台灣知名台派精神科醫師分析：蔡英文是病了，還是壞？
http://taiwanus.net/news/press/2021/202109211921381871.htm
林進嘉觀點：蔡英文是個怎麼樣的人？
有人說，在台灣參加過選舉的人，好像被剝了一層皮，祖宗八代都會被挖出來。但是蔡英文似乎是一個異數。
蔡英文給人的印象：「出身富裕家庭、台大畢業、留學英美、英國倫敦政經學院博士、政大教授、國際法學者」。也因為這樣，當2019年6月11日民報刊登曹長青一篇「蔡英文的博士學位是否造假」時，相信很多人跟我一樣，「打死，也不相信」。這不是因為蔡英文有多好，而是不相信世界上會有這樣大膽無恥的人！

其實，蔡英文的博士、論文造假疑雲，早在2015年選舉時就已被提出來過。只是，當時媒體報導很少，大家也都認為那一定是選舉抹黑。因為，如果是「野雞大學、選議員」，或許有可能；但蔡英文牽涉的是「倫敦政經學院、政大教授，而且是選總統呢」，怎麼可能會有這種烏龍？那是絕絕絕…絕對不可能！

在曹長青質疑蔡英文沒有博士論文的文章之後，同年六月蔡英文偷偷傳真了一本「博士」論文，在英國LSE婦女圖書館出現。隨後，林環牆教授在2019年8月6日親自去翻閱，並在8月27日發表轟動全台的獨立調查報告，「蔡英文博士論文與學位證書的真偽」。林教授的結論是，蔡英文頂多是「完成論文初稿，但未通過博士口試」的博士候選人而已。

接著，徐永泰博士在「四不一沒有」的嚴格限制下（「四不一沒有」：LSE聲明，這是根據作者的要求，不可以影印內容或用手機拍照其他部分，不可以帶鋼筆、原子筆，不可以帶水進去，也不可以帶手機錄音等，只可以閱讀和用鉛筆抄寫筆記，其他一概禁止。若需中途離開，需先交回論文，回來後再與館員一起拿出論文），於9月13日跟進至英國LSE婦女圖書館閱讀蔡的論文後，發表「蔡英文論文讀後感」指出，該本論文格式錯誤百出，竟有六頁缺漏，還出現了1990年代才有的電腦排版方式「微軟字間字句自動調整系統」，且該論文每個章節都有各自的小結論，但卻沒有最後的總結，比較像是一篇一篇的小文章、學術報告集結而成（這一點，童文薰律師在比對蔡英文國圖版英文論文，跟蔡發表在國內期刊的中文升等著作，發現後者幾乎是前者部分章節的英翻中，得到證實）。至此，蔡英文沒有博士論文已成定局。

雖然大選後，有關蔡英文的論文門報導變少了，但在彭文正、林環牆、賀德芬等人努力追查下，英國資訊委員會（UK Information Commissioner's office，ICO）竟同意倫敦大學不公開蔡的口試委員名單，因為公布了會造成當事人的傷害和痛苦（Disclosing this information would cause that individual a degree of damage or distress）。今年九月教育部公布蔡英文的「國立政治大學教師資格審查履歷表」，蔡英文自填的博士論文題目是「Law of Subsidies Dumping and Market Safeguards」，跟蔡英文號稱取得「博士」學位的論文（放在LSE婦女圖書館和台灣國圖）題目，「Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Actions」完全不同。逼得總統府發言人特別聲明，履歷表填的論文題目是「博士」論文的Part Two。這又是另一個謊話：沒有人在申請教職時不填博士論文題目，只填第二部的題目。那只證明一點：當時申請政大教職時蔡英文根本沒有博士論文。

再加上，在蔡號稱取得博士學位（1984年3月）之前一年，蔡英文在1983年6月；1983年12月在「政大法學評論」刊登的文章，都已自己署名倫敦政經學院國際經濟法博士。1983年10月，在聯合報發表文章，也是自稱國際經濟法博士。蔡英文自27歲起即以假博士招搖撞騙，是毫無疑問的了。
這真是一件可怕的事。
27歲的你我，誰敢跟蔡英文一樣，沒有博士，卻在投稿的期刊、報紙四處謊稱博士，並在國立大學求職信上公然杜撰博士論文題目嗎？一個27歲，初入社會的新鮮人，為何會如此膽大包天？為何敢說謊成性？是爸爸有錢？可是有錢人子弟也很多，誰會這樣？還是爸爸有強大的黨國關係？可是有黨國關係的人也不少，誰這麼敢？而且，蔡英文說謊，不是只有27歲時假稱博士那一次而已。

