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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1579234)	12/23/2025 2:46:21 PM
From: combjelly	2 Recommendations Recommended By Eric pocotrader Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579961

You are judging vaccines by a standard that even natural immunity never meets I am not. You are. The previous wording could be used by those of a litigious nature to sue. Corporations are allergic to being sued over wording. So they changed it to more accurately reflect what they do. One of the biggest factors that compromises immunity long term is the fact that viruses, much like living creatures, mutate and evolve. DNA viruses, like measles and polio, don't mutate readily. DNA can essentially do some error detection and correction, and that puts a lid on mutation rates. RNA viruses don't do that. They mutate much more readily. So things like corona and influenza viruses are constantly changing, limiting the effectiveness of a given vaccine over time. Even then, they can offer partial immunity depending on how different the new virus is. Modern vaccines are designed primarily to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, not to guarantee zero infections forever. Bullshit. Most modern vaccines target RNA viruses. Most of the DNA viruses that are dangerous have already been covered. They are a moving target and they tend to have a flock of closely related viruses because of the mutation rates. So coming up with a vaccine that is effective against a range of viruses is harder than one that targets a much smaller set. Which is why they seem to be designed primarily to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, not to guarantee zero infections forever. They aren't designed that way. It likely isn't possible to do that consistently by design. It is a side effect of the way the viruses mutate. I agree that one of us doesn't understand immunology and how viruses work, though.

To: Maple MAGA who wrote (1579234)	12/23/2025 3:02:59 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	2 Recommendations Recommended By Eric pocotrader Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579961

Joachim, it's been explained to you before. The vaccines themselves don't provide immunity. Instead, they jumpstart your own natural immunity system so that it knows what to do when a novel viral infection happens. It's not a question of "vaccines vs. nAtUrAl iMmUnItY," but rather "unassisted natural immunity vs. assisted natural immunity." As for the myth about vaccines not being able to guarantee zero infections, yeah, if there is still a sizable portion of the population that refuses to get vaccinated, vaccines won't be enough to eradicate the disease. That's why measles, after being declared eradicated, is making a comeback. All thanks to you anti-vaxxers who think that vaccines cause autism and other supposedly debilitating side effects. The only thing in this case that causes "autism" is antivax misinformation from the Q Continuum. Tenchusatsu