the future of Greenland is a useful thing to do, however, in the context in which he was speaking. If he wanted to be self-serving, he might say it is a matter for Greenland to decide, as its people have a right to self-determination just like the people of, for example, Crimea. What he did instead was articulate what appears to be a dispassionate historical perspective on the apparently long and (as one would expect) infrequent history of US efforts to acquire Greenland and express concern about the increasing militarization of the Arctic. Which seems like a completely reasonable and expected thing to do at something called the International Arctic Forum.

((BTW, wouldn't want to be speculative, of course. Remember when we were speculating that the build-up of Russian troops on the border pointed to an invasion, despite Putin saying he wouldn't? You warned us then too, of course-- Oh, how silly we all looked when he didn't invade after all!))

This is also of no particular relevance.

 

[Hades]

Holy Brocoli plot twist! Le Pen's going to jail

Lets be real. Le Pen is a traitor taking Russian money while at the same time pursuing a course she'd know would leave a crippled France at Russia's mercy. Its a bit less clear cut than that freak in Romania though because she wasn't on trial for that. She was on trial for fraud with EU funds and while entirely deserved I'm not sure such a crime merits both jail time and becoming ineligible to run for office. It might also steel her base into the belief that the EU is out to get them and make the far right more powerful now they have a martyr figure just as she seemed on track to win.

Still its transformative. Le Pen defined the right and politics in France for better and certainly for worse. Her vanishing from the scenes is bound to transform French politics.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen barred from running for public office for five years

Le Pen's ban - after being found guilty of embezzling EU funds - means she would not be able to run in the 2027 presidential election.

www.bbc.com

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

how rotten does a person have to be where even the very crank people you're pandering to are having to publicly call you out

An Open Letter to Dr. Vinay Prasad

Please recognize that you are now influencing the national public health policy and understand that being in authority is a very different job than simply questioning authority

sciencebasedmedicine.org

(not endorsing viewpoints mentioned here or the site, just presenting glimpse of medical crank spectrum for contextual orientation to understand how far gone some influencers have flagrantly, uhh, gone)

Dear Dr. Vinay Prasad,

I knew you before COVID. Like you, I am a practicing medical oncologist. I first discovered your name years ago when I stumbled upon your oncology podcast. Later on, I proudly converted to Medical Conservativism after embracing your mission statement: The Case for Being a Medical Conservative. I have read your book as well. We have never actually met, but I have been following you across various media formats for a long time. During my journey, I have been repeatedly in awe of your ability to critically appraise the oncology medical literature. The methods that I have learned from you continue to inform the way that I evaluate new data and teach my medical students.

While listening to you shred (a compliment) the latest oncology journal article on your podcast, I have often found myself wondering how you practice medicine in your cancer clinic. With perhaps one exception, I have yet to hear you whole-heartedly endorse a completed clinical study. Instead, you are quick to point out methodologic flaws and second-guess the latest FDA approvals. If I took every word literally, I would predict that you do not prescribe any of the cancer treatments that you have previously eviscerated on your podcast. But, I know that is not reality.

I recognize your brand of frenetic bluster – you are a contrarian. Contrarians are needed. In my oncology practice, I am inundated with pharmaceutical salespeople and email advertisements promoting the latest oncology medications (with new price tags upwards of $200,000 per year). You correctly point out when there is only a marginal benefit to be obtained at very high societal cost. I find value in questioning the status quo, even if it is only while listening to your weekly 30-minute podcast on my drive home. Listening to a contrarian viewpoint every now and then does not paralyze me. In fact, I believe it makes me a more well-rounded physician. My oncology patients continue to receive the latest treatments even when the underlying study is partially flawed. I am sure that you treat your patients similarly.

More recently, I have watched you apply your brand of flippant contrarianism to COVID. As a result of your new content and continued flare for delivery, your audience has grown well beyond the smaller world of medical oncology. You have surely noticed that your new audience is now more likely to be politically motivated than medically oriented. As a result, they may not be properly equipped to place your indignation within the broader scope of traditional medical opinion. For them, the script is likely flipped, with the contrarian viewpoint replacing the standard of care.

