KSantangelo

BST Users
  • Content count

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About KSantangelo

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Swimming, cooking, reading

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    RI/NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

2,173 profile views
  1. I'll take the Tangerine Dream and the Big Fish Danny
  2. That Tangerine Dream plug!
  3. I'll take it.
  4. *
  5. The Autism Science Foundation started research on any correlation about a decade ago. There were no differences in the neurologies of kids who did/did not get vaccinated, or those who changed the scheduling of their vaccines either. Scientific research bears out that vaccines have absolutely nothing to do with autism. Generally the timing of the vaccines coincides with when the signs of autism appear, the ages just coincide. I truly feel that because we now so little about what causes autism, the knee-jerk reaction is to find something to blame. The only thing there is CLEAR evidence of is a genetic link. For instance, if you have one child with autism, you have a 1 in 20 chance of having a second child with autism, according to the National Institutes of Health. Also of note, and I think this is a big one, is the awareness of autism and the broadness of its spectrum has increased diagnosis, just like ADD/ADHD, things that were never really named for decades previously. As far as older mothers giving birth to children with autism - apparently very young mothers have increased risk as well. Also women who have pregnancies less than one year apart. Much of the research I have seen shows that the increase in the father's age is definitely a risk.
  6. Unfortunately, they matter. There are plenty of people who rely on herd immunity to survive and anti-vaxxers are a danger to those people. Babies cannot be vaccinated until a certain age, for example. People with compromised immune systems and severe allergies might not EVER be able to be vaccinated.Their health and safety relies on the community around them being vaccinated and keeping the pathogen dead. And now all these people with an internet connection (who believe they know more than ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who spent their whole lives devoted to research on those diseases) have brought previously conquered diseases roaring back. As well as those who love the BIG PHARMA conspiracy. Pharmaceutical companies make virtually nothing from vaccines - something like 1% of their revenue. But why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory! As far as the mercury concern? As of 1999, Thimerosal(the mercury containing compound in some vaccines) was removed from all but some flu vaccines. And the MMR vaccine NEVER contained any mercury. But here's the most important part - the thimerosal breaks down into ethyl mercury in our system, which the body can remove. It doesn't accumulate. The mercury that is bad for us, the reason we're advised to watch our intake of fish, is methyl mercury. The body cannot remove it. So it's not even the right fricking mercury that everyone gets up in arms about. This bothers me SO MUCH, because all you need to do is a modicum of research from reliable sources. Listening to Jenny McCarthy and a bunch of You Tube whack jobs is not the answer. I guess I'll never understand when we as a country started discounting science and facts in favor of wingnut conspiracies.
  7. “They are trying to fix the VA for pharmaceutical companies, they are trying to fix the VA for insurance corporations and, ultimately, they are trying to fix the VA for a for-profit health care industry that does not put people or veterans first,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And so we have a responsibility to protect it.” Not sure what the problem is with the above statement. Is it just because AOC said it?
  8. Penicillin?
  9. It’s all good. Aw shucks... Also, my husband would like me to say I’m the chick in the pic showing off her hot husband instead of a fish
  10. Oh, I get it! Since I’m a woman, I watch The View! Well played, guy.
  11. I never said it was disqualifying. My point, and I'm pretty sure you know this, is that if you're trying to be truly transparent, and have nothing at all to hide, why would you make an appointment that would cast so much doubt? You and I both know that there were probably plenty of other qualified candidates. If the tables were turned in this situation, you would be screaming bloody murder, and you know it. Of course he has the ability to appoint whomever he chooses - it just seems that this choice was bound to cause more speculation, yet he did it anyway. That's really stupid., and questionable, to me. Trump doesn't really strike me as the type who would willfully choose something that would make his life more difficult unless there was a benefit to him.
  12. No. Seeing as he wrote an entire memo to RR is 2018 about the sitch.
  13. My issue is with the very public opinion Barr had expressed about the Mueller report before he was AG. I don't like the bias. And for all the president's crowing about "13 angry democrats" Mueller is a hardcore republican, appointed by republicans. How anyone can complain about the job he did is beyond me. He kept his mouth shut, himself out of the spotlight, and never once made the investigation about himself. He presented his findings without any editorializing. And at over 400 pages, he was obviously very thorough. I don't get why you all hate him so much. Seems like a pretty patriotic guy to me, with his history and all.
  14. So @tomkaz I though this press conference was going to be about: 1) whether executive privilege was invoked; 2) DOJ interactions with the WH 3) the redaction process. All Barr has done so far is give his own interpretation of a report he was vocally against before Congress, nevermind the public, has seen it. Can you understand why some of us might be annoyed by this? Again, the report may very well indicate that everything Barr is saying is true, but seeing him up there sounding like the president's personal attorney, instead of the people's, explaining how he replaced the legal theory of the special counsel with his own, seems questionable.
  15. ^^^THIS. I want the report. Just like the GOP requested, and received, the FULL Starr report. I will accept whatever the report says, no tin foil or Kleenex necessary. I'm not sure why some people don't understand that all this delaying, Barr interpretations and press conferences look shady. It might not be, but it gives the appearance of obfuscation.