I picked just one – mammograms:
Canada:
US:
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/pdf/BreastCancerScreeningGuidelines.pdf
France:
UK:
They don’t look all that different to me – at least, not currently.
One aspect in which they are very similar, considering that this is a program specifically targetted at women aged 50-74 is that the glossy images used seem to exclusively feature women who are not aged 50-74.
Hmmm. That suggests that political leanings and thus thought in general are a function of brain wiring and genetics. What do you propose to do with the idea that political ideology is correlated with intrinsic biological traits?
Well when it comes to this particular study, you try to culturally normalize traits, beliefs, lifestyles etc. that result in systemic biases where a contributing factor is peoples’ rigid outlook and intolerance to change.
It’s a great question. Definitely above my pay grade.
But I think it’s hard to reach voters who – to whatever degree – are hard-wired to respond poorly to change – by proposing radical change, even if you believe that’s exactly what’s needed.
Whether or not the Republicans have been trying to grow their base, it’s pretty clear that Trump hasn’t. It won’t really matter to him how such a keyboard study turned out.
And it may not be possible for the Democrats to fine-tune their message to gain voters who lean right – particularly those who tend to ‘Golden Age Thinking,’ having created a virtual restore point in their own heads to which they’re aching to return.
To me, the study speaks more to the divide itself, and how – wittingly or unwittingly – it’s become yet another powerful wedge issue. It may be yet another zero sum game.
This is objectively wrong. Lots of papers get published without data, provided that they refer to other published data sets. I just had one published in Cancer Cell in the last year.
If you want to check whether they are real or not, you can go to the other studies, follow their methodology and see for yourself.
Other than the fact that this study doesn’t fit your desired political narrative, why are you so sure that must have, at serious risk to their academic reputations, lied?
Post a link to that cancer cell study. And has the CSIS study even been submitted for peer review? If not then why not?
Quite true. The left has been infected with the same kind of tribal personality cultism that the Republicans have embraced.
You can tell that it’s not the same by the fact it’s not even clear which personality a supposed cult of personality on the left refers to. Biden, Sanders, Fauci, Schiff, Obama, Clinton, AOC…who are we talking about?
And these politicians are popular because of their views, with trumpists it’s the other way round – they need to check with dear leader what his stance is before they know how to feel about something.
@Whack-a-Mole was asked for some evidence of his assertion, and never provided any.
I assume that you are here to provide that?
Oh, please. “People who disagree with me about this are just like…the people who put Rosa Parks on the back of the bus!” This sort of horseshit is another example of what people can’t stand about Democratic fanatics.
I do appreciate the example of how people will cry that they have been accused of racism when nothing of the sort has been done.
Your “quote” there is a paraphrase created entirely from whole cloth. It does not reflect what the poster that you responded to said in the slightest.
The analogy was that those who have been privileged may experience a slight inconvenience as those who have previously been denied access are now in line as well.
There was nothing accusatory about racism whatsoever in that post. But I’m sure you will add it to your collection of times that you were called a racist for voicing your opinion.
Gotta keep that martyrdom complex going.
Honestly I don’t know squat about you. I suppose its possible that you are a racist, but from a purely Bayesian stand point I would have guessed probably not, which is why I thought you might be convinced by a analogy from the civil rights movement. I guess race has become such a sensitive issue that any mention of the civil rights movement is seen as an accusation.
OK, nix that analogy if it offends you, and replace it with any other situation that involved the expansion of access. Say for example, giving women the vote will result in longer lines at the polls (or am I now calling you sexist)? Giving dividing a cake between two elementary school classes instead on one will result in smaller slices (or am I now calling you childish?). Pick whatever analogy you want that won’t offend.
The larger point is that a necessary consequence of expanding access to any service that was previously restricted will generally negatively affect those who previously enjoyed exclusive access. But complaining about those negative effects on those who are now required to compete for resources on a level playing field is anti-egalitarian.
I can’t link to the Cancer Cell study without Doxing myself, and also you probably wouldn’t be able to verify the lack of new data, without paying for the article .
But here is one I just picked out at random, by searching under meta-analysis.
As to why they didn’t submit it for peer review and instead left it as a white paper, I don’t know, you would have to ask them. Perhaps they wanted it to be able to publish the analysis on their website rather than deal with journal copy write.
Again, why do you assume that they must have lied?
“RED” - 2010
[ Alexander Dunning ] - “Listen, Plastic Man, those bastards out there probably have orders to kill me, too.”
[ Joe Matheson ] - “I hope so.”
[ Alexander Dunning ] - “Why? 'Cause I’m the bad guy? I’m scum?”
[ Marvin Boggs ] - “Can I just shoot him now?”
[ Alexander Dunning ] - “No. You don’t have people killed. I have people killed, I’m the bad guy. Remember?!”
[ Joe Matheson ] - [knocks out Dunning with a punch to the jaw. shrugs] “Not worth a bullet.”
So, here is why it is Good to be the Good guys:
# Revealed: pro-Trump activists plotted violence ahead of Portland rallies
Patriots Coalition members suggested political assassinations and said ‘laws will be broken, people will get hurt’, leaked chats show
Plotted violence is indeed bad. Not quite as bad as actual violence at the mostly peaceful protests though.
They committed actual violence.
Too many red flags. It’s obvious. They refuse to provide the data…won’t even submit the study for review. Everybody wants to be WOKE . People will go to great lengths to be OPPRESSED
That sleep/cancer study shows that they used 65 studies and in Figure 2 they provide a list of the studies. That’s the way it should be done. Unlike the CSIS study which refuses to provide the “893 incidents” they selected for their study.