While you might see that as a positive, I worry that hearing primarily contrarian viewpoints can be paralyzing. How else does one explain the decreased COVID vaccine uptake in the Red States? I respect the ability of my patients to make informed decisions in my home state of Alabama. However, when that decision process is cross-pollinated by politics my confidence wanes. By not fully recognizing how your audience has changed, I fear that you may have unintentionally contributed in some small way to these worse outcomes. Thankfully, there is still time to recalibrate your messaging for the next slate of public health decisions.

As I write this, your influence is at a new high and the future looms large. Your friends are accepting important government positions. You are likely fielding some flattering and influential employment offers as well. Whether you change jobs or not, please recognize that you are now influencing the national public health policy. Your role in the public square has evolved in a significant way, whether you intended this or not. I hope you understand that being in authority is a very different job than simply questioning authority. You no longer have the luxury of being the bombastic underdog contrarian; your audience is too large and the stakes are too high.

I am watching with interest to see how you will respond in your new role. Unfortunately, the early returns are not great. An article you recently penned in The Free Press attempts to “draw distinctions” on a multitude of potential policies that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr may try to implement. You make the reader aware that some of RFK Jr’s controversial recommendations are currently implemented in other countries. On casual inspection of the article, I do not see any overt factual errors. You correctly point out that “all European countries recommend using MMR vaccines in children” and accurately state that “no country I am aware of warns against using it because it leads to autism”.

Later in the article, the ground gets a little shakier when you make the seemingly reasonable statement that “vaccines are like drugs. We need more evidence.” But, the benefit of vaccines extend beyond the simple evidence-based calculation of number-needed-to-treat that you proselytize. Even in situations where the individual benefit of vaccination is low, vaccines often have an additional benefit – they keep our neighbors healthy, too. If I decide not to take a cholesterol medicine, that decision only affects my risk of stroke and heart disease. But, when someone declines a vaccine, it raises the risk of an outbreak within the entire community. There is a public, and dare I say, patriotic component to vaccination that makes it very different from the cancer therapies that you and I administer in our clinics.

And of course, we always “need more evidence” to inform our medical practice. Like you, I am usually in favor of ethically collecting more data. However, we must continue to care for our patients while we wait (indefinitely). As I alluded to above, a lack of perfect evidence is not an excuse to be paralyzed and do nothing. The inherent public health benefit of vaccines further raises the stakes of inaction. I believe there is legitimate reason to hold each vaccine to a lower evidence standard than the expensive and highly toxic chemotherapy treatments that we prescribe. Of course, you know all of this already. In “The Case for Being a Medical Conservative”, you list vaccines as one of the penultimate examples of high-value care.

I suspect that you would counter that your article is not actually taking a stance on vaccination or any of the other controversial topics. You may continue to insist that “if other nations are doing it, we should be willing to look into it”. I take issue with that seemingly benign sentiment as well, but will let it pass for the time being.

Ultimately, it is not the existence of this article that surprises me. What bothers me is that you are the author. I have never heard you parrot government public policy with the implicit assumption that if someone else is doing it, it might be okay. Where is the in-depth critical analysis of the evidence that you are so well known for?

Reading an article like this opens the door for me to question your biases and perhaps even your motives. Because I used to see you as above politics, I believe this article is beneath you.

Despite my ongoing admiration for you in the oncology space, I am now nervous. Your vaccine communication and your latest article have given me pause. I always thought that your superpower was unbiased critical appraisal of the medical evidence. I hope that you can quickly rediscover your superpower and put it to responsible use. Perhaps it will again lead you back to your evidence-based roots as we confront a future of trying to fact-check Make America Healthy Again.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Storey, MD

P.S. Please beware falling victim to the human biases that you so astutely identify in others. Specifically, I hope that you are being vigilant to avoid motivated reasoning in the form of confirmation bias and audience capture.

The Observations and Thoughts of Vinay Prasad Raise Major Concerns

Uncover the concerning claims made by Vinay Prasad about COVID vaccines. Learn why his misrepresentations can negatively impact public health.

vaxopedia.org

The Observations and Thoughts of Vinay Prasad Raise Major Concerns
By Vincent Iannelli, MD / May 8, 2024 / febrile seizures, Global Vaccine Data Network, Godwin's Law, Helen Petousis-Harris, holocaust, safety signals, Vinay Prasad

Why do the observations and thoughts of Vinay Prasad raise major concerns?

