The efficacy of anti-depressants has been consistently over-inflated, so generations were poisoned with side-effects: suicidal ideation, homicidal tendencies, etc.
Results: Meta-analyses of FDA trials suggest that antidepressants are only marginally efficacious compared to placebos and document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy. These meta-analyses also document a second form of bias in which researchers fail to report the negative results for the pre-specified primary outcome measure submitted to the FDA, while highlighting in published studies positive results from a secondary or even a new measure as though it was their primary measure of interest. The STARD analysis found that the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by the study authors with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase.*
"the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. Therefore, they have to be perceived as de facto owners by corporate executives. These companies have, in fact, publicly declared that they seek to exert influence. William McNabb, chairman and CEO of Vanguard, said in 2015 that, 'In the past, some have mistakenly assumed that our predominantly passive management style suggests a passive attitude with respect to corporate governance. Nothing could be further from the truth.' When we analysed the voting behaviour of the Big Three, we found that they coordinate it through centralised corporate governance departments. Hence, just three companies wield an enormous potential power over corporate America." (source, also this). In effect Vanguard and Blackrock forgo taking large fees in exchange for having enormous ability to exert power over the economy through influence on corporate boards and leadership. This power that is subject to little public awareness or accountability. This page gives a quick visual overview of it.
Larry Fink: "The behavior is going to have to change… this is something we’re asking companies. You have to force behavior. At BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors.”
In a recently published paper, our CORPNET research project comprehensively mapped the ownership of the Big Three. We found that the Big Three, taken together, have become the largest shareholder in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.
Trees are naturally efficient at sucking down vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the air, but they release the carbon again when they die and rot on the ground. Sequestering trees underground could prevent this. If biomass burial works as well as hoped, it may provide a relatively cheap and easy way to pull down some share of the billions of tons of greenhouse gas that studies find may need to be removed to keep global temperatures in check in the coming decades.
This is a truly great idea. Putting great gobs of biomass and safely sequestering it underground is revolutionary. We'll need to put it deep enough that it won't decompose and we'll also meed to find a way to pressurize it to maximize the volume and prevent moisture intrusion. We probably want to put it near desserts where the naturally arid conditions will hasten the process of compaction. Perhaps we can get the Arab Countries on board?
Then it all changed in 2021. In an effort to fully modernize the system, the FBI stopped taking data from the old summary system and only accepted data through the new system. Thousands of police agencies fell through the cracks because they didn’t catch up with the changes on time.
More than 6,000 law enforcement agencies were missing from the FBI’s national crime data last year, representing nearly one-third of the nation’s 18,000 police agencies. This means a quarter of the U.S. population wasn't represented in the federal crime data last year, according to The Marshall Project’s analysis.
Of the 19 biggest law enforcement agencies — each of which police more than 1 million people — seven were missing from the FBI’s 2022 crime data. The missing agencies include the LAPD, the NYPD, and police departments in Phoenix, San Jose and New York's Suffolk County.
I wish more in tech would stop pretending pornography is something benign. This isn't the case, though I personally thought the same just a few years ago. There is data, and victims available to see it is not.
Understanding a Context of Risk: Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse
https://osf.io/kf4uv/download/?format=pdfOne of the most troubling patterns emerging in the research relates to the increasing number of younger children (under the ages of 12-14) involved in perpetrating child sexual assault. Clinical and legal studies are reporting greater numbers of preteen children demonstrating interpersonal problematic sexual behaviors that intrude on the physical space and security of other children (Friedrich et al., 2006; Swisher et al., 2008).
<>
Most relevant to the purpose of this paper is the role of exposure to sexually explicit media as one of the explanatory variables in child sexual abuse. A meta-analysis of 22 studies demonstrates that exposure to pornography, particularly violent pornography, is significantly associated with increased rates of sexual aggression in the general population (Wright et al., 2016). Given that the average age of first exposure to pornography is age 11 (Wolak et al.,
2006), it is important to begin to consider what role, if any, pornography may play in child sexual abuse, particular if perpetrated by children. Several studies have included sexually explicit media as a contributing factor for child-perpetrated sexual abuse.
The Association Between Exposure to Violent Pornography and Teen Dating Violence in Grade 10 High School Students
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/Exposure to pornography in general has been linked with adolescent dating violence and sexual aggression, but less is known about exposure to violent pornography specifically. The current study examined the association of violent pornography exposure with different forms of teen dating violence (TDV) using baseline survey data from a sample of Grade 10 high school students who reported being in a dating relationship in the past year (n = 1694)
A Meta-Analysis of Pornography Consumption and Actual Acts of Sexual Aggression in General Population Studies
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcom.12201Is pornography consumption correlated with committing actual acts of sexual aggression? 22 studies from 7 different countries were analyzed. Consumption was associated with sexual aggression in the United States and internationally, among males and females, and in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Associations were stronger for verbal than physical sexual aggression, although both were significant. The general pattern of results suggested that violent content may be an exacerbating factor.
Good! As a former hedonist, I also used to defend pornography with the zealousness of the inquisition - which many of these comments show. Dig beneath the surface, and you'll see the rot. This isn't even speaking of the poor teenagers who have ED in their teen years from destroying their endocrine systems, or being mutiliated by dopamine addiction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/
Meanwhile, you can read the studies showing upticks of sexual violence among children and TEENAGERS assisted by this "freedom" of pornograpy with no limits.
