What happened during start of pandemic is WHO and big tech meeting up to discuss the threat of an "infodemic". Companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, agreed to suppress amateur takes on COVID. Mentioning COVID would vastly decrease your reach if not a verified public health source. It would get you demonitized, to not incentivise low-quality clickbait COVID videos. Of course, these algorithms are way more aggressive and produce more false positives (ads removed for just mentioning COVID without giving false cures, like happened here).
It has nothing to do with white or black and race. Just the nitwits at WHO and big business mismanaging crowd intelligence during a pandemic. WHO said masks do not work. Youtube banned users for mentioning vitamin D defiency and COVID. But they meant it well...
An Israeli had build a tool to detect anti-semitism in videos and comments. Not being able to sell to YouTube, they pivoted to targeting advertisers ("make sure your advertisements do not appear next to racist content"). Part of this was a PR campaign, where they would mail journalists "scoops" with videos with lots of views, anti-semetic content, and no moderation of YouTube.
With every such news article, YouTube stepped up its game. It culminated with PewdiePie making an "anti-semetic" joke, and this resulted in the Adpocalypse.
So I'd say it was more commercial interests than activism interests, but at times these align.
What a bizarre made-up story you presented here! Of course, one always finds conspiracy theories blaming the Jews. (And it's seeming OK with the management, even though they've professed to the New Yorker that they take an active role keeping the community in-line.)
She tried to bypass internal review. She knew that internal review was part of the process. She auhored a paper under the Google banner, not making note of her colleagues' work which combat the bias she was decrying. Then she submitted it for internal review the day of the submission deadline. After internal review was done and suggestions to improve were made (valuable time from your peers!) the paper was already accepted by external reviewers. She was then miffed having to update or retract the paper.
Jeff Dean is an absolute saint and ally for the cause. For sure he has better people skills than Gebru. Jeff was over his head with the Twitter mob, which would mess with anyone, no matter how famous.
Google fired Gebru not for retaliation, or for critical science, or for being Black, or for advocating diversity, or for Dean having bad people skills. She was fired for being insufferable.
Only astroturfing Ive seen is from activists claiming racism or Jeff Dean autism / white privilege.
This is just an experiment to see how long it takes for a random comment on a submission currently ranking 533 will take if it contains the word "chinese bioweapon". Feel free to ignore if you happen to be in this thread on coincidence and sorry if detracting from real conversation.
What I learned from diversity training is that you need to accept the fact that society is systematically racist, and as a white person you benefit from this. So all whites are profiting from racism already. They have to come to terms with this, acknowledge the role that their ancestors played in furthering or creating racial inequality, and do everything in their privileged power to right this wrong: hire more black people. Promote more black people. Mentor more black people. Pay reparations to black people. Be a vocal supporter to black people. And realize and appreciate that you are different, and will never have to share what black people go through every day. What more can you do?
> society is systematically racist, and as a white person you benefit from this. So all whites are profiting from racism already
American society, certainly. Some white Europeans are a bit miffed at being lumped in with America’s problems. Europe has race/diversity problems of its own, but not on the same scale as the US’s.
My first European colleague was a male-to-female person. She had worked at a major company for years, got a bad performance report, and attributed it to her transition. It went to court and the company settled, instead of defending not promoting her (with or without regard of her transition). Very good programmer. She worked there for 1 year more, doing only things that the company laywers agreed to.
In America I see similar things. I think it is seductive to be swept up with identity politics, and suddenly that promotion that went to a white person, feels different, feels racist. Or you employ a neurodiverse low-social skill person who makes an edgy unfunny joke, because he is nervous. That's "racist humor on the work floor" when going to a lawyer or journalist. It is a dangerous world out there. Current climate not helping.
I don’t believe neurodiverse people make racist jokes as a matter of course. At least, that hasn’t been my experience.
I think journalists are also able to tell the difference between “some dude made a poor-taste joke once” and “dudes were always making poor-taste jokes targeted at one specific minority when the employee was present”.
I’ll also say that, at my reasonably woke US company, I’m not aware of any neurodiverse person getting in any trouble for making a bad-taste joke.