Vinay Prasad has been described as a “a useful idiot for antivax propagandists,” as he pushes COVID misinformationthat is used by anti-vaccine folks to affirm their beliefs against vaccines.

This time, it is because of the way he misrepresents a large COVID vaccine safety study.

The Observations and Thoughts of Vinay Prasad Raise Major Concerns

A complete misrepresentation that prompted Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris, one of the authors to correct all of his false statements!

Vinay Prasad is even more dangerous than most because he actually does sound like he knows what he is talking about.

Now why don’t all researchers do this, instead of relying on fact checkers to defend their work from anti-vaccine influencers?

Vinay Prasad often claims that young, healthy people didn’t need a COVID vaccine.
Speaking of big errors…

“Second, this analysis does not stratify by demographic group. The increased risk of myocarditis you will see is ACROSS ALL AGES AND GENDERS. That is a big error, when we know it is a problem that plagues young men.”

Vinay Prasad on COVID19 vaccines linked to myocarditis, pericarditis, ITP, Guillain Barre Syndrome, Bell’s Palsy, ADEM, PE, Febrile seizures & more

Dr. Petousis-Harris had a ready answer for this “error” too.

Vinay Prasad missed that the COVID vaccine safety study he was criticizing was age and sex stratified.
So why are folks like Vinay Prasad criticizing this study?

“In this study including more than 99 million people vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, the risk up to 42 days after vaccination was generally similar to the background risk for the majority of outcomes; however, a few potential safety signals were identified.”

COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals

Because this very large study confirmed that COVID vaccines are safe, with few, very rare severe side effects.

Other Thoughts on Vinay Prasad

Has Vinay Prasad been wrong before?

• Vinay Prasad’s Nazi analogy is imbecilic, ignorant, and dangerous
• Quoth Dr. Prasad: “It would not be difficult” to do an impossible VAERS study
• Dr. Vinay Prasad embraces antivax “do not comply” messaging
• Dunking on a 7′ hoop, or: Refuting Dr. Vinay Prasad’s attack on medical skepticism
• Dr. Vinay Prasad whines about the “misinformation police.” Hilarity ensues.
• Dr. Vinay Prasad goes full Godwin over COVID-19 public health measures
• “Can colleges mandate Ozempic?” Clever or clueless analogy? You be the judge!
• Undermining the childhood vaccine schedule with EBM fundamentalism
• John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad team up to lecture social media about “obsessive criticism”
• Dr. Vinay Prasad: “Public Health’s (Mis)Truth Problem”
• Dr. Vinay Prasad: It’s “Good” That Parents Who Want To Vaccinate Their Kids Against COVID Get Reported To Child Protective Services

Not surprisingly, he has…

It is telling that Vinay Prasad never mentions that the paper was mostly talking about febrile seizures, which are rarely harmful for children. Nor does he say that febrile seizures are more common after a natural COVID infection…

His MO seems to be to minimize how serious COVID is to most people, especially children and young adults, and like most folks who are anti-vaccine, overstate the side effects of life-saving vaccines.

Jennifer Gunter responded to Vinay Prasad’s How Democracy Ends Holocaust analogy.

And like other anti-vaccine folks, he just had to bring up Hitler and the Holocaust…

SOURCES

The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans

The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans - The A…

archived 28 Mar 2025 11:41:03 UTC

archive.ph

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal

Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal - Th…

archived 28 Mar 2025 21:20:36 UTC

archive.ph

'Most scared I've been': US strikes sow panic in rebel-held Yemen

'Most scared I've been': US strikes sow panic in rebel-held Yemen

Yemenis on Sunday recounted their panic and terror as the first US attacks under President Donald Trump struck rebel-held areas, killing dozens and wounding more than 100.

www.france24.com

Tech issues hit DOGE's '5 things' email requirement for federal employees

Tech issues hit DOGE's '5 things' email requirement for federal employees

A month after Elon Musk began directing federal employees to email a list of five of their accomplishments from the previous week, technical issues have hit the process.

abcnews.go.com

Court records show how many federal workers were fired and rehired at 18 agencies

