Is it me or is it highly ironic to read this statement here? From someone defending idiots digging themselves deeper into their "but I wanna believe this bullshit" bubble.
There is nothing risk-free that you can put into your body that could remotely be considered medicine. You could develop a rash from the topical cream you apply. There are also different vaccines with different histories and hence different levels of risk. In general, you will run a higher risk of side effects, especially unknown side effects, if you use a vaccine that has only been developed recently, which is the case with flu vaccines since they have to be redone annually. The influenza virus mutates at an insane rate and the lead time for vaccines is almost a year, so what you get as a vaccine is often just still able to deal with the flu that you might get this year.
This is why any horror stories you usually get to hear about vaccines deal with flu shots of some sort. They run on a very tight schedule to still be effective when they finally arrive.
The fear most people have is not rooted in reality but ignorance. Which is understandable, the topic is far from easy to grasp and to tell "safe" vaccines from those that you should only get if you have a really good reason.
So you actually found a case where a vaccine triggered an autoimmune reaction. Well, provided that at the same time that the antibodies exist in the body there's also a severe infection going on that makes the blood-brain barrier permeable for the antibodies, of course. This might also explain the fairly low number of people affected compared to the number vaccinated.
Vaccines are no silver bullets. Yes, they can have side effects. Which is the reason why I decided against a vaccination against H1N1. It's a matter of probability. Especially with new vaccines, which is the case with pretty much all flu vaccines since they get "reinvented" every year due to the high mutation rate of the influenza virus.
MMR is a completely different beast. Here you're dealing with infections that have a 1 in 1000 chance to cause a permanent negative effect a near-certainty to get infected if you as much as walk through an area that an infected person used within the last hours (like, say, pretty much any medical facility) and a 1:1m incidence rate of serious vaccine side effects, which are mostly allergic reactions to one of the components, i.e. in people who should not have gotten vaccinated but didn't know. Luckily, there's usually a doctor around that can take care of the problem...
If the "marketplace of ideas" ends up at "teach the controversy" where people demand that bullshit is taught at schools as if it had scientific merit, I guess it's time to flip some tables in that marketplace.
Measles still has a mortality of 1 in 10k, with 1 in 1k suffering permanent severe effects. And unfortunately I'm not old enough to get vaccinated back when I was a kid, so I went through the whole MMR routine. I survived, as you can see. But I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. Even if there wasn't a fairly high chance of lasting effects, it's something you should protect your kids from if you can.
Do anti-vaxxers hate their kids that much that they want them to get sick?
Yes, they screwed up. But so far I have not seen a single congresscritter to do more than shrug and click their tongue while rolling their eyes. Maybe finally we'll see some kind of movement.
I'm still celebrating a congressperson doing something for their constituents for a change. Could we just have that? It's not like those moments are so numerous that we shouldn't cherish them.
Two movies that everyone has seen, considering they are on TV every other month (at least it often seems that way). And it's two really good movies (ok, a good movie and a not quite as good but far from bad movie). I'd dare say that establishes certain expectations with viewers.
Like I said somewhere else, if you go in without these expectations, you have a decent movie that works. If it didn't carry the name Ghostbusters, nobody would even compare it to the older GB-movies and by itself, you have a solid comedy there. I guess the problem most people had with it is that the horror element was flat and simply not really there, and I'd expect a solid horror element from a movie with that name.
To be honest, it would not have been a bad movie if it wasn't for the expectations that came with the franchise. Feig isn't a bad director, he just isn't a director for a horror comedy. You don't make Michael Bay direct a romcon, do you?
Either you're trolling or you are not aware that this is still about the "planning to see the movie" feature, not an actual review. You could never review a movie before its release on RT. Neither before this change nor now. What you could do until now was to post whether you plan to see a certain movie.
It needn't even mean that. It could still well be that the franchise has a wide potential audience range that will go see any movie, no matter the quality.
The Last Jedi is certainly not a box office failure, but a disappointment it was nonetheless. Bland, uninspired characters, characters doing things that are fundamentally against what had been established in canon so far, interesting characters being pushed aside and brushed off, simply and plainly unbelievable stunts that test your suspension of disbelief really, really hard, a ridiculously twirling-moustache evil guy...
Sorry. Was it a financial success? Certainly. But plot- and character wise it's a train wreck.
Well, I'd be rather certain that anyone with a bone to pick would instantly the moment he could possibly post a fake review would do so, so the damage could well be worse, considering that it will only happen right at the box office release instead of having already blown over because the initial steam is off.
I also disagree on the professional critic vs. user ratings issue. I, at least, don't go to a movie where my expectation is that I would not enjoy it. So if someone goes to a movie and declares it a failure because the movie did not deliver what he expected, is the user to blame or the movie? Seriously, if you go into a superhero movie and get a romcon, you would probably be disappointed. That's most certainly not what you'd expect from a movie that allegedly centers around the epic good vs evil struggle. Not saying that CM is anything like this, but user ratings can pretty well also mean disappointed expectations. Like I felt when I walked out of Troy. Maybe it wasn't a bad movie, but certainly not what I was expecting.
