Samuel Turner2 said:Is "LEAKY immunity" some kind of brand new buzzword now? 🤦
It seems like there are plenty of armchair experts out there who find an entire spectrum of concepts far too complicated to grasp.
Rather than actually addressing a single, straightforward question, they much prefer to sit back and throw shade: where exactly do these new viruses come from, and where do these emerging viral strains originate?
I suppose the answer must be exclusively through vaccination.
It’s entirely plausible, much like how immunity gained through a LEAKY infection often results in a vast array of viral strains, some of which inevitably turn out to be more aggressive or contagious than their predecessors. Are you suggesting otherwise? Do you happen to have any peer-reviewed studies on hand that actually refute that?
Even SARS-CoV-2 itself evolved from something that wasn't even capable of human-to-human transmission, much like countless other viruses that preceded it.
Nancy Williams58 said:Looks like you’re the only one who hasn't caught on. Quit flexing your English skills so hard; I’ll break this down for you in plain American English since you're struggling.
Basically, here's the deal—you've manufactured a massive headache here through vaccination that wouldn't have even been an issue if things had stayed minor. But then, in some stroke of genius, you wrap up your sentence by basically saying, "Oh well, at least it's not a real problem because it only affects the unvaccinated."
In short: you created a problem that didn't exist in the first place, and then you just shrug and say, "Whatever, it's fine, only the unvaccinated will die anyway."
If we apply that logic to actual people, it’s like saying, "Yeah, we created a mess with the vaccines, but it's no biggie because it'll only kill the people who aren't vaccinated" (and god forbid, there's a huge chunk of the population who physically can't or shouldn't get shots for various reasons).
Real humanitarian and empathetic of you. Truly.
#newnormal
Also, love how you jump straight from "thank goodness" to your own twisted conclusions. Real smooth.
It’s reached a point where being wrong feels almost impressive. My observations stem from how people are applying that specific article about livestock—where the only way to manage the situation is to cull the entire herd—to human beings, assuming that wiping out the population is a viable alternative to vaccination.
If we’re going to broaden this discussion to the general mechanics of how contagious mutations arise, we first have to establish whether they are being driven exclusively by vaccination rather than the natural circulation of the virus itself. It is impossible to reach such a conclusion, because it couldn't be more fundamentally flawed if it tried.
So we find ourselves circling back to this strange inversion of reality where the vaccine—designed specifically to halt infection and transmission—ends up acting as a primary driver for mutation itself. It’s quite a spectacle to witness, especially when we're expected to sit through endless moral lectures from people who seem to have their entire worldview turned upside down.
Samuel Turner2 said:Nah, you nailed it. We're talking about what people call "leaky vaccines," which might actually make things worse in the long run. There was a ton of writing on this back in the Pre-COVID days. Check this out:
But honestly, let's just move past that for a second. 😵😵 Anyone pulling moves like this right now is either incredibly dim-witted or a freaking genius. 😁
So, let's not overlook what this article actually points out:
“In the United States and Europe, the birds that get avian influenza are culled, so no further evolution of the virus is possible,” Read said.
He noted that culling is a much pricier endeavor than deploying a leaky vaccine, but argued it offers better safety.
It’s a bit like saying if a kid gets sick, we should just burn down the entire neighborhood to ensure nobody else catches it—it’s certainly a way to stay safe.
“Our research demonstrates that the use of leaky vaccines can promote the evolution of nastier ‘hot’ viral strains that put unvaccinated individuals at greater risk,” Nair said.
Back in the 1950s, Mark’s disease was a minor nuisance for poultry, but the virus has evolved significantly; today, it can wipe out an entire flock of unvaccinated birds in as little as ten days.
However, since almost every chicken in industrial farming worldwide is vaccinated, Mark’s disease remains a relatively manageable issue today.
I wonder if anyone on this forum actually reads the links provided. Is it really possible for someone to be so blinded by their own perspective that they fail to see how their logical conclusions fly in the face of the very evidence they're citing?
briskowl24 said:Right, and I guess the accuracy of those studies was "proven" by all the nursing homes over in our neighboring states, where tons of residents who were already vaccinated still got hit hard. I think I'll trust my own eyes over some funded study any day. Maybe you're just choosing to believe the studies because it suits your interests, or maybe you're just being misled.
But anyway, let's set that aside—does looking at this poll bum you out?
I don't live in America, nor do I have any intention of visiting right now, so the answer is no—unless we’re talking about the general human capacity for self-destruction, which is a depressing thought in its own right. We’ll see how things shake out in a few years; until then, it's just a matter of survival. There are certainly people like that here too, but given how divided things are in my neck of the woods (for instance, about 83% of adults here have had at least one dose, and our infection rates have plummeted tenfold over the last month), there are still some pockets of relative rationality, thank goodness.
I truly feel for those who haven't managed to distance themselves from that conspiracy-minded crowd—the very group that motivated me to say goodbye all those years ago.
Samuel Turner2 said:So, are the side effects—both short-term and long-term—of these mRNA vaccines actually well-researched? I honestly don't get why some people try to play both sides by being anti-vax while simultaneously acting skeptical about vaccines that haven't even officially cleared the standard testing procedures yet. Can someone please explain the logic there to me? 🤔 It’s exactly like saying I don't trust aviation just because I refuse to hop on a half-tested nuclear-powered plane built out of plastic wings and a fuselage. Yeah, I’m terrified of flying in THAT specific plane, and no, I don't trust it one bit—but that doesn't mean I have an issue with aviation in general.
Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?🤔
It isn't, though this whole situation is a strange gray area where it's hard to tell what's truly unprecedented. That said, the post you're quoting doesn't attempt a legitimate risk assessment based on the data we have; instead, it relies on twisting known facts and blatant distortions.
I’m not trying to drag anyone into a full-blown conspiracy theory or a disinformation frenzy, but plenty of studies have already confirmed that vaccinated individuals face a significantly lower risk of infection—not just avoiding severe illness, but preventing transmission altogether if they don't catch it in the first place. This is just the icing on the cake, rather than the main course, when you consider the clinical benefits of vaccination if an infection does occur.
It is much less exhausting to dump a pile of nonsense into the world than it is to spend your time debunking it, which gives certain groups a built-in advantage. Even though the direct benefits of vaccination are thoroughly researched and documented, scientists tend to shy away from making categorical claims unless they can confirm them through direct experimental proof, even when the conclusion is obvious from existing data. Because other fields of human endeavor aren't held to such rigid standards, people will stubbornly cling to any "hunch" they have, even when the mountain of evidence proves them wrong.
What am I supposed to make of a figure like 600,000 deaths within a population of 328 million, especially when the vast majority never even contracted the virus? It seems some folks on this forum enjoy theorizing from perspectives that are quite biologically impossible.
If we accept the idea that "perfidious extortion" refers to the notion that social fragmentation is tied to a declining infection rate—and that this decline reduces the overall risk for everyone, including children—then calling it "perfidious extortion" feels, well, rather perfidious itself. It still strikes me as a classic case of selfishness and the free-rider problem.
The real question is whether you actually view these scientists as experts when they advise universal vaccination for adults, or if "expertise" is just a label we apply whenever their findings happen to align with our own preconceived notions.
If infection rates in Germany were to climb again and the CDC decided that vaccinating this age group was necessary to curb the surge, I suspect they’d instantly lose their expert status; suddenly, changing a recommendation would be framed as proof that "the experts have no clue what they're doing." It’s a predictable cycle—I’m not making a prophecy here, but I wouldn't be surprised one bit.
So, I wonder: do you actually support following these adult medical guidelines to prevent another spike in cases, or is your concern for children merely a convenient vehicle for anti-vax rhetoric?
There’s been a noted uptick in cases of myocarditis and pericarditis among younger people who have received Pfizer or Moderna. The CDC is currently looking into why this is happening. So far, they haven't established a definitive causal link, and while there haven't been any fatalities, a small number of individuals required intensive care. It's worth noting that the overall incidence rate remains extremely low.
That said, this is certainly a factor I plan to weigh—alongside the projected risks of a COVID infection and the fact that transmission rates where I live are currently low and trending downward—when the time comes to decide on vaccinations for my children. (They are both far too young at the moment.)
David Jackson2 said:Actually, it was Berat Albayrak. Erdogan put him in charge of Energy and Natural Resources first, then later moved him over to run the Treasury and Finance Department. While he was running things, he basically gutted the central bank by bleeding out a massive chunk of the foreign exchange reserves. By the end of his tenure, about $128 billion had just vanished from the treasury—and then, suddenly, he resigned citing "health reasons" and completely disappeared from the public eye. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? ☕
He’s also famous for that one time—you know the one—where people were freaking out about the dollar losing its value and sliding straight into the gutter. His big defense? He basically told them to suck it up because it doesn't even matter. His logic was that since they aren't getting paid in foreign currency and don't have loans pegged to the dollar, they shouldn't be losing any sleep over it. As if that solves everything... right? 🙄
Even Erdogan went as far as saying he might actually appoint him as Secretary of State. Just kidding—but seriously, can you imagine? 😁
Well, he certainly could have at least sent him as an ambassador to Russia; those kinds of intellectual gymnastics are quite popular there.
They wouldn't dream of clearing out northern Syria without getting the green light from Donald Trump first, though one could argue he was never truly a representative of the West or the USA in any meaningful way.
President of Turkey reacted to Biden's response regarding whether he views Vladimir Putin as a killer, labeling the comment both "inappropriate" and "unacceptable."
Is this just what solidarity looks like among revisionist, far-right "strongmen"? Meanwhile, the ethnic cleansing in Afrin and northern Syria continues without much interference at all.
He made threats against Americans, implying they might feel the weight of an old imperial hammer. 😁 Honestly, I doubt he could pull off anything like that today. It makes you wonder if there’s anyone left who hasn't been bought out—or rather, anyone who hasn't sold out the USA...
In this instance, we're seeing a collision between two heavyweights: equity—take a look at how massive the Greek EEZ is, which really puts a dent in Turkey's interests—and the sanctity of international treaties that established those boundaries in the first place. I don't think Erdogan is entirely off base here, but his maximalist posturing tends to undermine the actual strength of his arguments.
The World subforum (the topic list) has been down for a few hours now, and I keep running into this error message:
Warning: mysqli_query(): (HY000/3024): Query execution was interrupted, maximum statement execution time exceeded in [path]/includes/class_core.php on line 1173 Database Error Database error
It’s a bit like a road closure where the side streets are fine; all the other subforums seem to be working perfectly, and I can even access the individual threads within the "World" section directly, but trying to load the main subforum itself is just a non-starter.
It strikes me that this move isn't necessarily a direct shot at Donald Trump himself, but rather a warning to those within his inner circle who might be weighing how much influence their country retains if the US decides to pull the rug out from under them. There is a massive gulf between clinging to delusions of imperial grandeur and facing the cold, hard reality of geopolitics.