The journalist won't get to talk to the neurodiverse person. Usually someone lacking a thick skin or easy to take offense, goes to HR to complain (anonymously if need be) about offensive, awkward, sexist, racist, far-right, ... speech. The neurodiverse person will (rightly) get a warning, an internal investigation finds no systemic harm done, and that's that, you won't even hear about it, as it juridically not smart to be transparent about such cases.
Then the offended person changes jobs, complains on Twitter about sexist humor driving her out of her previous job, a journalist searches for leads on their next story, and suddenly you are in the news with "multiple people complained about sexist and racist humor on the work floor, but nothing was done about it, and no complaint or investigation resulted in any action. We asked the company for a response and they replied that these internal investigations turned up nothing and that they don't accept discrimination of any kind".
Nearly every company has incidents of sex between co-workers, or people taking illegal drugs on a company get together. Depending on who you get to talk to that's "it seemed like every other week I saw a used condom in the stair ways" or "management regurarily used cocaine during company parties". You won't talk to anyone relativating it, and company PR is shy to even admit that stuff.
I'm a white American, and at least one of my ancestors died to end slavery. My father was named for him (middle name).
Now, it's also true to some degree that I benefit from society in a way that blacks don't (at least not to the same degree). And the right thing to do is to work for a world where blacks share in the benefits of society to the same degree that I do. (Where they don't have to be any more careful in a traffic stop than I do, for example.) But "acknowledging the role that my ancestors played"? I do, with pride.
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that nearly 10% of all Americans have a nutritional deficiency.
And what about very low, but non-deficient levels?
It very much depends how the study is designed: in this case they do not measure quality of life or disease progression, but clinical outcome. That is what OP was alluding to: if you are going to only look at clinical outcome and completely tar "effectiveness" with that, then that is a very one-sided view of health and well-being.
Osteoporose patients are at increased risk of vitamin K deficiency. Just because multivitamins are not effective at taking us to Mars, are you really going to recommend patients to spend their vitamin money on fresh fruits?
Right, sure, that aligns with what I suggested. That if you have a nutritional deficiency, they may be useful, but 86% of Americans take vitamins or some other nutritional supplements, but only 20-something percent of them have been diagnosed with any kind of condition indicating they may need them.
The analysis needs to come from the other direction: take one vitamin, and prove it does something. Don't load people up with 20 vitamins and hope. Here's a great breakdown of the state of common supplements and whether they do anything at all that I found here, actually, a while back [1]
I put the onus on you: tell me why I should be putting this into my body. Explain what benefit it would provide me. Rather than saying "well, if you have low but not deficient levels of some vitamins supplementation may do something" -- that's not how medical science works :) I mean, eating lots of things may do something, but the burden of proof is higher.
90 percent of the restaurant is eating, but just 20 percent of those are still hungry :). They can stop eating and return next week when they are starving.
For me it is proof enough that my wise mother told me take my vitamins, but more scientific: you have a vector of essential vitamins and minerals. There are thresholds for deficiency. There are optimal levels. Aim for optimal levels, and do not overdo it. Supplements can help with that, and easier and cheaper than a diet which includes all necessities. Low levels are suboptimal for you. Makes sense?
> For me it is proof enough that my wise mother told me take my vitamins.
That's not proof of anything.
> There are thresholds for deficiency. There are optimal levels.
And there are levels that cause toxicity.
> Supplements can help with that.
[citation needed] which is kind of the point of this article.
> ...and easier and cheaper than a diet which includes all necessities. Low levels are suboptimal for you. Makes sense?
Unless your diet already has you covered, in which case it's strictly harder and more expensive.
Again, you should look for evidence of improvement, that's what the scientific process is all about. I encourage you to embrace the scientific process and take a data driven approach to whether ingesting something is going to help, harm, or have no impact on you at all, instead of just listening to your mom. My mom is a saint, but she's not right about everything.
Worse yet, because multivitamins like all nutritional supplements are not regulated by the FDA, they can range from totally ineffective to half decent, but you have no way of really knowing. The most common magnesium supplement I've found on Amazon is only 19% bioavailable [1] as compared to a best-in-class 90%. Where does your multivitamin rank? That's just one specific example.
I just did. The research is divided into two: those that look at clinical outcomes (such as cardiac arrest) do not find that vitamins help. Those that look at quality of life indicators, recovery, infection severity, and muscle strength do find significant improvements of supplementation.
