stolen from lemmy.world memes
Kichae @ Kichae @kbin.social Posts 1Comments 519Joined 2 yr. ago
Kichae @ Kichae @kbin.social
Posts
1
Comments
519
Joined
2 yr. ago
Indeed.
Obviously, then, megacorps should be abolished.
Subscribing to the user like a Community
Being pedantic for the sake of clarifying why this works when Lemmy doesn't let you follow users: You're subscribing to a PeerTube channel, and just like with YouTube, users can have multiple channels. PeerTube uses an ActivityPub group for channels, just as Lemmy uses them for communities.
"Instead of subsidies, we've negotiated to buy small quantities of fossil-fuels from producers for $1 billion / litre."
On the other hand, more and more video creators on YouTube make the bulk of their money off of Patreon, rather than YouTube ads, and if it were possible to increase their Patreon subscriptions by posting to PeerTube as well as YouTube, interesting things could happen.
That would really surface the cost of video hosting, though
And Instagram. PixelFed's really good.
Oh, and Goodreads. BookWyrm doesn't get enough love.
There's also Mobilizon, a federated events calendar and groups platform.
And a whole bunch of other stuff, but, like PeerTube, they're somewhat content sparse at the moment.
People deny the ongoing genocide of indigenous North Americans all of the time. It's really easy when you have some sort of intrinsic motivation to do so, apparently.
Brands don't have to do shit like this. They have weird trolls with weirder parasocial relationships to intellectual property to do it for them, unprompted.
It's true, the results are weaker than if they had done a comparison study, but a lot of medical research is just post-facto observation reports. Like, to do a proper double blind study here, you'd have to start with healthy people and then knowingly expose some of them to something you suspect may be a carcinogen.
That's not going to pass the ethics board.
You can look at people who have already gotten cancer and try to lump them into those who have used talc-based products and those who haven't, but then how do you actually measure the impact of the talc there? Do you look at the number of patients who did use talc-based products vs those who didn't? Those might just reflect the rate at which those products are used among different subsets of the population.
The key bit here is that the kind of cancer they're looking at -- mesothelioma -- is known to be caused by asbestos. It's also known that talcum powder contains asbestos. So, the observational link here is seeing whether people with mesothelioma have had known significant exposure to environmental asbestos and how much exposure they've had to talc-based products. And if you can see in your observations that higher or more prolonged exposure to talc is correlated with increased mesothelioma rates, and can assume that these people -- based on their own memories -- have not been exposed to environmental asbestos at a rate higher than any other average person, then environmental exposure becomes an independent factor and you can assert the correlation between talc exposure and cancer rates.
They don't automatically get a pass. They get peer reviewed.
It's also not one study. They've done multiple over the years, with hundreds of participants. They've done studies where they include people with known environmental exposure, and they still find that exposure to talcum powder counts as part of cumulative exposure.
Is it possible they're just flagrantly lying about their research results? Of course. Tell good enough lies and it becomes up to reproduction studies to find contradicting results. But there's as much money, if not more, to be found in finding those contradicting results, and yet...
And don't just link to your instance's homepage. Link them to content. Show them something they might want to take part in.
By my own accord? Probably Back to the Future 2/3, or Serenity. But my partner and step-son spent 6 months last year watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy over and over again, so those are the ones I've probably actually seen the most number of times.
Mastodon uses aliasing for account migration. Your old account still exists on the original server, but it points to your new account. Following the old account automatically reroutes the follow to the new one. This could be done at the group level for lemmy without needing to manually lock the original group or ask users to find the new one.
Ok, Calckey migration, then.
They would still need to be able to migrate the community to their own instance.
Because when the best thing that can be said about what you're saying is "it's not literally illegal to say it", you're probably scraping the bottom of the barrel with respect to the content of your words.
It's also often that if people are reduced to using it as an argument, they've already been told to shut up, and that no one in their company wants to hear what they have to say. Kind people who say disagreeable things are usually open to hearing about why people are disagreeing, or having feelings about what is said. So, that leaves the unkind assholes insisting they have a right to an audience.
Misskey will have all of those features. Calckey has quite a few QoL improvements over Misskey, but the core features are the same.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
You should definitely be aware of the WAP. Trust me. My wife's a doctor.
It might be quite the opposite! The study itself concludes that “for individuals with mixed exposures to asbestos, all exposures should be considered”.
Yes, but the study still shows that people with no environmental exposure still got cancer. It's still explicitly stating that talc exposure is asbestos exposure. If J&J's argument is that these researchers made their product look more dangerous than it is by including people with environmental asbestos exposure in their studies -- whether by accident, or for nefarious purposes -- and therefore creating a false link between talc and cancer, this paper side-steps that issue entirely by including people with and without known exposure, and showing that talc exposure is equivalent to environmental exposure.
If J&J is saying what I think they are saying, then the researchers made these products look more harmful than they were, and included people who would have been harmed by other exposure to asbestos but concealed that fact in the study.
Proving that they concealed this information would be difficult, I think, though it would be devastating not only to their bank accounts, but to their careers more generally. Emory, Maddox, and Kradin's study explicitly states:
One hundred forty subjects with documented exposures to cosmetic talc were initially reviewed. Exposures were identified through sworn deposition testimonies and answers to sworn interrogatories provided from subjects, parents, and spouses. Sixty-five subjects were excluded due to recalled occupational or paraoccupational exposures to other sources of asbestos.
So, that wouldn't even be a lie of omission. It would be straight academic malpractice. Their academic careers would be over.
It really depends on the type of study it was, and what these sources of asbestos were supposed to have been.
If they were doing a comparison study, so long as the control group was exposed to asbestos in similar amounts and in similar environments, it's still a strong finding. J&J shouting "they were exposed to other asbestos!" would just be an empty attack on the researchers' characters, and an attempt to falsely discredit them to an uncritical and uneducated public.
Things do seem to be a bit more complicated than that, though, as these are post-hoc investigations with no control. That said, it looks like they tried to do their due diligence to filter out participants who had known environmental exposure to asbestos. If some of them lied or mis-remembered, then it's up to J&J to show that the researchers were negligent or operating in bad faith.
That's going to be a pretty big hurdle to climb. I don't believe they actually intend to climb it.
The fact that the researchers asked about environmental during recruitment, plus the fact that J&J is only claiming that a small handful of people involved in the study were exposed to other sources of asbestos, really shows this for what it is: An attempt to scare researchers away from doing research, and especially from agreeing to be provide expert testimony in lawsuits.
One of the defendants here even has a new paper out this past January that includes patients with known environmental exposure to asbestos, and they show that cumulative exposure from all sources matters. Including exposure from talc:
Conclusion
For individuals with exposure to asbestos through cosmetic talc usage and additional alternate sources, all exposures contribute to the development of mesothelioma. Published case reports and case series have identified over 100 individuals whose sole exposure to asbestos was through cosmetic talcum powder usage.
This finding basically cuts J&J's apparent argument off at the knees, and was published months before they ever filed suit. They'd have been aware of it at the time of filing. They don't seem to have anything here. Just the opportunity to try and make their detractors look as dirty as they are in the eyes of people who haven't read any of the research.
My own country (Canada) is sadly guilty of of committing ongoing indigenous genocide. One merely needs to look up the term as defined by the United Nations Genocide Convntion to understand how.
It defines genocide as any of these five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group":
We tick every box. Every. Single. One. Always have, and continue to do so.