Ranvier @ Ranvier @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 51Joined 2 yr. ago
Just click on the author's byline and look at their past "investigations, " it tells you all you need to know. But this article is filled with such endless BS it would take ages to unpack it all. I'll just post one thing from the beginning of the article.
During this period, Ukraine has not become an independent self-sustaining democracy, but a client state heavily dependent on European and U.S. support, which has not protected it from the ravages of war.
From the ravages of war, wow, what country invaded and annexed them multiple times and is ravaging them? Not worth mentioning I guess. The fighting is all the US and EU's fault for helping Ukraine to defend itself! If Ukraine had just rolled over everytime Russia wanted to lop off sections of their country or even take the whole thing plus some neighboring countries to boot, then everything would be peaceful! It goes on from there like that. Impressive mental gymnastics throughout, and clearly trying to push an established viewpoint of the author rather than inform, really more of a bad opinion piece than an "investigation."
The house passed marijuana legalization in 2020 and 2022 when democrats controlled it. Didn't make it past the senate though, with almost every republican opposed.
Technically a treatment for methanol or ethylene glycol poisoning! Though we have a better one now. But yes the schedule system is a joke.
From a medical marijuana perspective it wouldn't change much for states where it is still illegal. It will make things easier for people who are prescribed it in states where it is legal, and hopefully for places that produce or sell marijuana that are currently locked out of banking and payment systems. This would also allow Medicare to at least consider covering it in those states, but they wouldn't necessarily have to. Medicare coverage decisions are made by the center for Medicare and Medicaid services, we'll have to see after this change goes through what they determine. They do also already cover FDA approved medications based on cannibinoid ingredients like marinol or epidiolex which are pharmaceutical preparations of delta 9 thc and cannibidiol respectively (these are already available in every state since they are fda approved). Private insurance also will make their own determinations about whether they will cover it or not, but with this change there is a chance they could, whereas before there was no possible way. Medicaid coverage is mostly determined by each individual state.
The only way this would over ride state law and allow medical marijuana into a state that doesn't have legal marijuana would be if somehow the marijuana plant itself got an FDA approval, but that is very unlikely for a lot of reasons, foremost that the marijuana plant has a large mix of many different drugs with many differences in amounts and ratios of those drugs from strain to strain, plant to plant, different parts of the plant, or even the same plant at different times in its life. It's not like, heroin, or fentanyl, or cocaine which are specific chemicals. You could never really say "marijuana plants in general" have a specific indication for a specific disease, it would need to be much more specific in terms of what is actually being given, and only that would have the evidence and therefore the FDA approval. Like take epidiolex/cannibidiol for instance, a single chemical, 25 mg/kg/day was found effective as an add on therapy to another primary therapy for reduction in seizure frequency in children with Lennox gestaut syndrome and dravet syndrome. That's the specific indication and dosage that the FDA agrees is effective based on the evidence. Lots of other reasons too you'd never see an FDA approval for "all marijuana plants in general," but the unpredictable mix of tons of different drugs across many many strains of marijuana plants and variability between the plants itself is enough to make this a practical impossibility. It's definitely contributed a few medications that have roles in certain diseases though, like many other plants before it.
In short, you'll still need to convince individual states to legalize it or make medical marijuana laws if you want an actual marijuana plant or plant preparation prescribed to you. Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance coverage could all be different (and even different by insurance company), but there's at least a chance it could give coverage now, whereas it was impossible before. This also makes marijuana research easier and helps reduce any federal criminal penalties.
From an article linked within the article:
Despite the plaudits, China in fact sat on releasing the genetic map, or genome, of the virus for more than a week after three different government labs had fully decoded the information. Tight controls on information and competition within the Chinese public health system were to blame, according to dozens of interviews and internal documents.
Chinese government labs only released the genome after another lab published it ahead of authorities on a virologist website on Jan. 11.
If it weren't for this scientist it would have taken even longer to get the dna sequence (and even longer for the life saving vaccines). And the whole time Chinese government labs already had the sequence and were refusing to share it with the world despite the World Health organization and scientists around the world begging them to.
deleted by creator
Republicans of course voted against any fines at all:
Now with a 3-2 democratic majority on fcc a lot is getting done. One of Biden's nominees was stonewalled by the senate for years (ISPs launched a huge smear campaign against her, even the daily mail of all things went after her). Biden had to relent and finally nominated someone else who got approved late 2023, finally breaking the 2-2 deadlock that Republicans were using to block everything like this including net neutrality.
Alright, vote for a dictator that makes their own laws out of thin air then and disregards any courts. Or go after congress to change laws so that new regulations under those laws can be made faster and with less oversight, though that would backfire during republican administrations. Or just keep shouting bad faith arguments to attack a presidential administration you apparently agree with on this issue I guess. Because he very quickly reversed any executive orders he could of Trump's on this issue. Here's an order from 2021 on this actual issue.
Reversing actual agency regulations is unfortunately a longer process that is very dependent the specific law, but that was kicked off as soon as his appointees got in place. The new admin did get the regulations changed back in faster time than it took Trump to impose them.
