No, you didn't make it up. You didn't understand it, because you're an idiot.
You left out "Based on a growing body of preliminary research, because, as a right-winger, you're inherently a liar.
It is impossible to have a scientific consensus from preliminary research.
If you've found an error on the WHO website then good for you, but it wouldn't have happened through , because you're a blithering idiot.
I'm disappointed that you haven't embarked on your trademark stupidity of referencing the opposite of your point.
As the scientific community works to establish a relationship between the Zika virus and microcephaly, the separate medical community can conclude that the two are associated (or accompanied) enough for a public warning, prior to a scientific consensus. But this can only occur after certain scientific criteria (not criteria for a causative link) is established, which is due process.
Amateurs who have no idea would say that when such a public announcement is made, the medical community is "waking up" when the criteria required was always present, known exclusively by fear-driven idiotic right-wingers. But then, they wouldn't be complete tards if they didn't.
Wow, you say nothing, yet you think you have.
The hallmark of someone who has no clue.
"Based on research, there is scientific consensus that Zika virus is a cause of [not accompanied by] microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome.""Scare America Stupid: Republican Fear Mongering"
This could only have been produced by someone that has no clue.
"....even WHO says there's a consensus on this in the scientific community"
Not true. False statements are your specialty. Here your error comes from the already established fact that you can't distinguish between scientific and medical communities.
"...the medical community is part of the scientific community"
There is a small component that is a combination, but they are separate. You stupid amateur.
Medical communities don't need a scientific consensus to report a public concern. Your idiocy is summed up by the fact that even if a scientific consensus is eventually reached, where a relationship on said matter is established, this won't influence the spread of the disease, which is the concern of WHO, where so many Olympians are entering into an "infection zone".
Its important for your rightwinged idiocy to attempt to contradict experts. Thats why you constantly demonstrate complete tardism.
You should have your own theme tune....Jethro Tull's 'Thick as a Brick'.
BTW, this proof of your idiocy was posted quite some time ago. But that won;t stop you, because you're an idiot.
You blithering idiot.
baby steps..."accompanied" not causation.
Its very simple, but way over your head, as demonstrated by you inability to distinguish between the medical and scientific communities.
Before you make another mistake, the CDC report is not proof of a causative link between Zika and microcephaly.
"The report notes that no single piece of evidence provides conclusive proof that Zika virus infection is a cause of microcephaly and other fetal brain defects. Rather, increasing evidence from a number of recently published studies and a careful evaluation using established scientific criteria supports the authors’ conclusions."
Being a climate dummy, you won't know what that means. Nor will you understand its relevance to the WHO's recommendation.
You're so dumb you'd vote for Bush, twice.
I did not use correlation at all. Even if I did, there is still no "relationship", which in scientific terms requires some form of causality.
You are misinformation personified.
WHO has rejected a call to move or postpone the Olympics over the Zika outbreak.because it would "not significantly alter" the spread of the virus.
Their decision is based on evidence. Very much unlike the assumed rubbish arising from amateurs who's idiocy-base, rightwing-induced fear that is disseminated on the yahoo finance C message board.
Rightwingers love those peripheral looney tunes from vocations they know nothing about.
You idiot. First you said medical community, now you say scientific community, incorrectly. The scientific community, which the WHO sources says the opposite to what your suggesting, because you're an intellectual pipsqueak.
You're an professional ill-informed amateur, and a complete tard.
The scientific community has not yet establish a relationship between the Zika virus epidemic and fetal microcephaly. In consequence, the World Health Organization has rejected a call to move or postpone this summer's Rio Olympic Games over the Zika outbreak.
There seems no limit to the subjects on which you are prepared to demonstrated your blithering idiocy.
"So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media" (and regurgitated here by the climate dummy) ", anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely."
Prof. Dr. Bjorn Stevens
Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie
This is not the only related case of such repeated stupidity.
You're more dense than a tard.
Was it twice or 3 times you used a reference who's author said exactly the opposite to your point?
A really dumb person would do it once, but multiple times? You gotta be dense beyond imagination to do that.
You did that in the leading post, as a complete tard would do.
I see you've received your regular dose of righwing hypocrisy. Good for you.
Seems none of the bright sparks on this board can, or are willing to, answer your question.
"Insurance companies obviously made it impossible to have the free market operate with full disclosure of what is available."
Isn't the concealment by the insurance companies part of the operation of free markets? Or are you advocating government control to force full disclosure?
"You don’t even have to look into the details of how this became law. It is obvious that health insurers, in particular, paid for this."
No. Don't look into the details.
This specific instruction is so that you won't discover the absence of evidence that insurance companies "paid for this".
.....why are the defendants in Michael Mann's defamation lawsuit trying to nullify the case?
Surely the opportunity to expose this huge conspiracy within an eminent judicial setting would be taken fervently.