我曾於2019年12月9日在某報發表一篇「小英說謊記」，敘述蔡英文親口說的謊話，摘要如下，

一、紐約辦事處大樓購買、啟用期間（2004/2005），蔡英文是不分區立委。但2019年8月17日，蔡英文在台中開講，「紐約辦事處…我們買了以後，現在已經漲了好幾倍，那你要說誰有那麼樣的願景呢？我告訴你，就是我啦，我在做行政院副院長的時候」。蔡英文講這段話時，眉飛色舞、得意洋洋。後來被阿扁打臉後，8月26日才在臉書表示記錯了。

二、2011年出版的《洋蔥炒蛋到小英便當》的口述提到，「初到康乃爾時，記得開學不久，有一次上『國際公法』的課程時，我被老師點名站起來：『妳來自那裡？』『那你們將來要跟中國怎麼辦？』…『嗯……』向來對隨堂抽問有問必答的我，剎那間腦袋裡竟然一片空白。…老師看出了我的猶豫。他很體貼、也很嚴肅地說：『這個問題沒有理所當然的答案。妳應該要花更多時間好好觀察、好好想想！』」

2019年9月20日「社群之夜」，蔡英文：「我到康乃爾大學法學院，去的時候，這個系主任就告訴我，就見我，看到台灣的學生他覺得很新鮮，他就問我說，『你是台灣來的？』，『那你們以後跟中國怎麼辦呢？』，我想了一想，我說『我們政府說我們要統一啊』，我們這個老師看著我說，『你真的要來唸康乃爾大學的法學院嗎？』……這個老師叫什麼名字呢？因為他已經過世了，我可以跟各位講，他的名字叫Barceló」。三天後，彭文正博士收到Barceló教授的電子信件！九天後蔡連任辦公室發言人表示經查證係口誤。

三、2019年9月18日徐永泰博士報告，政經學院的蔡論文有一書面的作者要求，「四不一沒有」的閱讀限制。

隔天記者問，為什麼論文的閱讀要有很多的限制。蔡：「這個我不知道，這個我也想去了解一下」。再問：「他們說是妳訂的」。蔡：「那當然不是我訂的」。問：「他們說是你要求的」。蔡：「不會是吧？」

四、2019年11月28日立法院公聽會，嚴震生教授指出，在國圖的「博士」論文有444個拼字錯誤。隔天蔡為解釋錯字太多，說：「35、36年前的論文了，那時候的打字都是用傳統的打字機，有打字的錯誤，其實也是在所難免」。

但，2011年，蔡在民主沙龍座談時親口說：（我的論文，）「尤其是你打字校稿整整花了一個月，因為那個年代我們還是可以用電腦打，然後用printer印出來。」

五、2011年民主沙龍，蔡說「你檢查了你的論文一個月以後，把論文交出去之後的那一剎那，我就覺得說我不要再考試了。……可是後來我爸爸說，你畢竟是學法律的，應該去考一張執照吧。…我又開始了我的考試生涯，我又去考了紐約的執照，考完以後……我又去考了台灣的執照。那兩張的執照就一直掛在我家的牆上。…我的考試生涯就結束了，那就開始我的教書生涯」。

其實，蔡英文的紐約律師是1987年登錄的，根本不是自稱倫敦政經畢業後（1984）先去考、再回台教書。至於蔡的台灣律師更是在1996年才通過檢覈取得，根本不是考試取得！

再加上蔡英文在《洋蔥炒蛋到小英便當》一書中，說明姊姊蔡英玲陪她去倫敦參加博士口試的照片，後來被網友比對出，背景是波士頓的教堂。以及最新出爐的謊言，日前賀德芬老師公布的，蔡英文的「國立政治大學教師資格審查履歷表」，蔡英文自填的博士論文題目，跟蔡英文號稱取得博士學位的論文題目，不一樣。事實上，這題目也跟蔡英文於2011年在各大學（開南大學、交通大學、彰師大、靜宜大學）演講，侃侃而談介紹自己的「博士」論文題目「Safeguarding Domestic Market」又不一樣。更是跟2011年10月出版的「小英便當與洋蔥炒蛋」一書的論文題目（「Unfair Trade Practices and Selfguard for Domestc Market」）不同！怎麼有人連自己博士論文題目都會連續講錯、寫錯？

一個人可以在公開場合，口沫橫飛，神采飛揚，說謊，而且不止一次，不怕被抓包，也不怕這些場合可是都有錄音錄影。一個人可以在求職履歷表上謊稱博士，一騙近四十年，也不怕東窗事發。這可能有兩種狀況。一種是壞：她知道自己在說謊。就是愛說謊，隨口呼攏，說謊可以得到利益；另一種是病了：其實她不知道自己是在說謊。

