teef

i apprecaite it, but i'm not sure what would happen. would he watch and episode, quietly walk up stairs to his room, only to return in full on drag?

i have a 7 yr old. i would have no idea this show even existed if you hadn't pointed it out.

this thread is angry.

We just got back. It was hot as a ***** in there.

i also don't recall any A, and we take note on what antibiotics and other therapeutics we give to women in pregnancy, as well as trying to do any emergent treatment in the second trimester. it's all risk benefit. my wife has a friend who has an extremely hard time with anxiety and depression. she needs the meds, and there was a big conversation as to whether or not she needed to be off or could be off while pregnant. that's a tough decision to work through. she ended up staying on them while pregnant, and her kids are healthy and happy fortunately. smart.

yeah. it would be awful for the president to actually be a decent leader and try to fix what's going on. you know...like his job. to keep this level of divide really is what's best for him. he feeds into a certain group of his followers who completely eat it up because this nonsense team based politics. if i ever hear either side use the phrases: trolling, owning, fafo, etc, i know exactly the type of person i'm dealing with. on top of that, whether or anyone wants to admit this...a ton of this is trumps doing.

nice work.

anyone that think the president trolling anyone is a good thing is a ***** moron. there's a lot to fix so maybe he should just be doing his job than trolling a side. god forbid the guy is a unifier in any way.

lol! and what do you think this post proves? pregnant women shouldn't take anything they don't have to during pregnancy. this isn't new news. trying to link tylenol to autism is. this post is nothing.

bud...i've never said anything like that. i'm not somone who comment on the evil media ever. let me explain that posobiec comment. for days we all watched posters justify that kimmel being off the air wasn't about trump, but was rather about ratings. He was losing money, he didn't have the viewship, etc, but it certainly wasn't due to the president, (the fact that our president is sparing with a late night host is ***** wild to begin with). well, as it became pretty apparent that trump was involved, you bailed on first excuse, and went to the next excuse that it was all a liberal conspiracy in the first place. do you not see the mental gymnastics there? instead of sitting back and just realizing it was more than likely due to trump, you'll defend every criticism with the greatest boogie man you have...the left!! that was my only point. people have shut of any ration thought and just blindly go with their side.

do you see me thumping the table for this nonsense in either direction. yesterday you posted that kimmel being taken off the air was just a liberal ploy to distract from kirk. do you believe that ?

no...i won't. it doesn't work that way for everyone. the idea that people have to pick as side an defend it without reason is why we're all in the situation we have now. one of the biggest problems with trump is that he absolutely refuses to be a unifier in any way. why? it's in his best interest not to.

some people can definitely have the conversation, but this is what happens when the president gets involved with new like this. it becomes political. posters on this side are a bit different. it's pretty obvious people will follow one side without any critical thought. every conspiracy, as long as it proves their point, becomes a reality. when people just sit and consume whatever comes across their feed, they tend to get a bit lost.

topic on hand bro..

so we can't have any conversation about medical that doesn't involve covid. got it. and who cares what this tweet says. i was commenting on your post from earlier when you were so quick to agree with a completely ridiculous premise about kimmel being a liberal conspiracy. the other day a poster on here made the comment, "this is not about right and left...this is about good and evil!" like...what the *****. maybe, just maybe this has all gotten a bit to extreme. that's all i'm saying. do people here needlessly attack trump? yes. are there trump followers that will completely agree with anything they're told as long as it fits their agenda? yes. just because one side did bad doesn't mean the other has to get back. that's all this is right now is a pissing match, and intelligence has gone out the window long ago.

no...covid is an excuse for people like you who don't want to have a reasonable conversation about the topic at hand. vaccines are a completely different conversation. here were talking about a wildly common drug that has been used by pregnant women for decades without concern. if there's need for concern, review the data, but for the president, (i really don't know why he's involved in this info) starts making claims, many are not savvy enough to determine who to take it. listen...in my mind there are two type of people who voted from trump. there's a group that just could not pick harris for many reasons, and the other group are his disciples who just agree with anything that come out of that administration. guess what group you fall in. take the kimmel nosense. who ***** cares? you do. you continually found any way to show that kimmel should be on the air, whether it be he was losing money or didn't have the ratings...no because there was pressure. ok. fine. now that guy is back on the air, and the mental gymnastics are amazing. you were agreeing with a tweet this morning that it was actually a democratic move all along to distract from charlie kirk? i mean are you serious? is there any common sense rather than just siding with your guy? not at all. no critical thought...just defending trump.

uhhh...couldn't this be twisted back around on you. weren't people pooping all over harvard a few months ago, and now they suddenly believe what comes out of that school?

who the ***** is talking about covid. we're talking whether there's an actual link between tyelnol use in pregnant women and autism. you can actually contribute to the conversation or pull this nonsense again. it's typical.

i agree. pregnant women really shouldn't take anything the absolutely don't need, but this has been the case now for as long as i can remember. i agree about trump, but he's not just a regular citizen. his words go a lot farther for some people than others, and we all know there are going to be people out there who are drawing immediate conclusions without any real knowledge. it can be dangerous, but i agree that this hopefully and more than likely won't change much.

it sure was. go back and read...and not to get caught up about harvard. there's something very strange about how this admin is going about health care, ( and i'm sure not suggesting covid was handled the correct way) but the cdc director who trump appointed was fired. shortly there after a hand full of higher ups walked off in protest. doesn't this raise an eyebrow to you at all? jfk is not wrong on everything, but i'd trust any proven medical association before i trusted him.

snark? i was being serious. a few months ago a certain group was blasting anything that came out of harvard, and now that same school should cause us to be concerned. i'm always concerned about new health info, so if it needs to be looked at so be it. that being said...nothing is new. physicians across all specialties are blasting the news as having no real foundation.

so harvard is ok now? interesting. i'm always for looking into if there's any real correlation or not, but i'm going to go with the recommendations the academy of obstretrics , academy of peds, etc who haven't backed this at all. it it worth looking into? sure. do i think it's anything at all other than confusing some people? yup. but as far as i know, there's no new evidence that makes this conclusion. if i'm receiving this important info, i want to hear if from clinicians that deliver treatment every day and have actual background on the info. i think it's more than just changing the label. i've already seen post or parents saying it all makes sense now. no it doesn't.

of course there is. people just need to make their own risk/benefit if certain medications or chemicals are worth any potential risk. i do agree with certain points that jfk had. he feels that a lot of our public health concerns have to do with processed foods, plastics, dyes, etc, and i'm totally on board with that. we're not perfect in our family, but we do try to limit that as much as possible. when it comes to linking tylenol to autism i'm out. i haven't found anything new and necessary to make that claim, so i would really like to know why this is an issue suddenly.

my question is why now? is there new evidence that shows there is a possible link? it's been the standard for pregnant women for 20 years so what's changed?

what? i was just referring to how you know thought this was yet another conspiracy.