With critics, I have more and more the feeling that they have to praise certain movies from certain makers. Transformers being a pretty good example, personally I have rarely seen a more boring, bland and uninspired series. Zero character development (quite frankly, the characters are the same through the whole series), a fully predictable plot (in all of them), existing on explosions and effects alone, loud enough that you can't even catch some sleep.
But aside of that, choosing your kind of movie is getting trickier and trickier, because more and more often movies don't deliver what you'd expect from them. And those are also usually the movies that get scathing reviews from viewers: They went in with VERY different expectations (based on name, franchise or previews) than what the movie eventually delivered.
I doubt this is going to solve the issue. It's gonna make it worse. You think they will now simply go away? What's gonna happen now is that the shitstorm will be postponed to the crucial first release week instead of having fizzled out by then because they moved on to their next target.
In before the "how can you know, have you seen it" cries.
I have not seen this one. But I also don't need to watch another Michael Bay movie to predict with fair accuracy that it will contain a lot of explosions and very little character development and meaningful dialogue. Unfortunately movies with female leads have become agenda pieces rather than actual entertainment. It has to send a message of a strong female character. The problem here is that the intersection of the two sets "people who want to watch superhero movies" and "people who care about feminism" is fairly small.
The studios hope, and so far correctly, that people wanting to see superhero movies will still go in the (more and more vain) hope that the movie will still be a superhero movie and that they can somehow tune out the "look, I'm female, I'M FEMALE!!!11!!" parts that invariably get stuffed between the action.
Could we just go back to having strong, female leads that don't feel the compelling urge to show off that they are female every other scene? We see that you're female. We noticed it. We don't care. Go and show us a story!
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, skepticism has turned into "The (insert random boogeyman here) say A, so I rather believe B without reason because it MUST be true!"
Ignorance is strength ...
Is it me or is it highly ironic to read this statement here? From someone defending idiots digging themselves deeper into their "but I wanna believe this bullshit" bubble.
There is nothing risk-free that you can put into your body that could remotely be considered medicine. You could develop a rash from the topical cream you apply. There are also different vaccines with different histories and hence different levels of risk. In general, you will run a higher risk of side effects, especially unknown side effects, if you use a vaccine that has only been developed recently, which is the case with flu vaccines since they have to be redone annually. The influenza virus mutates at an insane rate and the lead time for vaccines is almost a year, so what you get as a vaccine is often just still able to deal with the flu that you might get this year.
This is why any horror stories you usually get to hear about vaccines deal with flu shots of some sort. They run on a very tight schedule to still be effective when they finally arrive.
The fear most people have is not rooted in reality but ignorance. Which is understandable, the topic is far from easy to grasp and to tell "safe" vaccines from those that you should only get if you have a really good reason.
So you actually found a case where a vaccine triggered an autoimmune reaction. Well, provided that at the same time that the antibodies exist in the body there's also a severe infection going on that makes the blood-brain barrier permeable for the antibodies, of course. This might also explain the fairly low number of people affected compared to the number vaccinated.
Vaccines are no silver bullets. Yes, they can have side effects. Which is the reason why I decided against a vaccination against H1N1. It's a matter of probability. Especially with new vaccines, which is the case with pretty much all flu vaccines since they get "reinvented" every year due to the high mutation rate of the influenza virus.
MMR is a completely different beast. Here you're dealing with infections that have a 1 in 1000 chance to cause a permanent negative effect a near-certainty to get infected if you as much as walk through an area that an infected person used within the last hours (like, say, pretty much any medical facility) and a 1:1m incidence rate of serious vaccine side effects, which are mostly allergic reactions to one of the components, i.e. in people who should not have gotten vaccinated but didn't know. Luckily, there's usually a doctor around that can take care of the problem...
If the "marketplace of ideas" ends up at "teach the controversy" where people demand that bullshit is taught at schools as if it had scientific merit, I guess it's time to flip some tables in that marketplace.
Hitler didn't invent book burnings. He just made a spectacle out of it.
Religions all over the world have done so far, far longer than any nationalism existed.
Measles still has a mortality of 1 in 10k, with 1 in 1k suffering permanent severe effects. And unfortunately I'm not old enough to get vaccinated back when I was a kid, so I went through the whole MMR routine. I survived, as you can see. But I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. Even if there wasn't a fairly high chance of lasting effects, it's something you should protect your kids from if you can.
Do anti-vaxxers hate their kids that much that they want them to get sick?
You slapped him with words. I do appreciate this. Really.
Now let actions follow to match the bite to the bark!