在精神醫學有一少見的精神病理現象，英文叫Pseudologia fantastica（有人翻成「謊話幻想」），又名pathological lying（可翻成「病態性說謊」）。精神醫學教科書是這樣描述的：「有限的事實，混合了大量、生動的幻想。聽者的興趣使當事人很高興，於是又更強化了本症狀。這些症狀不僅是事實的扭曲，有時還會偽造一些自相矛盾的過去生活，如聲稱父母已死，博取同情」。另也有這樣的描述；「流利、似是而非的說謊，通常是浮誇、極端事物的不真實敘述。這些敘述隱隱約約被當事人相信是真的」。但本現象不是妄想，因為如果有人找出事實來質疑時，當事人還是會承認錯誤。又，他們說謊，主要不一定為了得到實質利益或逃避責任，而是為了滿足內心某種需求，或許從中可提升自尊與自信。

我曾經一度以為，蔡英文會不會是後者，病了。如果是，我認為我們應該包容她，並給予治療。但蔡英文，博士未完成，帶著博士班筆記回國，將該筆記依章節分次翻成中文投稿期刊，署名倫敦政經學院國際經濟法博士；進政大教書，繼續把該筆記依章節分次翻成中文投稿期刊，藉以升等副教授、教授。這位法律學者教授，終其一生，除了將博士班筆記翻成中文外，沒有其他著作發表。所以就說謊的本質，蔡每次說謊都是為了得到利益或逃避責任，而且還運用各種方法去遮掩謊話，如放在LSE的論文不讓人影印、引用，把教職升等資料封存至2049年。由此觀之，蔡英文應該是壞、不是病。

有人一定會說，當總統又不一定要有博士學位？當然沒錯。問題是，我們談論的不是「總統有沒有博士學位」，而是「讓學術詐欺、說謊成性的人當總統，對我們社會及下一代的教育意義是什麼？」

＊作者為精神科醫師。

——原載台灣《風傳媒》網刊 2021年9月21日
https://www.storm.mg/article/3947891?mode=whole

今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓，題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿：

It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:

//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.

Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…

In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.

Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.

Thank you very much!//

Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!

Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity

“为什么他有，我没有！哼，每次都酱的！”
说的就是你吧！分享给我们一个你小时候觉得很不公平的经历！

“Why jiejie/ korkor have this then I don’t have?? Always like that de lo. Unfair”
😤Share with us on of the most memorable fight (unfair treatment) u had with your siblings!

Watch how Zijie bullies a 3 year old boy at meWATCH now!
http://bit.ly/TryMe_Ep4_NOC

#星尝试 #tryme #sugarmelonshow #衰哥霉人 #综艺节目 #綜藝節目 #中文 #搞笑

這個Baldi實在是太不公平啦!!!
跳繩，被捉通通都要100下
神經病哦!!說好的公平公正呢!!!

▶每天都會有新影片! 歡迎大家訂閱我!!☛https://goo.gl/k5ySNC
▶最新精華播放清單☛https://goo.gl/H9z7cd

#恐怖遊戲 #光頭老師

原版遊戲鏈接： https://mystman12.itch.io/baldis-basics
不公平模組：https://gamebanana.com/maps/202268
熊熊三賤客：https://gamebanana.com/gamefiles/7378

Facebook☛https://www.facebook.com/Forest0
Twitter☛https://twitter.com/Forest_Zer0

喜歡這部影片的話可以按個喜歡，並且幫我分享
想要看更多的話可以訂閱哦
有任何意見都可以在底下留言
我會努力下去的!!

上集說了fair和just兩個正面的形容詞，是公平、公正的意思。這次談談兩字的相反詞：unfair和unjust。這兩個字都是貶義的；說一個人unfair，就是指他待人處事不公平；說一件事unjust，除了指該事不公平之外，還有指它違反了公義原則的意思。 不公平解僱是unfair

終於出返中文片啦！In this video I show you how to identify someone with a fake following and engagement. There are many websites out there to help identify someone who is 'committing fraud' too, and I think this is important because it is unfair on many hard working content creators who see people who buy followers and engagement get the same opportunities, and getting paid because of their fraudulent profiles.


The website I mentioned (not sponsored): http://socialblade.com

Thank you so much for watching, before you go don't forget to SUBSCRIBE and turn on post notifications! #realhomies ❤
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••­­­•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
?Subscribe la: http://bit.ly/2CyRmAv
?Chinese Channel: http://bit.ly/2FQpo5i
?More videos on Facebook: http://facebook.com/JLouOfficial/
?Instagram: http://instagram.com/jlouofficial
?Snapchat: JLouSnaps