The same group that always cites the Palestinian Ministry of Health now wants you not to know that it exists, is responsible for vaccinating its population & has rejected Israeli help. See this thread for key facts: https://t.co/GmnBe20xrs

Amnesty just wants you to hate Jews.

Founded in 1961, Amnesty built a reputation for supporting prisoners of conscience who were non-violent.

While some in the global NGO still do good work, Amnesty has lost direction, often supporting antisemites, misogynists, homophobes & terrorists.

👇
https://t.co/ETcexTVMRW
In 2010, Gita Sahgal, then head of the organization's gender unit, was fired for exposing Amnesty's shameful ties & support for Britain's most famous Taliban advocate, former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg. https://t.co/XYSqQpeRMX
Supporting terrorists has been a recurring theme with Amnesty. In 2015, a senior employee of Amnesty International was found to have undeclared private links to men alleged to be key players in a secretive network of global Islamists, revealed The Times. https://t.co/lH163tEZlM
Christopher Hitchens wrote that Amnesty’s actions backing the Taliban & against whistleblower & gender unit chief Gita Sahgal exemplified the organization’s “degeneration and politicization,” reflecting “a moral crisis that has global implications.” https://t.co/RlP5wpj6Sb
In 2015 Amnesty's speaker called the 9/11 attacks “sweet revenge.” He said Europe made “the cult of the Holocaust & Jew-worshiping its religion” & he labeled gays “AIDS-spreading faggots.” Part of Hezbollah, he questions the existence of Nazi gas chambers. https://t.co/raKHZA8KSy
Amnesty backed the pro-Taliban group "Cage," which promotes an ideology that mocks the values of tolerance—especially towards women. Amnesty took research from them, shared logos, co-produced briefing papers & co-signed letters to the government.

https://t.co/nbmLQrXY2u
Rights backer Sigrid Rausing criticized Amnesty for "blurring" its original mission. The Economist: "A group which devotes more focus to rights abuses in Britain & America than those in Belarus & Saudi Arabia cannot expect to escape doubters' scrutiny." https://t.co/U9uHaUH6fm
In 2015 Amnesty justified hosting an anti-gay Holocaust denier to protest Islamophobia—due to "the significance of this issue" & as it "was not an endorsement of any of the views of the individual speaker." Yet in 2018 they saw fit to ban London's Jews. https://t.co/lS8iG9cMxz
Former Amnesty prisoner of conscience @MaajidNawaz lamented the NGO's fall: "If ever there was proof that the regressive left rot is spreading into the core of our liberal culture, look how it has politicized this once bright beacon of human rights." https://t.co/fRGdOpXTj5

More from Health

No-regret #hydrogen:
Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe.

👉Summary of conclusions of a new study by @AgoraEW @AFRY_global @Ma_Deutsch @gnievchenko (1/17)
https://t.co/YA50FA57Em


The idea behind this study is that future hydrogen demand is highly uncertain and we don’t want to spend tens of billions of euros to repurpose a network which won’t be needed. For instance, hydrogen in ground transport is a hotly debated topic
https://t.co/RlnqDYVzpr (2/17)

Similar things can be said about heat. 40% of today’s industrial natural gas use in the EU goes to heat below 100°C and therefore is within range of electric heat pumps – whose performance factors far exceed 100%. (3/17)


Even for higher temperatures, a range of power-to-heat (PtH) options can be more energy-efficient than hydrogen and should be considered first. Available PtH technologies can cover all temperature levels needed in industrial production (e.g. electric arc furnace: 3500°C). (4/17)


In our view, hydrogen use for feedstock and chemical reactions is the only inescapable source of industrial hydrogen demand in Europe that does not lend itself to electrification. Examples include ammonia, steel, and petrochemical industries. (5/17)
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%)

👇

You May Also Like