And they find no harm of normal use, but warn against dangerous toxicity effects of overdosing.
Without any regulation how do you know how effective your particular multivitamin is at making bioavailable any given vitamin or mineral, re: the study I posted showing a range of 19% to over 90% for magnesium? It's pretty much impossible to know if they do anything at all. Which brings me back to my point: if you have a specific issue, a specific supplement whose effectiveness if validated is likely way cheaper and much more effective -- otherwise, the advice I would give anyone is to eat their greens and stop fretting.
They only measure clinical outcomes such as cancer or heart attacks. "Multivitamins do not cure cancer" would be a better heading. Or even "30% of Americans taking multivitamins report enhanced quality of life".
> But vitamins do physically help when you are deficient.
Sure. But the vast majority of people are not deficient. 86% of Americans take vitamins or supplements of some sort. 21% have been diagnosed with kind of vitamin deficiency. And the vast majority of those could, to your point, eat more lettuce. [1]
"Most people have no need to take vitamins and are wasting their money on supplements that are unlikely to improve their health and may actually harm it." [1]
If you aren't deficient, you may end up with an excess of fat soluble vitamins (A, D) which may actually poison you.
Deficiencies disparately impact minorities and poor people. And when I was a student even I could not afford that Bell pepper. 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 are real people.
If you take the prescribed one pill a day, how are you going to form overdose? Talking about excess I hear the medical professional disdain for vitamins in that. Understandably, because they get those people who take extreme doses of over the counter stuff in their visiting hours. But that's no risk to use as an argument against vitamin supplementation for regular use. Multivitamins would be banned if regular use caused overdose.
Totally, and those people may need multivitamins, but that's my point.
Further, "if you take the prescribed one pill a day, how are you going to form overdose?" -- vitamin and mineral supplements are not regulated by the FDA, and vary widely by brand and batch and so on.
FDA recommends 700IU for an average adult. The first bottle of multivitamin I found, "Sundown Multivitamin Gummies" has 800IU, which is additive with your diet. 4000IU is the upper limit (and 60,000IU per day has been shown to cause toxicity) I've seen people chow down on those gummies because they're tasty. Not likely to hit, though.
The first Vitamin D supplement (Forest Leaf D3) I found is a once-weekly 50,000IU hum-dinger that provides on average double the safe upper limit.
Lastly, if folks at the poverty line are taking these sometimes expensive, often unnecessary supplements, could that money be better spent on other things?
Having someone else do your prison time was fairly common. Now with more cooperation between organizations and improved biometrics it has dropped.
Different people would be arrested, show up to court, or enter the prison. Impossible for organizations downstream to detect or assume a switch had happened.
It's not; indulgences remit the temporal punishment associated with sin (mortal sins incur eternal punishment in additional to temporal punishment; merely venial sins incur only temporal punishment). Mortal sin can be forgiven only through contrition and reconciliation. Temporal sin can be forgiven at the leisure of the Church (i.e., through indulgences). To commit a sin with the intention of attempting to obtain forgiveness through reconciliation afterward is itself a mortal sin.
Indulgences still exist, and you can still purchase them in the sense that you can make a donation to a priest to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for a specific intention (like the remittance of a portion of the temporal punishment for the sins of a friend or loved one), and the offering of the sacrifice has indulgences associated with it in addition.
This is not the only way to gain indulgences. There are many ways to gain them. Praying for the souls of the faithful departed on All Souls Day (in combination with the usual conditions, i.e. a) being in a state of grace, b) having the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin, c) having sacramentally confessed their sins, d) receiving the Holy Eucharist, and e) pray for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff) on November 2nd allows for one to obtain a plenary indulgence (which remit ALL temporal punishment) either for oneself or for a person of your choosing.
i have a certain fondness for both MMOs and the faith i lost. this is not that far off if you also allow that people seem to get a lot of meaning out of the quest even though you may no longer believe it actually describes the existing state of things.
the companionship you feel with the others on the journey with you, the feeling of losing yourself in something much bigger than you, the structured life with a clear definition of The Good (do these is this order to achieve digital/eternal reward)...this analogy works.
>To commit a sin with the intention of attempting to obtain forgiveness through reconciliation afterward is itself a mortal sin.
Source? If you do it with a mortal sin I can understand it would be a second mortal sin. But it seems harsh to make a venial sin into a mortal sin from this.
