DC Tom

Do people like their coffee aged 20 years?

I even explained it, you asshat. You have to REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE first. That's why the qualification of "sitting" is there. It's not a difficult concept.

An allergic reaction to what? An attenuated virus? A live virus? Or the gelatin used as a stabilizer? You sensitive to any brands of cosmetics at all? All vaccines carry a risk of allergic reaction...because of how they're made. It's why there's always epinephrine nearby (whether you see it or not) whenever you get a shot.

Pretty convinced that if Chucklehead is worried about it, then it's not a problem.

This sign brought to you by the CEO of Home Depot. I'm sure AOC gives a ***** what he thinks.

Flu shots make me miserable - yes, they make you sick, because as I say above they provoke an immune response, and many of the symptoms of "being sick" are actually symptoms of the immune response to an infection. So I'm always sick for a few days afterwards. But I don't complain. Because I've had the flu. And getting sick from the vaccination is absolutely nothing like actually having the flu. I'd rather have a mild fever and runny nose for two days than feel like hot death for a solid month. Same thing with a tetanus booster. I get one every eight years (because of my wood shop). That will put me flat on my back - literally - for 24 hours. But it beats the ***** out of tetanus. Which is also why anti-vaxxers are true morons: pathetic risk management. "But the MMR vaccine means my little snowflake has a one in 70 chance of developing autism!" Well...okay, but NOT getting the vaccine means your little snowflake has a 1 in 30 chance of never getting autism because they're DEAD. Do the math.

Still mostly bull####. Allergic reactions are usually due to the vaccine media, not the vaccine (similar to how snake antivenin will save most, but kill some allergic to the horse-based serum), "don't work" usually means "not enough time to develop antibodies" or "too much time passed since the vaccination," "bring on the disease" usually means "causes an immune reaction like it's supposed to." (One of my favorite arguments to have with nurses: if all the symptoms of being "sick" with a virus are immunological responses, then doesn't the vaccine indeed make you sick by triggering that same immune response? Nurses hate me.) Actual reported cases of serious side effects are usually 1 in 20,000 or greater, depending on the vaccine (flu is about 1 in 250,000, DTaP about one in 15,000.) Mild side effects are almost certainly overreported because they're so often self-reported through VAERS by idiots who don't understand correlation isn't causation (or who don't understand that "soreness at the site of the injection" isn't a side-effect, it's a feature of having a frickin' needle stuck in your arm, you morons.) I'd be perfectly fine with people opting out of vaccinations, on the principle of "If you're going to be that stupid, you've earned the right to suffer." But I also understand that purpose of vaccines isn't to prevent illness, it's to prevent epidemics by attenuating transmission, so that sort of attitude would in fact be more dangerously anti-vaccine than your average anti-vaxxer.

It's not really. A lot of the "other crap that gets bundled with vaccines" has been taken out of vaccines because of the complaints of the anti-vaxxers.

They are now...

I can think of some people who would embraces 2 and 4.

Apparently there's a new one, that says something along the lines of "Since vaccines by definition cause an immune response, which includes an inflammatory reaction, there's a theoretical possibility - that has never been observed, mind you - that someone might have received some cerebral effects from a shot once." Which the anti-vaxxer crowd immediately jumped on with the Batman-v-Superman-esque observation of "If there's even a one percent chance we have to treat it as an absolute certainty!" Because when you're interpreting a bulk statistical probability of risk, you really want to be guided by Ben Affleck's awkward performance in the DCU.

Doesn't matter. She appeals inside the DNC. And they mistakenly believe what appeals to them in their little bubble should appeal to everyone, and those that don't find her appealing can be ignored for being racist misogynistic deplorables only suitable for reeducation. The Democrats have learned nothing from losing to Trump. They can't even put a tenth the energy the expend in outrage in to introspection.

We used to have at least one moron here who wasn't just an anti-vaxxer, but was a hopeopathic vaxxer. He insisted the most effective flu vaccine was the homeopathic pills he used, which demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of homeopathy, vaccination, the flu, the human body, and reality in general. It was actually rather amazing.

There actually aren't. CO2 has a several-centuries span of persistence in the atmosphere (compare to methane, which has a much stronger greenhouse effect but persists for a decade, or water vapor, which is stronger but persists for days). If we killed all the farting cows now, methane levels drop by 2030. If we stop all CO2 production now, CO2 levels drop by 2200. The planet cooks until then. Basically, climate change politics is bull#### because while every plan is still about stopping or reversing global warming, we're well past the point of reversing it. We needed to shift thinking from prevention to remediation of effects about 30 years ago.

Because nobody ever asked the Duke Lacrosse players about the rape accusation against them ever again.