Understanding a Context of Risk: Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse
https://osf.io/kf4uv/download/?format=pdf
One of the most troubling patterns emerging in the research relates to the increasing number of younger children (under the ages of 12-14) involved in perpetrating child sexual assault. Clinical and legal studies are reporting greater numbers of preteen children demonstrating interpersonal problematic sexual behaviors that intrude on the physical space and security of other children (Friedrich et al., 2006; Swisher et al., 2008).
<>
Most relevant to the purpose of this paper is the role of exposure to sexually explicit media as one of the explanatory variables in child sexual abuse. A meta-analysis of 22 studies demonstrates that exposure to pornography, particularly violent pornography, is significantly associated with increased rates of sexual aggression in the general population (Wright et al., 2016). Given that the average age of first exposure to pornography is age 11 (Wolak et al.,
2006), it is important to begin to consider what role, if any, pornography may play in child sexual abuse, particular if perpetrated by children. Several studies have included sexually explicit media as a contributing factor for child-perpetrated sexual abuse.
The Association Between Exposure to Violent Pornography and Teen Dating Violence in Grade 10 High School Students
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751001/
Exposure to pornography in general has been linked with adolescent dating violence and sexual aggression, but less is known about exposure to violent pornography specifically. The current study examined the association of violent pornography exposure with different forms of teen dating violence (TDV) using baseline survey data from a sample of Grade 10 high school students who reported being in a dating relationship in the past year (n = 1694)
A Meta-Analysis of Pornography Consumption and Actual Acts of Sexual Aggression in General Population Studies
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcom.12201
Is pornography consumption correlated with committing actual acts of sexual aggression? 22 studies from 7 different countries were analyzed. Consumption was associated with sexual aggression in the United States and internationally, among males and females, and in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Associations were stronger for verbal than physical sexual aggression, although both were significant. The general pattern of results suggested that violent content may be an exacerbating factor.
Its a bit more global then that, but correct:
Natural Asset Corporations
which is by the largest mega-corps in the world.
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2021/11/natur...
>According to experts, the financial resources needed to protect natural ecosystems face a dramatic shortfall. With the announcement of NACs, the capital markets continue to respond in novel ways, creating financial mechanisms aimed at protecting, restoring and growing natural areas.
Even if the adults are not able to restrict themselves, they are still responsible for the well being of the children who don't know better, at least until they are past the point of reducing cognitive, critical thinking and reading comprehension. A four year old doesn't know better.
Effects of Excessive Screen Time on Neurodevelopment, Learning, Memory, Mental Health, and Neurodegeneration: a Scoping Review
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-019-00182-2Evidence suggests that chronic sensory stimulation via excessive exposure to screen time may affect brain development in negative ways. Excessive smartphone use may increase the risk of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional disorders in adolescents and young adults that also has the potential to increase the risk of early onset dementia in late adulthood.
https://healthmatters.nyp.org/what-does-too-much-screen-time...Early data from a landmark National Institutes of Health (NIH) study that began in 2018 indicates that children who spent more than two hours a day on screen-time activities scored lower on language and thinking tests, and some children with more than seven hours a day of screen time experienced thinning of the brain’s cortex, the area of the brain related to critical thinking and reasoning.
Sure, they won't call it 'brain damage' - just reduced cognitive reasoning and critical thinking.
One thing that I think would be hard to tease out, but would be important to do so, is do these kids have more screen time than usual, because they are harder to handle as children and thus are more likely to have excessive screen time given to them by their parents? Or the parents have less capacity limit this and is overall part of a theme of less parental resources?
1986: Pfizer had to withdraw an artificial heart valve from the market after defects led to it being implicated in over 300 deaths. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew its approval for the product in 1986 and Pfizer agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation after multiple lawsuits were brought against it.
2003: Pfizer has long been condemned for profiteering from AIDS drugs. In 2003 for example, it walked away from a licencing deal for its Rescriptor drug that would have made it cheaper for poorer countries.
2011: Pfizer was forced to pay compensation to families of children killed in the controversial Trovan drug trial. During the worst meningitis epidemic seen in Africa, in 1996, Pfizer ran a trial in Nigeria their new drug Trovan. Five of the 100 children who took Trovan died and it caused liver damage, while it caused lifelong disabilities in those who survived. But another group of 100 children were given the conventional “gold standard” meningitis antibiotic as a “control” group for comparison. Six of them also tragically died because, the families said, Pfizer had given them less than the recommended level of the conventional antibiotic in order to make Trovan look more effective.
2012: Pfizer had to pay around $1billion to settle lawsuits claiming its Prempro drug caused breast cancer. Prempro was used in hormone replacement therapy, usually for women going through the menopause. The settlements came after six years of trials and hardship for the women affected.
2013: Pfizer paid out $273 million to settle over 2,000 cases in the US that accused its smoking treatment drug Chantix of provoking suicidal and homicidal thoughts, self harm and severe psychological disorders. Pfizer was also accused of improperly excluding patients with a history of depression or other mental disturbances from trials for the drug. Later, in 2017, a coroner in Australia ruled that the drug had contributed to a man’s suicide. The man’s mother campaigned to change the label on the drug.
2020: Pfizer reached an agreement with thousands of customers of its depo-testosterone drug in 2018 after they sued it for increasing the likelihood of numerous issues, including heart attacks.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20616621/
Results: Meta-analyses of FDA trials suggest that antidepressants are only marginally efficacious compared to placebos and document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy. These meta-analyses also document a second form of bias in which researchers fail to report the negative results for the pre-specified primary outcome measure submitted to the FDA, while highlighting in published studies positive results from a secondary or even a new measure as though it was their primary measure of interest. The STARD analysis found that the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by the study authors with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase.*