Yeah that's some old shit. Anyone look at the case enough to know what the evidence was? Was it just quantity or was it packaged?

Oh look, it's the hipster maggot come along to tell us all how great slavery was.

** "because of its high vaccination coverage"

No, it's reasonable. It's not safe.

The other part of that is that you're not necessarily doing the same equation, they may be solving for something something different.

The US has been oligarchic and authoritarian all along, and has behaved towards some other nations much like a fascist nation would do, but in general has not subjected the general citizenry to full blown fascism. It's been horrible to everyone other than landed white males all along, though.

Deeply, deeply misleading comment.

First off, you're using a denominator fallacy. Yes, we have discovered over 200 types of HPV. Gardasil 9 targets 9 types, and numerically, yes, 9 / 200+ ~= 4-5%. But most of the 200 known types of HPV are rare and/or irrelevant (causing ordinary warts on fingers, knees, and feet, with extremely low odds of cancer). Only 40 types infect the mucosal/genital tract, and of those, only 12-14 are high risk. Gardasil 9 targets the 7 strains responsible for 90% of all cervical cancers, as well as types 6 and 11, that cause 90% of genital warts.

Secondly: cervical cancer indeed tends to happen in middle-aged women. But the disease itself is typically acquired in the teens or 20s. It's oncogenesis that takes decades to happen. Vaccination protects women of all ages.

I will however, admit that your claim that it "doesn't even target the HPV most likely to cause throat cancer in men" isn't misleading. Rather than being misleading, it's just simply false. HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer is caused overwhelmingly by Type 16 (85-90% of all HPV-positive throat cancers). Even the original 4-variant Gardacil covered Type 16.

And, do I even need to add, that the claim that "Gardasil fatalities will have killed more teens than prevented deaths of women” is sheer unadulterated bullshit? There has been ZERO causal link found between Gardacil vaccination and death, by any major health organization (WHO, CDC, or EMA). This more stupid "I DiD mY oWn ReSeArCh" VAERS bullshit, where even a person dying in a car accident after getting vaccinated gets a report. VAERS isn't controlled. Stop pretending that it is. It flags signals for controlled research. It is not itself controlled research. Controlled research does not link Gardacil and death.

You know what the most common significant adverse reaction to Gardacil is? Vasocagal syncope. Sounds pretty terrifying, until you learn that that is "fainting from needle anxiety".

Check Falcaro et al, 2021, studying HPV vaccination in the UK - there's been an 87% reduction in cervical cancer rates and a 97% reduction in precancerous lesions. Australia is on track to effectively eliminate cervical cancer as a public health issue within a decade.
  vaccination coverage.

Also, do I even have to get into how stupid the notion of "get cancer, but then cure it" is? Cancer does damage. "Cures" do damage. Pain, infertility, disfigurement, etc. Your notion is "rely on some theoretical (deeply doubted by most researchers) notion of imminent magical perfect AI cancer cures" because of your ridiculous not-at-all-scientifically-backed antivax bullshit about a treatment that has been immensely effective and immensely safe.

You can't do things with a simple majority because one half of our political party, the Republican party, are batshit crazy fascists that we cannot trust with the power of a simple majority. And they consistently win Congress even though they consistently do not get enough votes to win Congress both due to voter suppression and gerrymandering.

So no we can't do things with a simple majority we need a supermajority because we need to put the brakes on a bunch of crazy fascists who are busy screwing us all over and we know it but like an abused spouse we just can't quit them

Bernie is usually correct and nobody really listens to him. The left wing has become pretty fucking useless. What he needs to be doing is focusing on voter suppression and that's what the left-wing everywhere needs to be doing. But that doesn't get the headlines so here we are.

What Bernie is trying to do is get attention to a movement because he's trying to do what worked in the '60s. This isn't a 1960s the fascists adapted to the tactics Bernie Sanders is using back in the mid-70s and he never figured that out. In his defense neither did anyone else on the left wing. I only figured it out a few years ago and fuck knows nobody listens to me.

Obama figured it out. That's why he formed his own organizations for combating voter suppression so that he could win his elections. But he's kind of a selfish little fuck so once he had what he wanted he didn't really do much more. And he left the Republicans dismantle what he built. Doesn't help that Hillary was happily letting that happen because she was undermining any potential opponents because people hate Hillary Clinton and always have and she knew she wouldn't get the nomination otherwise.

I've said it before but every single system designed to protect you has failed.

Too many voters are obsessed with tough on crime. It's politically impossible.

Go look at some midterm ads right now attacking the Democrats and every single one of them will be going after them for either being radical socialists or weak on crime or both.

The Republicans do the same thing every time, they make a law often one that's already there with a few extremely minor changes that does something like make it illegal to be a pedophile or something when it's obviously already is, than they add something in it the Democrats can't vote for usually banning birth control or criminalizing abortion or something. The Democrats vote against the law because of course they do it's got a poison pill in it and then the Republicans run on such and such politician voted to let predators attack your children or something.

I am older than dirt and they have been doing this bullshit since I was a kid and since before that I'm sure and voters always fall for it.

Keep in mind that only gets the Republicans to about 45% but voter suppression can make up the other 6% and winner take all voting means they can win elections without winning elections. What some might call cheating... Or election interference if you're kind of dumb and don't just want to use the existing term voter suppression.

So anyway the point is the Democrats are constantly walking a minefield where they can't just ban things that sane and intelligent people don't want. And the Republicans are just fascists at this point.