I'm not sure I would call it deceit, God is all-knowing. I would consider it taking God's mercy for granted and treating him like a mechanical forgiveness dispenser.
I'm hesitant to say it's always a mortal sin, because it seems like it can happen in a lighthearted manner. For example if someone struggles with gluttony, that person might think "I know I shouldn't have a 2nd hamburger, but I'm weak and it would taste so good, I'll have it now and go to confession later". That doesn't seem like mortal sin territory to me.
That is a common misunderstanding of canonical Catholic teaching about "indulgentia a culpa et a poena".
Keeping the carbon offset analogy, an indulgence in the Catholic sense would be more akin to first making sure you are carbon neutral (all parties are at peace and forgiven/reconciled), then you spend %10 of your salary to go beyond that and offset the carbon credits of the person you wronged.
Instead of sticking with the carbon credits analogy I'll articulate more directly what I understand from reading up on indulgences at https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
For a sin that has already been forgiven, an indulgence is associated payment you owe that if you didn't pay, you will spend more time in purgatory.
If this is an accurate reading, does it not dilute the meaning of "forgiven"?
Does it not amount to a money-making racket at best, or, more probably, extortion?
>Does it not amount to a money-making racket at best, or, more probably, extortion?
The vast vast vast majority of indulgences have no money aspect at all. See the list of plenary (meaning all temporal punishment is removed) indulgences on Wikipedia[1], none of them involve money.
“ Singer discusses the relationship between biological capacity for altruism and morality. He argues that altruism, when directed to one's small circle of family, tribe or even nation, is not moral, but it becomes so when applied to wider circles. “
E.g. charity where you sacrifice your individual goods for the larger community is good for the soul.
An even bigger misconception is that indulgences were actually bought on behalf of _someone else_.
They were meant to address a very real problem with catholic heaven/hell theology:
What if I belong in heaven, but somene I love, who I can't possibly imagine spending eternity without, belongs in hell?
Indulgences were originally meant to address this: the party that belonged in heaven could, through their sacrifice, guarantee a spot in heaven for their loved one. It was only later that the "sacrifice" become strictly monetary.
Several years ago I read the book Fingerprints by Colin Beavan [0] and it was really eye opening how different life was before we had modern forms of identification.
Example 1: In countries that had little formal legal structures and rudimentary identification (e.g. India in the early 1800s), it was incredibly easy to be a criminal and just move from town to town while acquiring new identities. In other words, there was a huge upside to becoming a career criminal since it was both difficult to catch you (no forensic evidence) and even if you were caught, you could just reboot your life.
Example 2: He mentions a case where a gentleman was charged TWICE for crimes that were later found to have been committed by someone else who had only a passing resemblance.
I read this book before Twitter/Facebook became ubiquitous and every like, share, comment was public knowledge but even at the time, it was mind boggling how different "identity" was back then.
The flipside of this would be that anyone from out-of-town would be shunned under the assumption that they had left their previous town for negative reasons.
Isn't photo ID much more relevant for the above than fingerprints? Usually fingerprints are used to investigate crime scenes, not to ascertain identity of an already known person (you don't normally ascertain that this person here is Alex A by their fingerprints - you use them to see if Alex A was in the room where the jewelry got stolen).
I was watching a show on TV last night where they were minutely examining a newly discovered photo of Lincoln to see if it was really Lincoln or someone else. One analyst gave it an "85% probability it was Lincoln".
I've seen reports that it's somewhat common for the rich in China[1], so there might be some info on what it costs there, and maybe some extrapolation could be made. Either the "serve prison in lieu of me" or "say you were the one that committed the crime" version. There are weird perverse incentives at play in some of the laws of criminal justice system in China.[2]
Not so long ago the heir to the Red Bull fortune was alleged to have driven his Ferrari through a police check point at speed, killing an officer. Since it was a police officer killed, the matter was investigated and the mangled Ferrari found on the estate. One of the house hold staff came forward, claiming he was the driver. Apparently this is somewhat expected in these situations. But it did ruffle lots of feathers, so the poor heir had to go on the run for a while. But no worry, a few years later all charges are dropped because everyone has been compensated and it was a while ago, so lets just let bygones be bygones, and go back to dealing with the stress of being a member of Thailand's 2nd wealthiest family.