Yes, they screwed up. But so far I have not seen a single congresscritter to do more than shrug and click their tongue while rolling their eyes. Maybe finally we'll see some kind of movement.
Please let me hope.
That's to be seen.
I'm still celebrating a congressperson doing something for their constituents for a change. Could we just have that? It's not like those moments are so numerous that we shouldn't cherish them.
Guess it's hard to make the ad cookies GDPR-compatible...
Oh, we never did any of this at the request of law enforcement or another third party. Only at our own discretion.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Uhhh... you salty?
And you think in those areas a person without consciense and remorse couldn't find a better job? How about politics?
It was a play on ol' Winson's saying about democracy.
Two movies that everyone has seen, considering they are on TV every other month (at least it often seems that way). And it's two really good movies (ok, a good movie and a not quite as good but far from bad movie). I'd dare say that establishes certain expectations with viewers.
Like I said somewhere else, if you go in without these expectations, you have a decent movie that works. If it didn't carry the name Ghostbusters, nobody would even compare it to the older GB-movies and by itself, you have a solid comedy there. I guess the problem most people had with it is that the horror element was flat and simply not really there, and I'd expect a solid horror element from a movie with that name.
I'd be more interested in a way to actually vote someone off if he turns out to be crap.
To be honest, it would not have been a bad movie if it wasn't for the expectations that came with the franchise. Feig isn't a bad director, he just isn't a director for a horror comedy. You don't make Michael Bay direct a romcon, do you?
Next up: Pissed off users voting up all other movies to surpass the number of people planning to see Marvel.
Either you're trolling or you are not aware that this is still about the "planning to see the movie" feature, not an actual review. You could never review a movie before its release on RT. Neither before this change nor now. What you could do until now was to post whether you plan to see a certain movie.
It needn't even mean that. It could still well be that the franchise has a wide potential audience range that will go see any movie, no matter the quality.
You have the same with computer games.
The Last Jedi is certainly not a box office failure, but a disappointment it was nonetheless. Bland, uninspired characters, characters doing things that are fundamentally against what had been established in canon so far, interesting characters being pushed aside and brushed off, simply and plainly unbelievable stunts that test your suspension of disbelief really, really hard, a ridiculously twirling-moustache evil guy...
Sorry. Was it a financial success? Certainly. But plot- and character wise it's a train wreck.
Well, I'd be rather certain that anyone with a bone to pick would instantly the moment he could possibly post a fake review would do so, so the damage could well be worse, considering that it will only happen right at the box office release instead of having already blown over because the initial steam is off.
I also disagree on the professional critic vs. user ratings issue. I, at least, don't go to a movie where my expectation is that I would not enjoy it. So if someone goes to a movie and declares it a failure because the movie did not deliver what he expected, is the user to blame or the movie? Seriously, if you go into a superhero movie and get a romcon, you would probably be disappointed. That's most certainly not what you'd expect from a movie that allegedly centers around the epic good vs evil struggle. Not saying that CM is anything like this, but user ratings can pretty well also mean disappointed expectations. Like I felt when I walked out of Troy. Maybe it wasn't a bad movie, but certainly not what I was expecting.
With critics, I have more and more the feeling that they have to praise certain movies from certain makers. Transformers being a pretty good example, personally I have rarely seen a more boring, bland and uninspired series. Zero character development (quite frankly, the characters are the same through the whole series), a fully predictable plot (in all of them), existing on explosions and effects alone, loud enough that you can't even catch some sleep.
But aside of that, choosing your kind of movie is getting trickier and trickier, because more and more often movies don't deliver what you'd expect from them. And those are also usually the movies that get scathing reviews from viewers: They went in with VERY different expectations (based on name, franchise or previews) than what the movie eventually delivered.
I doubt this is going to solve the issue. It's gonna make it worse. You think they will now simply go away? What's gonna happen now is that the shitstorm will be postponed to the crucial first release week instead of having fizzled out by then because they moved on to their next target.
In before the "how can you know, have you seen it" cries.
I have not seen this one. But I also don't need to watch another Michael Bay movie to predict with fair accuracy that it will contain a lot of explosions and very little character development and meaningful dialogue. Unfortunately movies with female leads have become agenda pieces rather than actual entertainment. It has to send a message of a strong female character. The problem here is that the intersection of the two sets "people who want to watch superhero movies" and "people who care about feminism" is fairly small.
The studios hope, and so far correctly, that people wanting to see superhero movies will still go in the (more and more vain) hope that the movie will still be a superhero movie and that they can somehow tune out the "look, I'm female, I'M FEMALE!!!11!!" parts that invariably get stuffed between the action.
Could we just go back to having strong, female leads that don't feel the compelling urge to show off that they are female every other scene? We see that you're female. We noticed it. We don't care. Go and show us a story!