On PCR testing.
PCR inventor:
https://t.co/DMmDlfq6kL
... and problems with PCR test
More from Pharoah Maskfree McMoscowitz
WHO Western Pacific, gives correct guidelines. Trump pulled out America's support from WHO because Tedros is owned by Bill Gates, and with US support out, the main funder for Tedros's WHO is Bill Gates. https://t.co/6oRmJyZyDT
If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly. \u27a1\ufe0fhttps://t.co/0nyHux1SgN pic.twitter.com/JDQhnowx3p
— World Health Organization Western Pacific (@WHOWPRO) March 26, 2020
Library update: https://t.co/UvQcjVtxP4
https://t.co/gInQuwg7aq
Remember to register in the Common Law
Common Law
Common Cause
That's where questioning lockdown took me, and this is where they're headed.
— Pharoah Maskfree McFlightrisk (@trestrange) November 8, 2020
Google these linked terms and ask why a reset has an off button.
Shhh...https://t.co/26ebWCY2Ru pic.twitter.com/j3Uvkt822b
https://t.co/gInQuwg7aq
Remember to register in the Common Law
Common Law
Common Cause
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