To add the latest update to the story, the public outcry continues to be strong and after going back-and-forth on whether to pursue prosecution of the heir, the police asked Interpol to issue a red notice: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/world/asia/thailand-red-b...
It may sound a bit barbaric, but the family of the victim might be better off with a chunk of money than with the knowledge that the perpetrator is serving time.
(However, if you look at the incentives and deterrence, inflicting inefficient punishment like sending someone to prison for a long time, might still make sense.)
There's a maximum amount of punishment you want to mete out to convicts. Otherwise everything would carry a penalty worse than death.
So there's a trade-off between handing out more of that punishment in fines to be paid to the victim or in economically inefficient activities like prison time.
As a related matter, I think corporal punishment deserves more consideration. Mostly because it's cheaper to administer than prison, and also avoids forcible socializing convicts only with each other as happens in prison.
(Of course, it's a punishment with a certain cruelty. Alas violence and injury are a common enough sight in overcrowded prisons, too.)
The person we're discussing is heir to a $20 billion fortune. A fine that would constitute actual punishment to him is in the billions. Which I'm entirely in favor of here, preferably 19.9 billion or higher.
But restitution isn't punishment. Restitution helps reduce harm to the victim, and is a separate issue entirely to punishment.
Sorry, I wasn't talking aware that you were talking punishment as in the need to cause pain for some abstract moral reason or to make people feel good.
I was more worried about issues like deterrence and restitution.
Punishment and deterrence are somewhat related, but not the same.
> the family of the victim might be better off with a chunk of money than with the knowledge that the perpetrator is serving time.
Justice isn't always about providing benefit to those harmed. It's also about providing a framework in which crime is avoided by all because they know there are repercussions they can't avoid.
When the expectation is that you're rich and you can get away with killing someone either through paying someone to take the fall or bribery, then that will happen more often. If the expectation is that everyone is equal under the law, that will happen less.
The US isn't perfect in this regard, but I think it's a lot better than what's being described here. If Ivanka Trump drove recklessly and killed someone, it would be a lot harder for it to play out the same way here. That's not to say she would necessarily face justice, just that it's a lot harder to get out of it, so there wouldn't necessarily be an expectation that it will go away. There's a huge difference in expecting to get away with something and knowing it's uncertain when the consequences are years in prison.
Yes, civil suits are brought be individuals, so are less about societal pressure and more about recompense, while criminal cases are brought by the state. I believe there's also a lower bar, and civil court works by "a preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt". The courts serve different purposes.
> Yes, civil suits are brought be individuals, so are less about societal pressure and more about recompense, while criminal cases are brought by the state.
This is somewhat inaccurate; while it is true that criminal cases can only be brought by the State, civil cases can be brought by the State or private parties.
This reminds me of the classic phrase, “the butler did it”. It took me ages to realise that butlers aren’t naturally villainous, but rather were expected to take the fall for any malfeasance committed by the family.
> It took me ages to realise that butlers aren’t naturally villainous, but rather were expected to take the fall for any malfeasance committed by the family.
I just realized that in Oct 28th, 2020. Thanks for that.
> The origin of the phrase is in the classical detective story trope.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, itself doesn't derive from household staff taking the fall for their employers, but from them being omnipresent but, by strong social custom, ignored.
Yeah, I'm fairly sure that's the case. So while checking the motives of the high society suspects, nobody would suspect the lowly butler -- which, in another trope, had some dark past related to the family he was employeed at...
edit- after reading up on this, I'm not sure where you got your information from but everything I could find shows it to just be the common detective/mystery trope.
It just follows logically that historically some powerful families would have paid off a fall guy if necessary, and they could have used a butler in some cases. This could've been the origin of the term, before it even showed up in murder mysteries. Perhaps from the 1700s
Probably more of a price in terms of favors and relationships than money. e.g. If a mob could somehow bust you out then you belong to them for some percent of the prison time. Just a guess though.
Experts and health authorities were adament to tell us that vitamins have zero effect against COVID. Not: we don't know and taking a Vitamin C can't hurt, unless you count an upset stomach. But: stop sharing fake health information, this is an infodemic! Just wash your hands.
