Favorite team:USA 
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:39734
Registered on:5/4/2005
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message

re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.

Posted by crazy4lsu on 4/14/26 at 7:21 pm to
That was actually a really astute observation on your part.

re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.

Posted by crazy4lsu on 4/14/26 at 7:06 pm to
quote:

So I ask again, can you not see how this attitude constitutes a net negative for your profession overall?



Yes I can see your viewpoint, but in the same sense, I see this anti-vaccine rhetoric as a net negative for everyone. I've yet to see any rhetorical strategy that actually is persuasive and in truth, such a strategy is probably beyond my ability to employ.

quote:

I bet you're an alcoholic, aren't you?



Lol. I used to be. 11 years sober now.

re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.

Posted by crazy4lsu on 4/14/26 at 6:57 pm to
quote:

But I ask again, do you have this same flippant and disrespectful attitude with your actual patients?



Of course not. Like I said, what generally gets the most engagement on this forum is me being a drive-by a-hole.

re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.

Posted by crazy4lsu on 4/14/26 at 6:49 pm to
quote:

Is there any need to go here? Do you not see that shite like this can only hurt your (the medical industry) cause?



Sure, I can see how one would think that. But why can't I just be my own person, not representative of the profession, but someone who is deeply frustrated at the inability for the actual boring science to penetrate anti-vaccine rhetoric? I can recite the science in great detail, but what obviously persuades me will not persuade others. The conundrum is that in this situation, you can perceive how my rhetoric can be harmful to the profession and in the same instance, I can perceive how harmful the rhetoric is to the profession and to the public. What moves me is that fact. I've written pages and pages on immunology, plenty of posts where I don't use any pejoratives and I don't think those posts have moved anyone, certainly not the skeptics. What, unfortunately, does tend to get engagement is the drive-by posts I do when I'm usually walking somewhere and want to be on my phone like everyone else. :lol:

re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.

Posted by crazy4lsu on 4/14/26 at 5:56 pm to
quote:

Now Crazy admonishes any study whose data doesn’t favor the vaccinated group as anti-vax and propagated by those groups.


Buddy, you want me to clear my schedule so I can teach you immunology?
quote:

Budapest is one of the last great places in Europe and the globalists here and in Europe have been targeting it for quite some time, for years.


Man, the game was over as soon as they joined PHARE. It is nonsensical to talk about this with respect to a country that was already in the EU.
quote:

You expect Hungary to give up $40 billion plus the exit fee, rather than expect to be treated as a member state of the EU?


You realize that the EU has been funding Hungary's transition to the EU since 1989, right? And that those funds they withheld from the country are due to repeated violations of EU law which the Hungarians themselves agreed to. You are acting like Hungary (or rather Orban) is some innocent victim. He isn't.
quote:

To lose their militaries in about 3 - 4 days when Kurds ask for our help.


Lol. The Turks have consistently gotten their way with respect to the Kurds. Turkey's geopolitical position is more important than the Kurds, unfortunately.
quote:

This shite again



Yep. You slinked away last time and I'll expect you will do the same today.
Hey bud, if Hungary didn't want to be subject to the EU's rules, then they had every chance to leave the voluntary economic and political union.

quote:

The EU Commissioner comes out and says she's actually going to centralize voting power to cut out EU members like Hungary anyway.


Good. It's pointless for a union to give so much power to a relatively small junior member.
The Kurds aren't a unified group and the Turks are absolutely going to lose their minds if there is a new Kurdish state.

re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.

Posted by crazy4lsu on 4/14/26 at 4:12 pm to
quote:

Not sure why people would downvote this. The presenter goes over good, hard data. It doesn't claim unvaccinated had zero health problems. It goes over the health issues they saw in kids from both groups.



Because it is very fricking stupid and is the same laundering of anti-vaccine views as every other 'study.'

re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.

Posted by crazy4lsu on 4/14/26 at 4:11 pm to
The source alone is questionable. Why you guys believe it so thoroughly is some other issue.

re: Jabbed vs unjabbed kids.

Posted by crazy4lsu on 4/14/26 at 4:10 pm to
quote:

They above used a different methodology on the same data. With the number of vaccines children are now exposed to, more of these vaccinated vs non-vaccinated children studies need to be done.



Lol. This is amazing. This journal is the who's who of anti-vaccine morons. My god, the things you idiots believe.
quote:

The winner takes all is not how it is supposed to be. This was a trap by the coastal states to more easily get their preferred POTUS elected.


What way is it supposed to be?
quote:

If memory serves, Hitler was a dumbass to attack Russia before finishing off Britain.


He had no way of finishing off the UK without an invasion.

This is some Holy See-Safavid anti-Ottoman alliance stuff. Or Franco-Ottoman anti-Hapsburgs stuff.
quote:

The world would have been a much better place if Germany had won WWI before the USA got involved.


You just be saying shite.
quote:

And no matter what happens, we need more technical quality.


We absolutely have to have more players who can carry the ball past the opponent. Imagine a Wenger-era team if they committed to this structure and worked off the ball this hard. The team would have been elite, with the main difference being the permission to actually play in the middle of the field. Our structure allows us to move the ball through 90% of the pitch flawlessly but our chance creation, when it matters, sucks. Take the Man City game. We were so structured in our approach we had no idea what to do when they didn’t press. The obvious answer would be to dribble past the press, which would force them to commit beyond their assigned spaces, which would create new angles for passes into midfield.

Right now, we are suffering from a problem that plagued us in 2020 and for which the solution was the entire of Emile Smith Rowe as a no.10 who occasionally dribbled the ball into midfield. Right now we have a version of that except the players we have now are elite in terms of profiles, in contrast to that 2020 team. You have to have some variety in the approach play. And you need to build a structure to allow creative players to be creative. We’ve basically gotten rid of any academy graduate who is also a superb dribbler, too, as my suspicion is that Arteta really doesn’t like it when players go off-script. And we run our first team players into the fricking ground too. We have Max now, who can change the game with his dribbling, but he’s probably not ready for the role we need him to play. We sent Ethan away, we have banished MLS to a third string LB and we don’t have anyone else, it seems. We have lost significant ability in terms of playing line-breaking passes from deep too.

Here, Arteta needs to be more like Wenger. I’m not suggesting changing everything. But a good defensive structure is for the purpose of allowing attacking players freedom.