Coronavirus

Would not be bad if it was just poorly worded
But it’s not

the wording is intentional and jpd is correct
Your so indoctrinated you don’t see it and don’t realize it

it’s possible the guy that wrote it didn’t even realize he did it

sad state of affairs

Well I guess that makes two who haven't taken advanced protein synthesis or the physiology of pregnancy...

I've utilized the former and helped millions from being transfused with HIV, HCV, HTLVI and HTLVII infected blood products, and taught the latter. What'd ya got?

You may have taken plenty of science
But you failed reading comprehension
If you read anything about science in what I typed

pregnant person
Wasn’t poorly worded it was intentional

I think the mask is depriving your brain of oxygen
Einstein

pregnant person
Wasn’t poorly worded it was intentional

I think the mask is depriving your brain of oxygen
Einstein

And there it is, you got nothing. Shocking!!

% O2 fine, but thanks for asking…

Well I guess that makes two who haven't taken advanced protein synthesis or the physiology of pregnancy...

I've utilized the former and helped millions from being transfused with HIV, HCV, HTLVI and HTLVII infected blood products, and taught the latter. What'd ya got?

Dip$#it... It's the non-gender agenda of the author. Being that gender is a social construct, apparently the author believes men can be pregnant too.

For fark's sake. :rolleyes:

Dip$#it... It's the non-gender agenda of the author. Being that gender is a social construct, apparently the author believes men can be pregnant too.

For fark's sake. :rolleyes:

It's exactly as the published in NEJM. I agree that folks are way too PC minded, saying that poorly written titles are the least of our worries, and pointed that out early in the diatribes.

Of course that point was ignored, so one couldn't be sure if that was the issue or folks who are vaccine adverse were just trying to discredit the use of the vaccine on pregnant females.

It's exactly as the published in NEJM. I agree that folks are way too PC minded, saying that poorly written titles are the least of our worries, and pointed that out early in the diatribes.

Of course that point was ignored, so one couldn't be sure if that was the issue or folks who are vaccine adverse were just trying to discredit the use of the vaccine on pregnant females.

I understand your point. Tony was after the PC. He's pretty straightforward. I don't think he thought the pregnancy risk was the problem.

But hey, I could be wrong. It happened once before.

No one cares about the scientific point

it’s about the words
Pregnant person

you can beat your scientific chest all you like
This ain’t cnn so take your spin and shove it
Take the mask off do you can get some air
Let your brains come back to life

then take another run at it

The farce is strong in this one

Yes, and I said it above about a half a dozen posts or so, wondering why such a reaction?

One could link about 100 of these a day based on the new "identity conventions" across all areas of information. Silly me, I assumed there was something pertinent to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in the disbelief of some here...

Because you keep injecting
Your “ scientific” stuff where it has no place

mans you’ve done it from jump street
And
As for me I’m tired of your pompous bull crap
And
As usual
Breaking your balls
Amuses me

this is the corona virus topic??

Because you keep injecting
Your “ scientific” stuff where it has no place

mans you’ve done it from jump street
And
As for me I’m tired of your pompous bull crap
And
As usual
Breaking your balls
Amuses me

LOL, I was remiss in pointing out that I did find "The Farce is strong in this one" quite good.

Yes, this is all a farce, but totally unrelated to COVID. It's the equivalent to something like "Incidence of Prostate Cancer in Persons With High Circulating Levels of Prostate-Specific Antigens".

The New England Journal of Medicine is one of the top 5 internationally recognized medical journals. Publishing there helps authors increase their academic and scientific credibility which means grants and/or tenure in the "Publish or Perish" environment they exist in.

So this may be the academic equivalent of the old "What would you do for a Klondike Bar?" advertisements we used to see. If NEJM's "Instructions to Authors" or any of the authors' individual institutions require the use of Gender Neutral terms, they're SOOL, no matter what their personal beliefs are regarding the subject, and that's the farce.

From a personal perspective if I had a paper ready for publication in Science and was asked to go gender neutral, I'd do it in a heartbeat, IF it had no impact on the integrity of the paper's scientific message.

That last line about gender neutral I full would expect from u

there is no such thing as gender neutral
Your a man or a woman those are the only options
Can you have surgery and change your gender I guess you can
But no matter your still one or the other at the end of the day

gender neutrals pure bullcrap and so is anyone that buys into or plays along with it
Especial you because your full of it anyway

this is the corona virus topic??

Irrelevant

Irrelevant

SO NOW YOU ARE IN CHARGE HERE?? What kind of fisherperson are you anyway?

Someone’s gotta be the voice of reason

SO NOW YOU ARE IN CHARGE HERE?? What kind of fisherperson are you anyway?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

You two ? can’t even tell the difference between males and females engaged in fishing
And only females getting pregnant

but what the hell your ? it’s to be expected

who told you that? the term Fisherman applies to male and female anglers...it's gender neutral...always has been

Your right
That is gender neutral so to compare it to being pregnant ( not gender neutral )
Makes it a foolish comparison
Hell it doesn’t even qualify as funny
Just dumb