So to add to the infodemic: selenium and iodine deficiency also increases severity. Take some iodized salt and Brazil nuts now, or wait 5 months for the authorities to understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And no matter what Youtube bans you for going against the WHO: tumeric is an efficient antiviral.
Any examples of the CDC, FDA, or NIH statements telling us that vitamins have zero effect on COVID? I’d also be interested in statements from the WHO, but that one I wouldn’t be at all surprised by.
Vitamin C is listed as fake news on WHO. Fact checker sites listed vitamin D as false, then switched to correct after research. Doctors, journalists, and health experts in Brazil and the Netherlands chided social media for not removing "fake" info on vitamin supplements.
I'll check some CDC sources later to contextualize these claims to the US.
Mayo Clinic: Debunking COVID-19 (coronavirus) myths. Extremely unlikely to work and might cause serious harm. [...] Supplements. Many people take vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, green tea or echinacea to boost their immune systems. While these supplements might affect your immune function, research hasn't shown that they can prevent you from getting sick.
Notice the weird mind crinkle: Got to debunk it, and use "prevent you from getting sick" as the reason for it not working (and the subtle differences between: "No research has shown", "research hasn't shown", and "research has shown that it can't prevent you"). Even though plenty of research shows it prevents you from getting severely sick, when you do get sick. Willing to bet that garlic (a famous folk knowledge cure for the flu, smashed boiled garlic with hot water) is actually effective in recovery and severity, but the fact checkers present it as a "COVID cure" and of course that can be debunked. But it is a debunking based on a weird strawman we saw with masks: Masks are not protective to COVID because the eyes can catch it too. As if protectiveness and immune health is binary and anything else than 0 or 1 has to be a lie.
Could not find anything about the CDC, just https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/vita... where they recommend Vitamin D for children under 2 years old, to prevent deficiency, but no where mention a recommendation for using it during a pandemic to keep your immune system healthy.
As for selenium deficiency and iodine deficiency, the research is slowly catching up:
> Certain micronutrients are seen as supportive for the treatment of and protection against viral diseases with some vitamins (A, B6, B12, C, D, and E) and essential trace elements (zinc, iron, selenium (Se), magnesium, or copper) discussed as particularly promising .
> However, the data base is very small and it is unknown whether certain vitamins or trace elements are deficient in patients with COVID-19, and whether the concentrations are related to disease severity or mortality risk.
> The collaborative research team from Germany hypothesised that Se may be of relevance for infection with SARS-CoV-2 and disease course of COVID-19 and that severe Se deficiency is prevalent among the patients and associates with poor survival odds in COVID-19.
As for turmeric, mentioned in relation to COVID a bannable offense on Youtube: It inhibits and suppresses Zika, Hepatitis, HIV, Noro, coxsackie, HBV, herpes, influenza, encephalitis, dengue, corona, and chikunya. It also suppresses cytokine signalling. But experts warn that it may interfere with the immune system when fighting COVID, and that it is neither a cure nor a treatment nor a helpful supplement. WHO lists it under hoaxes (except when discussing Chinese traditional medicine). And you are a bad person if you share this potential online, because you don't have a randomized trial to back up that it works against SARS-CoV-2.
MedicalNewsToday: In a rapid review of the evidence published on May 1, 2020, researchers from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom unequivocally conclude: “We found no clinical evidence on vitamin D in [the prevention or treatment of] COVID-19.” They also write that “[t]here was no evidence related to vitamin D deficiency predisposing to COVID-19, nor were there studies of supplementation for preventing or treating COVID-19.”
Potential Effect of Curcumin Treatment of COVID-19: Curcumin may have beneficial effects against COVID‐19 infection via its ability to modulate the various molecular targets that contribute to the attachment and internalization of SARS‐CoV‐2 in many organs, including the liver, cardiovascular system, and kidney. Curcumin could also modulate cellular signaling pathways such as inflammation, apoptosis, and RNA replication. Curcumin may also suppress pulmonary edema and fibrosis‐associated pathways in COVID‐19 infection.
WHO Fact or Fiction: There is no scientific evidence that lemon/turmeric prevents COVID-19.
It has nothing to do with white or black and race. Just the nitwits at WHO and big business mismanaging crowd intelligence during a pandemic. WHO said masks do not work. Youtube banned users for mentioning vitamin D defiency and COVID. But they meant it well...