Let's see: . grew up near-poor in Boston, now a self-made millionaire . intellectually curious, open-minded . strong ethic of physical fitness and martial arts discipline . healthy sense of humor . regularly preaches kindness and harmony in society Yeah, what a terrible role model for boys.
Let me guess, without looking, who gave you the GFY rep. My prediction, Dicky. *looks* Yep, it was Dicky, such a predictable goon.
Yea, my parents weren't into the "new" polio vaccine. I got the airgun vaccine that I still have the scar from. I was 5 when I got it. I'll be 58 in two weeks. Thank god they didn't go for that novel vaccine. Minimal changes since then, mostly between a regular shot and an oral.
I mean, if all that's left of the right-wing sense of humor anymore is to being annoyingly stupid, and pretending annoyance is crying, go to a maternity ward, and poke at the babies with a stick, and get them going. That's the real thing. You'll love it. Oh, right, a nurse would taze you, and you're a coward. Right. I forget what cowards you all are when it comes to committing to your dumb premises.
I think the point is that @Rimjob Bob was using the term "novel vaccine" as some sort of dig at the various COVID vaccines, while deliberately ignoring the fact that "new" vaccines are not irregular.
Given who it was, I figured he meant "novel" in the same way Maud used to refer to Obama as the novelty president...
I voted "yes," because I'd rather the kids learn about Joe Rogan in school than have to find out about him the hard way.
Lots of famous people have appeared on the JRE, and some of them would be mentioned in schools, so in a way the JRE is being taught to school students already.
depends... is 1960 completely new? that's how long developments been going on. or do you just mean the first mRNA vaccines for flu type/variant diseases? in that case they've been working on them since the early 90s.
New in what sense? Certainly new compared to something like the first polio vaccine, but they have been developed over decades. Hardly what I would call new. And even if it is "new," your insinuation that is somehow bad is unfounded.
not sure where "semantics" fits into describing my response. not seeing the relevance about not being used on a massive scale until recently either? (although that would be a tiresome semantic) It took over 30 years for diesel locomotives to catch on, while the first pulse jets were prototyped before ww1.
I refuse to take a vaccine for a virus that was discovered in 2019 unless people have been taking it since at least 1973.
Also, I refuse to take a vaccine that uses "new" technology, but I will buy a new iPhone every year to pair with my annually updated Apple Watch.