-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
45
Is your partner other than Thai?
Disgusting behaviour ,but no surprise I remember a few years ago going through Melbourne Airport in Australia to see a man arrested for having a schoolgirl sex doll in his luggage -
103
White House Considers Slashing China Tariffs to De-Escalate Trade War
Trump says "They are meeting." When asked for clarification, Trump says "It doesn't matter who 'they' is." -
71
Increases in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks threaten years of progress
No.. I don't get my information from 'pro-vaccine' sources - I just get the information from 'scientific sources'... You call them 'pro-vaccine'... for everyone else, its just scientific fact... Whereas the anti-vaccination propoganda can so easily be debunked and picked apart. It’s a bit of a conundrum, really. Take the flat Earth analogy: I could insist on travelling to space to see the planet’s curvature with my own eyes, or I could choose to understand and trust the science - and the testimony of those who have seen it for themselves. Biology presents a similar case. I’ve never seen a cell with the naked eye, yet I accept its existence because scientists, armed with evidence and expertise, tell us so. The reality is, we can't spend our lives independently verifying every claim. I believe Concorde flew at Mach 2, not because I witnessed it firsthand, but because the overwhelming body of evidence leaves little room for doubt. Vaccination is no different. The scientific consensus, bolstered by decades of rigorous study, shows that vaccines work - and that they are overwhelmingly safe. Of course, like anything in life, there are risks. But then, even eating grapes carries a risk if you look closely enough. Do we really need to be informed about it ? Must we really be outraged about it? I mean, let’s take a step back - what exactly is the moral dilemma in using fetal fibroblast cells, especially if they come from long-ago, ethically approved sources? If these cells - replicated for decades in a lab - can be used to develop life-saving treatments or vaccines, is that not a profoundly humane application? Where, truly, is the ethical conflict? I struggle to see one. We’re not talking about new terminations or ongoing exploitation, but about scientific progress built on a legacy that, however complex, now holds the potential to preserve countless lives. Isn’t that a moral good in itself? -
80
World Now Knows POTUS is Both Weak and Dumb
Brilliant. Best scretch i have ever seen. -
13
Crime Five Teenagers Open Fire in Krabi, 18-Year-Old Woman and Her One-Year-Old Son Injured
Why Thai bashing in every post? If you don't like Thailand, go back to where you came from -
71
Increases in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks threaten years of progress
"The landscape of vaccination has evolved" is your way of putting it. Fine, I respect that. I see that I received approximately 10 vaccine doses between the age of 0 and 18, and that this number has now risen to 70 as per CDC guidelines. No need to put a spin on it, that's the reality. And the inconvenient fact is that people nowadays are not healthier than the previous couple of generations, quite the contrary. Those who start threads and routinely complain about "the rise of distrust in science" should take a step back, acknowledge these figures and understand that a significant number of people are simply not okay with this.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now