♡ 桃メイド ♡
@lucielle-hime.bsky.social
happy birthday..!! i hope u feel better n' get a chance to treat yourself today 🥳💕
February 18, 2025 at 2:09 PM
happy birthday..!! i hope u feel better n' get a chance to treat yourself today 🥳💕
They don't. They ordered an politically-motivated review and they did the same with a "systemic racism review" that found the UK had no racist bias. An obvious falsehood.
Your fallacious logic is only an indictment of yourself. False balance and deference to authority has nothing on actual evidence
Your fallacious logic is only an indictment of yourself. False balance and deference to authority has nothing on actual evidence
February 10, 2025 at 12:07 AM
They don't. They ordered an politically-motivated review and they did the same with a "systemic racism review" that found the UK had no racist bias. An obvious falsehood.
Your fallacious logic is only an indictment of yourself. False balance and deference to authority has nothing on actual evidence
Your fallacious logic is only an indictment of yourself. False balance and deference to authority has nothing on actual evidence
Point already addressed. It failed so hard to find a smoking gun it had to apply standards that would invalidate the plurality of pediatic care if applied equally. As I said, ideological motivations, not evidentiary ones.
Clearly the same is true of yourself.
Clearly the same is true of yourself.
February 9, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Point already addressed. It failed so hard to find a smoking gun it had to apply standards that would invalidate the plurality of pediatic care if applied equally. As I said, ideological motivations, not evidentiary ones.
Clearly the same is true of yourself.
Clearly the same is true of yourself.
I've read it in full, which is why I can say it's not worth the paper it's printed on. By Cass' standards over 83% of pediatric care would be inoperable, it's not a review with depth, it's one looking to affirm it's preexisting conclusions
The only "positive" effects it had were to ideological ends
The only "positive" effects it had were to ideological ends
February 9, 2025 at 11:37 PM
I've read it in full, which is why I can say it's not worth the paper it's printed on. By Cass' standards over 83% of pediatric care would be inoperable, it's not a review with depth, it's one looking to affirm it's preexisting conclusions
The only "positive" effects it had were to ideological ends
The only "positive" effects it had were to ideological ends
The job of a reporter is not to say "some people say it's raining, some say it's sunny.
It's to go outside and see if it's f**king raining.
Cass is a prime example. It was a failure of a "review" that doesn't pass grade school muster, that was immediately denounced by the wider medical community.
It's to go outside and see if it's f**king raining.
Cass is a prime example. It was a failure of a "review" that doesn't pass grade school muster, that was immediately denounced by the wider medical community.
February 9, 2025 at 11:07 PM
The job of a reporter is not to say "some people say it's raining, some say it's sunny.
It's to go outside and see if it's f**king raining.
Cass is a prime example. It was a failure of a "review" that doesn't pass grade school muster, that was immediately denounced by the wider medical community.
It's to go outside and see if it's f**king raining.
Cass is a prime example. It was a failure of a "review" that doesn't pass grade school muster, that was immediately denounced by the wider medical community.