🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞

Well, kiddo, here’s the thing. I’m already firmly aware of how current vaccines work, and that they target specific viruses and bacteria. So your attempt to bring facts into the conversation was useless for me. I already know them.

And I already know something you don’t: That has nothing to do with what’s presented in this article.

So let me bring the salient part of the article to your attention:

Their approach marks a “radical departure” from the way vaccines have been designed for more than 200 years, they say.

Experts in the field said the study was “really exciting” despite being at an early stage and could be a “major step forward”.

Current vaccines train the body to fight one single infection. A measles vaccine protects against only measles and a chickenpox vaccine protects against only chickenpox.

This is how immunisation has worked since Edward Jenner pioneered vaccines in the late 18th Century.

The approach described in the journal Science does not train the immune system. Instead it mimics the way immune cells communicate with each other.

It is given as a nasal spray and leaves white blood cells in our lungs – called macrophages – on “amber alert” and ready to jump into action no matter what infection tries to get in.

The effect lasted for around three months in animal experiments.

So in other words, IF THIS WORKS, it does not work in the same way that you bring up, meaning your “fact” is USELESS and OFF-TOPIC, and had you spent two minutes of your time BOTHERING to read the article, you would have prevented yourself from looking like a stupid mothingfucking dumbass.

But no. Congrats, you stupid motherfucking dumbass, you not only look stupid, but you were stupidly rude about it on TOP of that.

Wow.

What a spectacular failure.

When you read the article, do let us know if you deign to grace us with more facts. We might honestly find them interesting. But until you do, know that you are WRONG and RUDE and please shut the hell up.

The point is that nothing you said had anything to do with the article, so if you don’t want to fucking read the article before you spout off, it is YOU who should piss off.

That being said, once you do read the article, perhaps I would love to learn what relevant facts you have. But until then, you’re the asshole barging into the coffee shop MAKE ME A COFFEE NOW I DON’T CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE. Yeah, well, there’s a fuckin’ line here, man. Terrible analogy, but the point is that it is you who started off rude by commenting without bothering to read.

I notice that you were told you should read the article WELL before you replied to that person, so you already knew you should have read the article before being rude to them. Wow.

But the way evolution works is “whatever works that keeps the species alive”.

We haven’t evolved reading glasses, but they are helpful devices with very few downsides.

That said, there may well be unintended consequences and effects, sure.

I’m not sure I’d put any truck into fictional sci-fi where everything needs a good story, so any positive needs a negative…

…but I get it. And yeah, it’s a worry.

Either way, letting them know we’re about to strike is stupid, so of course that’s why he can’t keep his trap shut about it.

Can we fucking not.

Also:

“He is spending a lot of time thinking about this,” one source said.

No he fucking is not.

They’re also notoriously terrible build quality.

I will give Tesla credit for one solitary thing: They did help jumpstart electrics. Help. Not cause.

But that has been picked up by real car manufacturers, who just need more encouragement to continue to increase numbers, along with infrastructure projects to bring more charging stations to more places. A critical area would be for installations in places like apartment parking lots and various public parking lots (i.e. paid parking but I mean shopping lots)

Pedo nazis are trying to take over the U.S.

Alas, not sure about “trying”, but yes.

Your point is that progressives in america aren’t progressives because progressives in other countries are more progressive?

No. As I stated, the “radical left” in the US is not radical.

Anyway, we’re not gonna agree on this, which is fine. I’m not forcing you to. I hadn’t felt you addressed my points, but this time around you did seem to do so, so I still want you to have a lovely day. :)

Seems like you wish to ignore all of my points.

Fair enough.

Have a lovely day.

Precisely. As a progressive, what I want is generally considered pretty normal and basic in any of the other 32 OECD (“developed”) countries.

There are a few that would be “radical”, but they are a tiny minority.

Tell ya what, though, after putting up with fascist bullshit all my life, while I just want basic freedom and a social safety net, I’m willing to listen to these “radical” left. Certainly the regressive right has done fuck all for us.

There is nothing radical about progressives in the US. As a progressive… we are centrist in most of the other 32 OECD (“developed”) countries.

Radical left would start with things like no private property, ownership of everything by all, things like that.

So no, friend, I’m not changing the meaning of anything. Calling progressives in the US “radical” is already changing the meaning and wussing out on what actual radical change would be.

And, of course, they are turning this into a political case.

Because climate change has accelerated the process, and because regressives deny climate change, it became political.

On the other hand, climate change does also accelerate the process, so it might’ve lasted a lot longer.

Jason figured it out? Jason? Well, this is a new low. Yeah, this one hurts.

Denotation ignores connotation, and in the US, “radical left” has specific meaning, especially to nazis.

Stunning ignorance on display here.