It is funny watching a bunch of old people showing up at Community meetings where data centers are being rammed through and watching those people realize that after 50 years of undermining democracy for stupid reasons they no longer have a proper functioning democracy so they don't really have a say in anything. I've seen a couple of cases where people are just dumbfounded because the data centers are getting built and there's nothing they can do about it because they're too stupid to stop voting for people who are going to let the data center is be built so their communities are just fucked.

But during the elections they'll get scared of some trans girls or violent video games or whatever moral panic there is or they will get scared of the socialists or they'll get confused by advertisements about week on crime and then they will once again vote against what they actually want. And again that's only about 45% of the country that's that stupid but voter suppression works.

What? Presumably are what? No one can hear you over your cowardice.

We have remnants of all sorts of viruses left around in our genome. My favourite example is parasitic wasps. They ended up evolving the ability to use viral genomes in their DNA as a weapon. Laying an egg inside another insect and having it mature in there is a big challenge, because their eggs' host's immune system starts attacking it. But it turned out to be advantageous for wasps to be infected, because they'd infect the host, hindering its immune system. The virus and wasp ended up coevolving, to the degree now that many parasitic wasps in effect produces virions on-demand, which do not harm the wasp, and instead serve only to suppress their eggs' host's immune system.

And not just cancers. Look at the intro paragraphs to the Wikipedia article on Epstein-Barr, for example. It's like every year we discover a new link between it and some horrible disease. My mother has disabling neuropathy from Sjögrens; there's now some links between Sjögrens and EBV, and she has measured EBV reactivation.

In COVID, we discovered "Long COVID", and how disabling it was for victims. Not just Long COVID - e.g. obvious sequelae - but also a whole slew of other diseases (particularly cardiovascular and respiratory) have their probabilities shoot up dramatically in the six months post-infection, lesser increases after that. Yet as we started comparing it to other contageous diseases such as influenza, we started finding that even if SARS-CoV-2 is somewhat more at risk of causing debilitating sequelae (times how everyone was contracting it at once), influenza and other common viruses are also very capable of causing debilitating sequelae.

My father went from someone who was going on long hikes every day to prepare for hiking to Everest Base Camp to being unable to walk in a matter of days. He caught a virus on a plane, "got better", but then a couple weeks later, suddenly ended up in the hospital becoming rapidly paralyzed due to Guillain Barre. It nearly progressed to his lungs, but he was lucky to avoid intubation and to be an unusually-fast recovery case. Most aren't so lucky.

Just because you "got better" doesn't actually mean that you "got better". Pathogens deliberately disregulate your body in a vast range of ways (some in weird ways - for example, measles can cause your body to "forget" how to fight other infections that you were previously immune to!). Your innate immune system attacking them means deliberately doing damage to your body in the process. And the adaptive immune system runs the risk, with every infection, of accidentally learning to attack some part of your body instead. Even the very act of the immune system proliferating is itself a risk. Because of my mother's Sjögren's, the immune system was attacking her salivary glands. This led to extensive, nonstop lymphocyte propagation. Which in turn, led to MALT lymphoma. Your own immune system's activation can cause cancer.

It honestly shocked me that we went from all we learned during COVID to "pretending that nothing ever happened", just back to exactly how we were living before. No, we should absolutely not all be masking all the time. But can we at least clean our damned air, like we clean our water? Yes, if you're up close talking to someone, you should be able to get infected from them if they're sick; trying to prevent that is too difficult. But the person across the room should not be getting sick. You know what it reminds me so much of? The Broad Street cholera epidemic. It's well known that removing the handle from the Broad Street pump cured the infection, a victory for modern epidemiology and proving the hazards of contaminated water. But what's lesser known is the fact that as soon as the epidemic subsided, they put the handle right back on. People simply didn't want to think about the fact that their feces was leaking bacteria into their drinking water supply.

Also, to be clear: pathogens are not Pokémon: you do not need to catch them all. Yes, if there is no vaccine for a given common "mild" pathogen, it's usually good that children catch some variant of it once as a child, rather than first encountering it when they're 70 years old. But you do not need to catch every seasonal variant that goes around. Memory B and T cell immunity against severe outcomes is very durable. A virus shuffling up its receptor binding domain to evade immunity enough to cause a seasonal infection doesn't mean your body has to start over with learning how to not end up hospitalized from it.

If you can recognize that, then you should be able to do the math and figure out why it won't work. A quick napkin-based computation is sufficient. If I can do it, you can do it.

If we had reasonable regulations then a data center could go anywhere and not be a problem, but since we don't, they can only go into unpopulated places with lots of water and power without causing harm. Normal DCs can just go into ordinary commercial zones because they use, while elevated, not completely obscene amounts of power and therefore water. And to return to the topic, this illustrates why AI DCs don't make sense in space, because cooling is harder in space than it is here.

The human body is eminintly capable of controlling its internal pH. Arterial blood is maintained within a very precise pH range, 7.35 to 7.45. Bicarbonate buffers, protein buffers, and phosphate buffers react within seconds. Respiratory response (increased or decreased breathing rate, to adjust blood CO2 levels), in minutes. The renal system (pumping H+ to or from the urine, and generating or recovering bicarbonate) in hours or days. Food intake has essentially zero impact on pH. The stomach is always extreme, and food leaving it is immediately neutralized by sodium bicarbonate from the pancreas. Metabolism can generate free acids, but the amount is far less than the kidneys are capable of handling. You cannot make your blood more or less acidic with diet.

I hope this helps, and please learn to be more skeptical of what you read online.