Please no apologies, I meant nothing by it...I was just thinking out loud.... I'm sorry if it made you uncomfortable!
That's just the clinical axis.
We on the whole, 3/
More from kateneuropsych Dr. Kate Shaw MA/MS/PsyD Auntie Fa
Since 1980-90s WS successful ongoing intentional strategy to blend w/fundamentalist W Christian & infiltrate/integrate/take over these spaces; emerging in homeschooling tied to natural CB, attachment style parenting, Le Leche League, Natural child rearing & ecological mov'nts
Theres not a lot 1 can do abt this either. There are SOME divisions but not as many as one might like to think & there are an infinite number of fuzzy boundaries ie., as in vaccinations. This is a highly fluid & often volatile life stage to navigate married or single & 2/
things are muddy as hell (this is an area I've researched tracked, and personally experienced as part of that natural child birth community). Women are isolated by society and thats a problem on both the right and the left. Women are vilified & looked down on when they do 3/
have kids, and are pilloried if they stay home, go to work, if they breastfeed, for how long or not and are essentially cut off from an elder community that might help them navigate the enormous shift in their lives not to mention having to put up with petulant manbaby 4/
husbands who drag them via their own negative ideals, expections, insecurities fears angers hurts at the sudden usurping of their position as number 1 in a womans life when she has a baby, & especially the first baby. BOTH WHITE SUPREMACY AND FUNDAMENTALIST WHITE CHRISTIANITY 5/
The problem is that a lot of people on the left don't seem to realize just how much of the crunchy wellness space is taken up by various flavors of far right Christians, which made it a soft target for long game indoctrination.
— Dr. Kathryn Bright Christmas Lights \u2712\ufe0f (@KEBrightbill) December 20, 2020
Theres not a lot 1 can do abt this either. There are SOME divisions but not as many as one might like to think & there are an infinite number of fuzzy boundaries ie., as in vaccinations. This is a highly fluid & often volatile life stage to navigate married or single & 2/
things are muddy as hell (this is an area I've researched tracked, and personally experienced as part of that natural child birth community). Women are isolated by society and thats a problem on both the right and the left. Women are vilified & looked down on when they do 3/
have kids, and are pilloried if they stay home, go to work, if they breastfeed, for how long or not and are essentially cut off from an elder community that might help them navigate the enormous shift in their lives not to mention having to put up with petulant manbaby 4/
husbands who drag them via their own negative ideals, expections, insecurities fears angers hurts at the sudden usurping of their position as number 1 in a womans life when she has a baby, & especially the first baby. BOTH WHITE SUPREMACY AND FUNDAMENTALIST WHITE CHRISTIANITY 5/
THREAD: TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATH
I think we've had this exchange B4 yes? Ive said from t/start (despite all who vociferously insisted over& over hes a malignant narcissitic) TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATH (whos dementing but that's a diff thread) & have written extensive 1/
threads (see @threadreaderapp) explaining what criminal psychopathy is and why Trump is a criminal psychopath, AKA more formally as Anti-Social Personality Disorder w/Psychopathy (ASPDp).
1) Trump is NOT a Narcissist. He does NOT have NPD and IS NOT a nalignant narcissist 2/
(which BTW isn't even a valid DX, is not in any iteration of the DSM and more importantly IS NOT backed by research)
Lastly (but very importantly) narcissists ARE NOT DRIVEN BY SADISM
2) Trump is NOT a sociopath (someone who due to poverty & social oppression with few if
3/
any other options, is driven to crime to survive; who does not particularly enjoy it but as the only way to survive, become a way of life...eventually you become numb as that's just a fact of life)
4/
3) Trump IS/HAS Anti-Social Personality disorder w/PSYCHOPATHY
which is driven by sadism
i.e. Trump is a PSYCHOPATHIC criminal
Trump IS NOT a sociopath. He does not now nor did he ever need to commit crimes to survuve. TRUMP IS DRIVEN TO CRIME BECAUSE HE ENJOYS 5/
I think we've had this exchange B4 yes? Ive said from t/start (despite all who vociferously insisted over& over hes a malignant narcissitic) TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL PSYCHOPATH (whos dementing but that's a diff thread) & have written extensive 1/
Are you saying he is not a malignant narcissist? A sadistic sociopath? Untreatable?
— Jane Dickerson (@jwdickerson) December 3, 2020
threads (see @threadreaderapp) explaining what criminal psychopathy is and why Trump is a criminal psychopath, AKA more formally as Anti-Social Personality Disorder w/Psychopathy (ASPDp).
1) Trump is NOT a Narcissist. He does NOT have NPD and IS NOT a nalignant narcissist 2/
(which BTW isn't even a valid DX, is not in any iteration of the DSM and more importantly IS NOT backed by research)
Lastly (but very importantly) narcissists ARE NOT DRIVEN BY SADISM
2) Trump is NOT a sociopath (someone who due to poverty & social oppression with few if
3/
any other options, is driven to crime to survive; who does not particularly enjoy it but as the only way to survive, become a way of life...eventually you become numb as that's just a fact of life)
4/
3) Trump IS/HAS Anti-Social Personality disorder w/PSYCHOPATHY
which is driven by sadism
i.e. Trump is a PSYCHOPATHIC criminal
Trump IS NOT a sociopath. He does not now nor did he ever need to commit crimes to survuve. TRUMP IS DRIVEN TO CRIME BECAUSE HE ENJOYS 5/
More from Health
You gotta think about this one carefully!
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
This is a limited point about availability of efficacy data for vaccines under development in the context of the approval for CovidShield and Covaxin in India.
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
On the occasion of youtube 20k and Twitter 70k members
A small tribute/gift to members
Screeners
technical screeners - intraday and positional both
before proceeding - i have helped you , can i ask you so that it can help someone else too
thank you
positional one
run - find #stock - draw chart - find levels
1- Stocks closing daily 2% up from 5 days
https://t.co/gTZrYY3Nht
2- Weekly breakout
https://t.co/1f4ahEolYB
3- Breakouts in short term
https://t.co/BI4h0CdgO2
4- Bullish from last 5
intraday screeners
5- 15 minute Stock Breakouts
https://t.co/9eAo82iuNv
6- Intraday Buying seen in the past 15 minutes
https://t.co/XqAJKhLB5G
7- Stocks trading near day's high on 5 min chart with volume BO intraday
https://t.co/flHmm6QXmo
Thank you
A small tribute/gift to members
Screeners
technical screeners - intraday and positional both
before proceeding - i have helped you , can i ask you so that it can help someone else too
thank you
positional one
run - find #stock - draw chart - find levels
1- Stocks closing daily 2% up from 5 days
https://t.co/gTZrYY3Nht
2- Weekly breakout
https://t.co/1f4ahEolYB
3- Breakouts in short term
https://t.co/BI4h0CdgO2
4- Bullish from last 5
intraday screeners
5- 15 minute Stock Breakouts
https://t.co/9eAo82iuNv
6- Intraday Buying seen in the past 15 minutes
https://t.co/XqAJKhLB5G
7- Stocks trading near day's high on 5 min chart with volume BO intraday
https://t.co/flHmm6QXmo
Thank you