Court records show how many federal workers were fired and rehired at 18 agencies

More than 24,000 federal probationary employees who worked across 18 agencies were fired as part of President Trump's efforts to reduce the size of government.

www.cbsnews.com

The Federal Workers Who Are Not Quite Fired, Not Quite Working

https://archive.vn/8eGYG#selection-2081.0-2089.0

“You’re Here Because of Your Tattoos”

The men disappeared to El Salvador because of their tattoos

The Trump administration sent Venezuelans to El Salvador’s most infamous prison. Their families are looking for answers.

www.motherjones.com

Oct. 7 victims sue Columbia student groups and protest leaders, alleging Hamas support

Oct. 7 victims sue Columbia student groups and protest leaders, alleging Hamas support

Lawsuit claims protesters were a Hamas “propaganda arm” and that Students for Justice in Palestine knew of the attack before it happened.

forward.com

I'm not sure such a crime merits both jail time and becoming ineligible to run for office. It might also steel her base into the belief that the EU is out to get them and make the far right more powerful now they have a martyr figure just as she seemed on track to win.

any normal person would be jailed and barred from office if they tried doing the same, I don't see the value of treating fascists with trembling kid gloves whenever they flagrantly go about doing the crimes. also capitulating to abstract threats of their unhinged bases only emboldens them further, as we can clearly see from the rapidly expanding murderous mess in america

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Silvanus]

This is of no particular relevance.

On the contrary, its very relevant. We can often more accurately spot where a politician's bread is buttered by their actions than their words. Hence a lot of neoliberal Democrats will pay lipservice to progressive causes and workers rights, while voting against them. Hence a certain brand of cynical despot will rail against threats abroad while acting to empower them.

the main problem with that is that he's not articulating a standard to apply to expansionism. which makes sense, as it is absolutely unnecessary for Russian leadership to express an opinion about a dispute between two other countries that are currently hostile to Russia. It is frankly bizarre that you would expect Russian leadership to want to intervene in a conflict between two NATO members such that you would read their declining to do so as some kind of international policy prescription. Never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake, after all. Or: Do nothing. Win. Apparently my brain is rotted by memes and Napoleon quotes.

Making it clear that Russia isn't making any claim to dictate the future of Greenland is a useful thing to do, however, in the context in which he was speaking. If he wanted to be self-serving, he might say it is a matter for Greenland to decide, as its people have a right to self-determination just like the people of, for example, Crimea. What he did instead was articulate what appears to be a dispassionate historical perspective on the apparently long and (as one would expect) infrequent history of US efforts to acquire Greenland and express concern about the increasing militarization of the Arctic. Which seems like a completely reasonable and expected thing to do at something called the International Arctic Forum.

Not at all: to opine that Greenland alone should determine its own trajectory would reject the right of larger, powerful neighbours to impose their interests. To opine that it's between the larger, more powerful hegemon and the smaller country in the periphery-- everyone else should stay out, but not the interested hegemon-- now that's a useful standard.

You can pretend he's not articulating a standard if you like. But it takes a truly context-blind reading to miss the fact that he's giving his two roubles on a situation that has some useful analogies at home. That is context. He ain't speaking in a vacuum.

This is also of no particular relevance.

When you start calling things speculative, it's true to a point, but it's also worth remembering how bereft of credibility your predictive powers are, and the track record of missing the obvious and inconvenient.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Holy Brocoli plot twist! Le Pen's going to jail

Lets be real. Le Pen is a traitor taking Russian money while at the same time pursuing a course she'd know would leave a crippled France at Russia's mercy. Its a bit less clear cut than that freak in Romania though because she wasn't on trial for that. She was on trial for fraud with EU funds and while entirely deserved I'm not sure such a crime merits both jail time and becoming ineligible to run for office. It might also steel her base into the belief that the EU is out to get them and make the far right more powerful now they have a martyr figure just as she seemed on track to win.

