this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32349 readers
557 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hm, 5 year old journal, with the editor board, funding and half of the authors all from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but significant hospital contribution. I remain skeptical of the headline but hopeful of the science.

[–] charles@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Well if it's real, it will be a no brainer Nobel prize, so it certainly won't be the last we hear of it in that case.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

presses X to Doubt

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It’s sad to see USA so shackled by pure capitalism that it starts to lose its scientific edge left and right while drooling libs jerk off to the big pharma freedom of unrestrained gains. Still believing they have a chance for a piece from the cake if only they squeeze their cheeks a little harder.

[–] KredeSeraf@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I am super confused by your take here. Liberals who, and let's be clear, regularly push for better if not universal health care (and are the only major party to do so) jerk off big Pharma to you? How exactly do you get to that conclusion?

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Liberals means different things around the world. Here it means free markets circlejerkers, Adam smith cultists, invisible hand of the market preachers while at the same time anti lgbt for some reason. Pro freedom but anti freedom. Full of paradoxes. Neonazi too and even conservative despite based around free market peddling.

After all we live in a post truth word where even people who agree with each other cannot communicate anymore due to shifting meaning of the words thanks to the politicians and media.

How can we even converse if the words itself are stolen, changed and used for war? Do we need to use mathematics instead of language if the latter is disfigured beyond recognition? Changed into a tool of some demagogue?

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You just said that liberals are hardcore capitalists despite the fact that liberals are the ones pushing for a hybrid socialist democracy where key industries are socialized so that rampant corruption, which is an effect of the invisible hand, can be avoided. You go on to say that liberal means conservative.

Phrases like ‘we are living in a post truth world’ are a self fulfilling prophecy for those who use that phrase… for the rest of us you just sound like a far-right provocateur.

It appears you are either very confused or you are a dishonest interlocutor and are completely full of shit.

[–] sparkle@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

"Liberal" isn't only a word used for modern US/Canadian progressives. "Liberal" is used to mean someone who believes in "free-market" capitalism, free trade, private ownership of the means of production and anti-nationalizationism, anti-protectionism/anti-regulationism, and individualism/anti-collectivism. It's pretty much synonymous with right-wing "libertarian" ideologies, including neoliberalism, classical liberalism, and "anarcho"capitalism. This is what the word has always referred to normally, and is by far the most common usage in most of the world, and it's still used this way in the US – mainly in economic, philisophical, or "fundamental rights" contexts though.

Liberalism is pretty much the antithesis of socialism, in a purely left-versus-right sense at least. The American ideology is often considered "social liberalism" or even "modern American liberalism", which still holds beliefs of individualism and capitalism, but differs from liberalism in that it pushes for a regulated mixed economy, as well as the government contributing to fulfilling social needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It also is defined by focusing on social justice/civil rights, as opposed to traditional liberalism (which is opposed to social justice and civil rights, believing people in a "free market" will decide to do the right thing). It ranges from being a centrist ideology to being a left-leaning right-wing ideology, so when the only opposition is basically dormant fascism, it is the "left" ideology. In a full political view though, it isn't leftism.

The American misappropriation of the term came from a time when the word "progressive" was starting to be seen as "radical" (and therefore negative). Progressives started using "liberal" instead, and it became a way to say "I only want some government intervention in the economy and social issues, but not a radical amount". When New Deal politicians like FDR popularized it, it kind of became cemented in American political discourse as meaning that.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Modern American liberalism is democratic socialism and that’s what it has meant since FDR…

"In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited governmentand laissez-faire economic policies."Consequently, the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism are key components of modern American conservatism and movement conservatism, and became the basis for the emerging school of modern American libertarian thought.

This doesn’t mean that liberalism = conservatism.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

'Further studies are needed for validation.' Understatement of the year

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If this were true, I wouldn’t be finding out about it on Lemmy

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 months ago

Lemmy is a news aggregator. Why wouldn't you find out about an early-stage clinical trial on Lemmy?

Any such treatment, even if it works, would take decades to pass through the various approval stages before being released to the public.

[–] match@pawb.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe you should be reading Cell Discovery, then

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How would reading Cell Discovery increase my chances of hearing about a cure to one of the world’s most pervasive afflictions on some obscure Lemmy post, and more puzzling, how would reading Cell Discovery make it more likely that some wild medical claim with far reaching implications would both be true and also absent from every other news source? What kind of magic does this Cell Discovery have?

[–] hOrni@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

And it will be provided for free to anyone who needs it, right? Right?

[–] dogsnest@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Only outside USA.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago

You have to agree to pay a 2000$/year subscription for Life™ after taking this medicine.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Weird how the MBFC comments are being deleted

[–] filoria@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 months ago

Citing MBFC without supporting evidence is lazy and actively harms discussion in favour of policing "wrongspeak". I respect it.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Type 2, since the article doesn't say.

[–] SuperIce@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 months ago

The articles suggest that it may be beneficial for Type 1, but that's unconfirmed. The nature of early-stage clinical trials is that people don't really know how things will work. That's the point of the trials.