The Guardian is still a better in most regards. However, I think their quality of journalism is gradually declining over the years.

I remember reading somewhere that (especially) Russian disinformation campaigns learned British English. They, pretending to be American anti-vaxxers, spread it to the dialect of the dumbest Americans.

'Jab' is basically a case study in skipped localization.

How much is the jab? If you have United Healthcare, you are not getting jack shit.

There were the cures that worked in theory but did not work in actual cells. There were the cures that worked on mice but did not work on humans. There were the cures that cure cancer but have a higher fatality rate than the cancer. Those cases cover just about every cancer "cure" you read about in the news.

Then there are all the cures that work for some people some of the time. Big pharma has patented them and is selling them for enough money to cover all of the other cures that did not work (and give everyone a very nice bonus).

Seriously, if some phara company could cure cancer, why wouldn't they? They can sell it for 100k per treatment, make enough money for each of the 10 biggest investors to buy a small country, and then close up shop.

Best we can do is "the stab" it's like the jab but much more painful. Oh and it doesn't have medicine in it.

But it relieves all symptoms within minutes. Terms and conditions may apply.

Every moment is valuable

This sounds great, and I'm happy for those who had good results.

But what happened to the other 102-43-28-15 = 16 patients? Because if they all spontaneously combusted after taking the treatment, that might change how you view things...

it doesn't mean vaccine, it just means an injection of any kind - at least in the UK

Here some stuff to read: https://www.huckmag.com/article/pharmanomics-excerpt-big-pharma-hiv-aids-price-gouging-shkreli-who-hub-mrna-abbvie-

I think it's a zombie book called Feed where the zombie apocalypse is brought about by two generically engineered cures, one for the common cold and the other for cancer. The upshot is that there's no more common cold and there's no more cancer, but there is a zombie apocalypse so that's a bit of a downside.

I think the numbers are worse. The 43 includes those with tumors that shrank or disappeared. In otherwords: 43 (shrank and disappeared) = 28 (shrank) + 15 (disappeared).

So what happened to the other 102 - 43 = 59? Still it's roughly 40% chance of improvement when other treatment methods have failed, which I think a lot of people would be willing to take. I'm often skeptical about early results though.

Handguns kill cancer

So long as Will Smith is in it - surely nothing can be bad in a situation as long as he is involved? (/s btw 🤪)

this here - the 43 is is the total.

I assume that the article is supposed to support the point I was making? Most of it is talking about how big pharma invents new medicines and then sells that at a very large profit, which harms people in poor countries who are more likely to need treatments for diseases like HIV but have the hardest time paying for them.

Not even close. The Guardian is way better and the only English (as in England) news source that is independent. It's extremely good.

The UK has always called it a jab and headlines are optimized for length. This sentiment is just US defaultism.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call-vaccinations-jabs

The medical sense of “jab”, meanwhile, has a rather less salubrious origin, as a 1914 dictionary of criminal slang introduces it: “Jab, current amongst morphine and cocaine fiends. A hypodermic injection.”

NYP's equivalent is The Sun.

The medical sense of “jab”, meanwhile, has a rather less salubrious origin, as a 1914 dictionary of criminal slang introduces it: “Jab, current amongst morphine and cocaine fiends. A hypodermic injection.”

—https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call-vaccinations-jabs

It's been a standard Britishism for a century.

But what if there's not a Wendy's in my town?

Yeah, the positi e results suggest it's worth the risk, but they don't say anything about the neutral or negative results.

It might be 40% chance of improvement and.60% chance of death from side-effects

I get the point your making however US media now uses it as well…

And we should just bend over our language just because Americans find it funny?

US media now uses it as well

I don't see that either: https://www.google.com/search?q="jab"&tbm=nws