Such things are investigated before they are released, that's the whole point. Thinking that some corporation sticks fish genes into tomatoes and then just gets to sow that wherever they want with no investigation whatsoever is frankly delusional.
The best scientific evidence we have suggests moderate consumption of alcohol protects the heart.
From the Harvard School of Public Health:
> More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between light to moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes. [20] The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25-40% reduction in risk.
Pardon, I'm perplexed here. When you say this is propaganda, what I take that to mean is that it's framed to serve a certain agenda at the expense of the truth, that is, that it isn't merely erroneous but that it is manipulative to serve a certain interest. Do you mean something different than that? If not, what agenda do you propose is served by this? Cui bono?
I don't know what the truth is here, and the article you cited doesn't have a date on it, but the sources it cites are pretty old - flipping through them, the most recent seems to be 2017. The source that's cited in that quote you posted is 20 years old. Nutrition is a notoriously difficult field to study. It's easier for me to believe that the consensus has shifted, and is perhaps not yet stable, than that there is an organization which stands to benefit from people believing alcohol is a modicum more harmful than it is.
Source protection is when journalists (including heads of international organizations engaged in journalism) protect the sources of their information that enables said journalism.
A "journalistic courtesy" that people like you would make illegal so as to shutdown journalism that goes against your agenda.
Hmm, I think the government scientists who've been front and centre on UK news have been peddling a politically perverted message. So perhaps we can trust their peer-reviewed output, but the "masks are useless" and "closing schools won't reduce infection transmission" messages came from scientists. Scientists are still human, and still will push their ideals and beliefs ahead of scientific non-falsehood.
Also, epidemiology is an interesting one. As in all public health there are balances, but moreso here. Often anti-antivax people will claim "vaccines are entirely safe" which is unscientific. Their goals are noble, but they discredit themselves because data on negative outcomes is pretty easy to come by. The temptation is the same, public health is served by convincing people to take certain actions (eg not buy masks, because they're needed by healthcare workers). Sometimes these actions are contrary to individual needs. Governments will need to tell people to do things that are against those people's best interests ("don't seek medical care") because those actions preserve the population. Epidemiology is about preserving populations, not about keeping individuals healthy. That means there's always a tension, and I don't think _one_ can trust epidemiologists, but _we_ can trust them in general.
Would you like to save lives? Would you lie, knowing 100,000s would die ... because there was a high probability that it could save millions, but also a possibility that the deaths wouldn't help, or wouldn't be necessary?
The epidemiologists seem to have earned our trust so far. The countries that have made competent attempts to follow their advice (S. Korea, NZ, Australia) are doing way better than those that haven't (the UK, US, Sweden).
(Unless you were thinking that they should be able to "protect us" without cooperation from their governments, but I'm having trouble seeing how that works)
My point is that so-called "fact checking" here was incorrect.
> Dr. Ho Pak-leung, a microbiologist and director of the Centre for Infection at the University of Hong Kong, described the video in the misleading post as “fake news” in an email to AFP on January 30.
In a mask shortage the question of whether masks can be sterilized and reused should never have been dismissed out of hand.
We have medical professionals working without masks as we speak due to the shortage.
Many of our trusted experts have been feeding us misinformation exacerbating the problem.
"The mean estimate of R0 for the 2019-nCoV ranges from 3.30 (95%CI: 2.73-3.96) to 5.47 (95%CI: 4.16-7.10), and significantly larger than 1. Our findings indicate the potential of 2019-nCoV to cause outbreaks."
