*nocebo (autocorrect)
*nocebo (autocorrect)
The word pain was used multiple times in the video. 👍👍👍. So, not exactly like "tingling" when you mean "sore". Stick with the truth if you're aiming for informed consent.
You've done both if you say "tingling" when the truth is "sore".
My point was, regardless of the notebook effect, informed consent means not using words that aren't the words you believe to be the truth.
Kind of missing concept of informed consent, huh? How 'bout (assuming true) "some people report no real reaction, but others find it hurts quite badly" or whatever. Not your job to decide for me what I want to/will do with the information. It's your job to deal with patient, however they respond.
Why not say can be 'sore'??
Because patients want to know the truth about what the experience can be expected to be like. You know ... that whole *informed* consent concept that so many medical personnel seem to have difficulty understanding??
But women can be born in bodies that look like men's. 🤷♀️
👿👿👿
If you don't already, watch Colbert. He is a man with no more f*cks left to give. And it's glorious. Check out this song parody from last night's show: Mike Johnson Delays House Epstein Vote Until September
do you ever stare at the ceiling and think about how the worldwide scientific establishment did the impossible and created a COVID vaccine in under a year and the response of the general public has been to go on an unstoppable rampage to destroy science and scientists
Disagree re: "not something movie is doing". Visual images perceived by eyes. Eyes transmit input 2 brain. Neural networks process visual stiumli. Link to limbic system. Networks create emotional responses with physical aspects (e.g., tears, sobs). Distal cause is movie. "That movie made me cry."
A *response* by the patient to what? Just a random coincidence regarding the introduction of the placebo?
Oh yes ... British parents.
I think your question translates to "why aren't all people law abiding, all the time?"
People are selfish. Lots of people never get caught and aren't penalized severely enough to stop it. A penalty of $200, for example, might be a huge deterrent and/or crazy punitive for one person, but not for an affluent person who doesn't feel pain from that. So, we need so much more deterrence.
Because people speed a lot despite the law, and this leads to people being killed or badly hurt, when these causalties could be prevented or severity reduced if people were deterred from speeding. Safe Speeds – Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals (CARSP) share.google/pLaH7QWuCNbM...
Yah ... and it came across as a commercial advertisement for them, stepping on mom making a great birthday for her kid. Apples and oranges that didn't belong together. 🤷♀️
You call it my sister's fault.
Tell me. If publishers were to create a system - fill out this form, swearing you don't have access to a university library, you aren't a commercial org, and will respect copyright etc., & we'll send you a link, how would it affect them? Any little guy actually pay USD$35 to read an article??? No.
As someone living near vast wilderness zones with many species of wild animals, can't help but wonder "how is this news?" It's true re: wild animals world over. Children 50+ years back taught this 4 whole lives. "Why do some refuse to learn?" is the important question. Huge profits off tourists??
If they didn't want commercial model scrutinized, perhaps they should be less commercial?? Coming at this as a scientist-practitioner. Can't create a model that allows little guy like me to read for free (disseminate science), while paying reviewers nothing? Then it's about profit, not science.
Let‘s gooo www.kubiack.com/academic-pub... www.reuters.com/legal/litiga...
Okay .... but you understand, she did it better, right?
???? Sarcasm?
Except he values spending many hours of his daily life to look like that. 🤷♀️
Like saying, if we think exposure 2 illness causes others 2 get ill, then once we know a mechanism (e.g.,germ theory) exposure to infectious people somehow no longer causes illness. Just not helpful understanding of causation. Calling only last link in a causal chain, "the cause" wouldn't be smart.
Just looked at the article briefly. It's aligned with what I am saying. There *are* mechanisms *underlying* a placebo effect. You seem to be saying that once the *mechanism* of causation is understood, it's not longer a placebo effect. I think that's wrong.
Haven't you just redefined "effect"? You don't usually have a cause (placebo) and response. You have a cause (placebo) and its effect, regardless of if the mechanism of the effect remains unexplained.
Well said.
No. Distracting bulletin board paper is literally not 'needed'. I guarantee that if people are willing to donate to education there are things that would contribute to children's actual *learning* far more effectively.
Tell me you don't understand the meaning of 'Zionist' without telling me that you don't understand the meaning of 'Zionist'.
If they get all the benefits for their children anyway, despite having been unwilling to pay for them, why would they not get more entrenched in their point of view? We definitely need to protect children from parents' active harm, but this isn't the same thing.
I think that you miss the point Their parents voted for Trump, and saving children from their parents bad choices, in a thing like this, may do more harm than good.