First of all, it's not like Biden sat down and wrote these himself. Appointees by Biden at the health and human service administration directed these rules be written by civil servants who work at the department. Changes to regulations have to follow the processes laid out in the laws originally passed by congress giving the agency the authority to write that regulation. Usually that involves a long process of research, mandatory waiting periods, comments, legal reviews, votes by administrators, etc. These new rules began to be drafted in January 2022. Here's all about 600 pages of them. It's not something like, Biden rolled out of bed this morning and decided to reverse lgbtq discrimination in healthcare finally to help himself in the election. The rule this is replacing/updating for instance had work on it begin in 2015 that didn't finish until 2020.
If the complex processes for these new regulations aren't followed then they aren't drawing their power from any law, and they'll be struck down by courts in a heartbeat. This happened to a lot of Trump's incompetent administrators who had a lot of hastily passed or incorrectly passed regulations that didn't survive legal review.
He couldn't have vetoed it without vetoing Ukraine aid, Taiwan aid, and Palestinian aid too, fyi. While the house passed it as 4 separate bills, the senate combined it all into one.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/politics/senate-vote-israel-ukraine-aid-dg/index.html
Afforded to a handful of oligarchs/donors:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustees_of_Columbia_University_in_the_City_of_New_York
This source suggests something about a judge not being present for an arraignment, and so they were released with instructions to present again in May. Sounds like they probably haven't been formally charged with anything. You can be arrested without being charged, usually charges come shortly after an arrest. But they can't hold you indefinitely with no charge, which is why they were just released with instructions to return on a certain date.
From the article:
Viana said he didn’t know what charges the demonstrators faced but that some will likely be charged with disturbing the peace and others with trespassing.
They also were apparently reading some city anti camping ordinance to the protestors.
No I was referring specifically to these common misleading sensational headlines on minor movements of the stock market, not news headlines in general. Or if you're referring to 401ks again, yes in general it's a bad idea to be making active trades in a 401k with a time horizon of decades based on day to day minor fluctuations of the stock market.
The s&p 500 is down 0.8% today, and still up 23.6% over the past year despite that, well above it's long term average growth rate still. These day to day fluctuations are barely a blip looking on a long scale time horizon like with a 401k.
If you held your entire 401k in 100% stocks and are planning on retiring tomorrow cashing out the entire account all at once I suppose it would be important, but that's ridiculous for a number of reasons.
Headline writers always like to use the dow Jones because they get to write some seemingly big numbers instead of s&p 500 decreases by 36, which doesn't sound nearly as impressive (because it's not). They could say the dow Jones decreased by 1% in the headline, but again, not as sensational, won't get clicks. Shouldn't even be using dow Jones anyways, kind of a dumb index. Almost half of the "loss" this article refers to rebounded even by the time I wrote this comment compared to when the article was published, which is why the headline no longer matches the original.
The law is written on a false non medical premise, so it's not possible for any doctor to interpret because it's nonsense divorced from reality.
There is no such thing as some clear line in medicine between, ah now instead of just grievous injury she will certainly die without an abortion at this point so let's do it now and she'll be fine. There may be black and whites at some extreme ends, but mostly there's just a spectrum of constantly changing grey probabilities.
This is all total fiction that exists only in the head of pro lifers and the people writing these laws. Even if that fiction was reality, there's a non zero chance that prosecutors will harass people performing abortions anyways, and they'll bring in their own hack experts saying no that abortion wasn't necessary, and the judgement is done by a jury of lay people not doctors with medical expertise, good chance the doctors get thrown in jail anyways in this fictional universe pro lifers have created.
There's just no practical reality where a law that only "protects life of the mother" can exist. Legislators need to stay out of the doctors office and let pregnant individuals make the decisions with the assistance of doctors, only then can the life and health of the mother actually be protected.
Yes it would apply:
Canceled or significantly changed flights: Passengers will be entitled to a refund if their flight is canceled or significantly changed, and they do not accept alternative transportation or travel credits offered. For the first time, the rule defines “significant change.” Significant changes to a flight include departure or arrival times that are more than 3 hours domestically and 6 hours internationally; departures or arrivals from a different airport; increases in the number of connections; instances where passengers are downgraded to a lower class of service; or connections at different airports or flights on different planes that are less accessible or accommodating to a person with a disability.
Here's a figure from the actual research the articles are describing and linked inside:
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf
This is based on methodology TikTok itself suggested be done, comparing posts on TikTok to Instagram.
Caroline Svarre, whose parents paid to have her transported by two strangers in the middle of the night to Trails Carolina when she was 14, said she was “in shock” her first day.
Yup, also one that does the middle of the night kidnaps for maximum trauma infliction.
Shockingly, the treatment guidelines for panic disorder also don't inlude zipping people into small bags all night:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478076/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6354045/
They should be shut down permanently, and those responsible for these policies held criminally liable.
Could be helpful if it actually provides service to food deserts. Would really depend on what kind of delivery radius they have, and how reasonable their prices are.
Possibly, but also keep in mind article five doesn't say that any hostile act leads to automatic full scale war in response:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Emphasis on "such action as it deems necessary," meaning a country can individually respond with its own discretion on what it thinks is a proportional response. Though in practice any response and individual contributions would be heavily negotiated within NATO. Theoretically a country could say it deems no action necessary even if article five was invoked. Just another reason why electing pro Russian leaders like Trump, Orban, or now Fico in Slovakia are dangerous and threaten the existence of NATO, even if they don't technically leave NATO.