Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (176225)	8/13/2021 3:32:53 AM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219711

"The science"... from back in 2015... Note the overt politicization, or, "de-scientization" already in play back then... with "scientists" saying "we can't talk about this" because it might support arguments I will disagree with ? And, note, the knee jerk in "that couldn't happen"... only because I don't want it to be true ? Could some vaccines make diseases more deadly? Since then... we've learned a lot more not only about the "known" potential risks... but about the viruses we're addressing with technologies that aren't actually good enough to prevent infection... or stop them making things worse... in the normal course... if they have a mind to... as seems is occurring with Covid. There are risks extant... the article from back then does not consider... that the vaccine that provides "leaky" protections against one virus... might actually prevent immune functions working at all in responding to another event that is far more virulent... The "protection" afforded against viral impacts, but not infection, in one instance... might actually provide "protection" for the virus... against normal immune functions... and amplify the viral impacts in another instance... where the virus has evolved to exploit that vulnerability being created by the vaccine campaign. In that instance... those vaccinated are at GREATER risk from subsequent infections than those not... "This changes your immune system"... does not require a change made can only be a benefit, now and in the future... "This changes your immune system... in a way X doesn't like"... doesn't mean "the change X doesn't like"... isn't exactly the change that Y is looking for... That you can construct a case in which vaccination works as the article above describes... so that universal vaccination becomes important not to get herd immunity... where there is no herd immunity... but to get herd protection and survival... ? That doesn't mean that instance is the only case that CAN be constructed... or that it being the intended case and hoped for outcome... makes it the only one that is likely... The scientists ARE biasing their "findings" to favor "allowing us to do what we want"... whether that actually makes a lick of sense or not... Not different than Fauci claiming "gain of function" is not "gain of function"... because he wants to do gain of function even when its not allowed... ? Can we vaccinate against that, somehow ? Where the view in the above article imposes its biggest problems... is when you move the concepts they're applying from chickens into humans... because humans are not chickens... and no one has the right or the authority to make decisions for the whole human population... when those choices alter individual risks... and remove choice from individuals to require them to participate in ill conceived schemes... "for the greater good"... when the truth of that choice made might well prove to be the opposite. The assertions of certainty... of the "that'll never happen" sort... are the clearest possible tell of danger...