I hope that the animals are being treated humanely as required by law. But outside of the *animals* we need to let the industry suffer. Farmers and rural Alberta have, collectively, chosen a government that denies climate change and doesn't recognize its role in relieving the suffering of people.
I'll return to the foundational issue. If you think that the SVR implies that reading isn't complex you don't understand the model. The SVR doesn't ignore anything you've suggested it ignores. You just aren't able to see that both decoding and language comprehension are complex.
You really don't understand the model.
You are suggesting we should look at a case study to buttress the argument that implying causation from a correlation is a good idea?
Many countries in the world have much more shallow orthographic, allowing children to learn the code of their language within a year, but still while they have great neuroplasticity.
Well, we'd lose the benefits of greatest neuroplasticity (important for development of visual word for area in the brain) before 7 years of age.
If you think that the SVR implies that reading isn't complex, you don't understand the model.
Hasn't since 2016
Because lying isn't a sign of cognitive decline?
No. Correlation may (obviously) be seen where there's a causal relationship. The danger is implying causation from correlation alone.
Didn't understand it, huh? Sorry 'bout yer luck.
🧪 Childhood vaccines and aluminium: no link to chronic illness A huge Danish study (1.2 million children) found no increased risk of autoimmune, allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders from aluminium in early vaccines. 🔗 doi.org/10.7326/ANNA... #SciComm #Vaccines
You're implying causation when reporting on a correlation. The ignorance is epic.
"I am a very well versed vocabulary." 😆😆😆🤭🤭🤭
Well, if you have an extremely limited vocabulary and a single insult has to cover everyone, I guess yours covers you quite well. 🤷♀️
I bet we could create the methodology to code the anecdote for multiple variables. 😆
No. 'Smart' does not equal 'good'. Intentionally pretending you believe something stupid could be smart if you profited greatly from saying it. Stupid means you can't grasp when something makes no sense. If you grasp it, and say it anyway, you're not stupid. You're just a bad person.
Let me know when Nick comes to understand what either *logic* or *evidence* means.
You're getting lapped buddy. You can pick apart logic/ reasoning of what someone says. But without knowing why they might choose to say stupid things (stuff beyond the statement itself) you can't tell. People sometimes say dumb things bc they are smart enough to know it'll work 2 meet a hidden goal.
Maybe yes. Maybe no. Can't tell how smart someone is by looking at a few things they say. That was my point. Smart, but motivated to say stupid things, or stupid, so says stupid things. 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
The point I was making isn't that he *is* smart. It's that you can't tell by looking at a statement someone makes (even if it's stupid).
You can't tell how smart someone is or isn't from the stupid things they say. As noted, he seems to be motivated to lie.
Well ... it is data; just not scientific data.
Tell me you don't understand science without telling me you don't understand science.
I completely agree he's done nothing/shown zero ability to do the job. He's a waste of skin. But I don't think that there's evidence he's looking for an excuse to quit. If he is, then, yes, it'd be self-serving. But I think he'd be happy being paid to seem important, no matter how useless he is.
The point is ... Trump should *not* be trying to respond more effectively with PR. In order to be successful, he should be addressing the underlying issues with competence and integrity.
I understood what you meant, I believe.
Know what the best public relations are? Competence and integrity. You can't improve Trump's administration with PR.
There's no connection between his ability to do the job and his desire to get out.
This is fantastic news.
Honoured to announce my appointment to the UNESCO IBE Science of Learning editorial board. I’m excited to support the work of bringing clear, actionable research to educators worldwide.
What makes you think that "as stated by Bondi" means anything?
If you're spending 50 hours writing a witness statement, you're trying g to figure out how to mislead tge tribunal without lying in a way that would leave you open to perjury charges. It doesn't take that long to tell the truth.
Some men loves their dogs as long as their wife takes care of the dog's actual needs, and they just enjoy the dog's companionship.
It's not like we know what we're talking about, for the most part, with respect to what works in general education, or have any consensus around implementation. 🤷♀️
No ... this is okay ... it's strictly playing to Trump's ego and costs nothing ... it's a 'show' of good friendship which is the kind of thing that the 🍊 🤡 thinks is kowtowing but is as simple as asking someone to raise a different flag. Payoff - big. Cost - nothing.
Given that Trump has already reneged on the USMCA, the Ukraine arms for resources deal, and the promise to leave Medicaid alone, I would say the chances of his reneging on any new trade deal with Canada are over 80%.