Still its transformative. Le Pen defined the right and politics in France for better and certainly for worse. Her vanishing from the scenes is bound to transform French politics.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen barred from running for public office for five years

Le Pen's ban - after being found guilty of embezzling EU funds - means she would not be able to run in the 2027 presidential election.

www.bbc.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Is that relevant? Should Trump looking bad for doing crimes be a factor preventing Democrats from investigating said crimes? They're not his PR team. They're not obliged to do him such favors. At the and of the day the blame lies with Trump. If he doesn't want to get investigated for blackmailing Zelensky he shouldn't make weird phone calls about investigating his rivals and blocking military aid moments before the call. If he doesn't want to get in trouble for doing a coup he should just accept his loss and not do the coup.

Even if we take the Democrats at their most cynical and power driven the the situation still wouldn't change. Because all the blame would still lay with Trump for doing those actions, and his removal would just put Pence in office who was also on the ticket. Had Trump been impeached his 2016 election would still have stood as valid, he'd just have lost the right to the office he won.

Especially painting the Democrats as the aggressive ones during the blackmail impeachment is just weird. They were the victims there. It was Trump abusing his powers to have a foreign president intervene in the election. Why on earth should they have let that slide? Normalizing it would just result in it being considered a valid action and before you know it you'd have Republicans blackmailing Portugal because allegedly Sanders is in bed with frigin Belgium or something.

Huh? The left hounded Trump for 3 years over something that had NO evidence to even open an investigation.

OK, but we're not even talking about deportation.

The protection from arbitrary detention is not supposed to be dependent on US citizen status.



Why would the reporters be doing background checks on these people!? What, just on the off-chance they stumble upon a story?

No: your average reporters write accounts of what happens. They do not proactively search for stories, chase speculative leads, follow theories. That would be your journalists and investigative reporters.

Reporters reported on what was known to have happened, which was that ICE had detained one man for a certain reason, then took 2 others away. You're expecting them to also have investigated other angles and possibilities, tracked down leads on top of that. But that's not what a reporter generally does.



Nothing that you'd accept, because you wouldn't accept anything.

If one group is basically "immune" from a crime (US citizens to deportation) and the other group isn't, the latter group has more chance to get detained from a mistake since there are more crimes that they can be charged for.

If you had a story about a guy getting handcuffed by ICE for no reason and ICE took away the 2 other people in the car, you wouldn't do a quick investigation to check out the other 2 people? If those 2 other people are taken away by ICE (not just handcuffed) and detained for no reason, that's a far far bigger story you then have.

Seems like nothing you can provide either...

All your ideas is so divorced from reality, I'm suprised you even heard of the word truth

Is your definition of turth like Truth Social, where the word truth here just means lie?

I hardly use social media. I'm guessing Truth Social has as much lies and truth as whatever other social media platform.

You guys on the left are so allergic to truth that you guys (like Silvanus) post articles about seed oils being healthier than butter just because the person you don't like said seed oils are bad.

 

[Hades]

Huh? The left hounded Trump for 3 years over something that had NO evidence to even open an investigation.

You mean things like Trump's kids meeting with Russian envoy's, his quickly fired security chief having undue contacts with the Russians, several jailed cronies and Trump ''joking'' on tv Russia should go hack his rival which they'd indeed go and do?

The idea that there was simply nothing to investigate in terms of Trump's ties to Russia is simply not accurate. Which as in all the other examples is Trump's own fault.

 

[Silvanus]

If one group is basically "immune" from a crime (US citizens to deportation) and the other group isn't, the latter group has more chance to get detained from a mistake since there are more crimes that they can be charged for.

OK? But we're not talking about deportation, and what you said doesn't even have anything to do with what protections someone is entitled to.

If you had a story about a guy getting handcuffed by ICE for no reason and ICE took away the 2 other people in the car, you wouldn't do a quick investigation to check out the other 2 people? If those 2 other people are taken away by ICE (not just handcuffed) and detained for no reason, that's a far far bigger story you then have.

A story that investigative reporters or journalists could chase, if they wanted. Average reporters don't chase leads and theories. They report on available information.

Seems like nothing you can provide either...

You've been given situations in which Republicans have endorsed and celebrated the arbitrary detainment of people for 2 weeks without charge. And Republicans celebrating the arrest and detainment of people for protesting. And you've just sat here insisting that the Dems being in power when 1 guy was held for 1 night, after being caught on camera trespassing, is worse.

So, stuff that any rational, thinking adult would accept has been provided.