With ICE's *enormous* new budget and its ability to hire *many* more agents, the United States is about to enter an era of brutal domestic terrorism that we've never seen before.
You know survival isn't an entitlement, don't you?
There are only three political positions in America today 1) I like the fascism 2) I'll acquiesce to the fascism (reasons for this one vary: cowardice, access, denial, misguidedly thinking that acquiescence is savvy, etc) 3) I oppose the fascism The rest is details
Could you make her head teacher? It seems like she has the leadership capabilities.
UPDATE: Nine excited pupils & two even more excited staff turned up. She talked us through the rules first, which were very simple: read books & be kind. Everyone enjoyed reading Albert's Tree by @jennidesmond.bsky.social & then talking about what they would do if they were a bear. It was perfect.
Alt text is necessary. Full stop.
You're reading "glibness" into 'Simple as.' unnecessarily.
The conclusion seems to have been reached by priorizing a single, most critical consideration (for that person). Meaning it was simple. No need to try to be condescending, or pretend all people should consider complexity in exactly the same way to reach their decision. It's unbecoming.
I Give You... Baby Squirrels!
When the term began to be used (at least in my orbit) it was intended to differentiate diversity *from* disability/disorder. i.e., "diversity is normal - stop pathologizing it". If it's an umbrella term 4 mental disorders, could just change to a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Neurodivergence.
Agreed. This term is fighting itself. By definition, we are all neurodiverse. We are all weight-diverse and height-diverse, as well. 🥰
Actually, while I agree with you in many aspects of this conversation, I think that's a bad example. A diagnosis of 'arachnophobia' (assuming its accuracy) does exactly what it should - drive treatment. Phobias are best treated with *specific therapies* (there's evidence of treatment superiority).
Social 👏 constructs 👏 can 👏 be 👏 helpful 👏 or 👏NOT.
I think when you reference physical things like neurons and the brain, physical evidence matters. If it's only a social construct, it has little value if there's not enough common understanding ("reality") to create social benefit of having the term (it's intention, I believe).
I was just messing around, putting all three spellings of the homophones in one sentence.
If you think punctuation is their weakness there, I think they're fooling you. 🥰
They've *lost* their marbles.
I'm curious about your spelling choices. I'm going to go with the explanation "I don't know how to spell this word in this context, so I will choose two different spellings for the same meaning, and be happy to be right 50% of the time."
And there's the clearest demonstration of why actual ICE Agents should not be allowed to be masked. We need to know the difference between neighborhood thugs and government thugs.
Okay. I am just annoying you now. Not my intention. I thought there were limits to when you could sue the government and lower court was expanding. My misunderstanding. Have a good day.
It was the example you pointed me to, so I was trying to understand it. But I think you're right. I need to understand more *foundationally* why people can't sue federal agencies. Fundamentally, what leads to "you can't sue the gov't (not individuals) for violating your rights"?
IF the lower court was "making a change" by deciding a lawsuit was allowed, is it fair to say the SCOTUS is "making a change" by saying "nope - you can't do that - return to status quo"?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm partly just trying to grasp if I am reading the judgement with comprehension. Did they overrule Bivens, or decline to expand the circumstances in which Bivens applies?
Again, until I could see how the rights are, or are not, protected by the procedures that existed, I don't think you can know about their adequacy. I completely agree that a "right" is useless if there's no meaningful way to ensure you can exercise it.
Ah ... I clearly don't understand situation. I thought there had 2B a law/regulation that allowed for a lawsuit. Misunderstood the Bivens thing. I'd got impression that *if* there were alternatives, they'd have 2 create a *lawsuit remedy alternative*. I thought lawsuits were precluded "unless...".
Did they stand to make a change? I thought they *declined* to add categories (make a change) of things you could sue for. But again, I am not a lawyer, or even American. Just going by what I thought I understood, from the judgement.
I would have thought that all things being equal, slowing down a tank advancement would generally be better than not slowing down a tank advancement. Doing something, seems preferable to doing absolutely nothing. 🤷♀️ What would be *better* use of that human energy?
I think that there's a difference between saying "there is no remedy available here" and "eliminating the one in front of them". They're not eliminating anything if it doesn't exist in the first place. They're declining to create something.
Actually, don't know that there is not. A complainant complained & wasn't satisfied. SCOTUS seemed to say that if the process doesn't provide an adequate remedy, it's someone else's job to fix it. (Of course, yes, I think there should be a meaningful remedy.) Which "directive" are you referring to?