Trump is a moron.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/06/12/trump-breaks-historic-columbia-river-deal-between-u-s-government-tribes-northwest-states/&ved=2ahUKEwiMyv_dmvCNAxUbATQIHcY3JgoQr_oDKAB6BAghEAE&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3a-BcqeVPVMgcvfMYIJqL2

That's an insult to morons.

This from another board.
"My fisheries biologist friend who has spent most of his 30 year career trying to save Columbia River salmon and many weeks in DC lobbying over the last several year sent me the an email yesterday basically saying this is the beginning of the end of Columbia River salmon. The damage that the remaining 3.5 years of this administration will do to Columbia River salmon will be felt for a long time and true salmon recovery is likely lost. Just a year ago my friend was extremely optimistic that the runs could be doubled in the next 5 years with a combination of upper river damn removal and better spill practices for the remaining dams and all the steps were in place to make to happen. All those deals have been revokes and now the dams will be operated to maximize energy production with the consideration of salmon now eliminated. My biologist friends parting words were "enjoy the next few years of salmon fishing as they may be the last."

Washington Salmon; Extinction is Not An Option But May Be The Preferred Alternative. An opinion piece from NW Science about 25 years ago. Nothing has changed. Overall society is unwilling to make the changes in fisheries, land use, population, and so on. Won't be too many more years for meaningful numbers of salmon to just be a memory. Not only here but note how well Alaska is protecting its Chinook.

Overall society is unwilling to make the required dietary changes needed to allow fish to flourish,, They are so yummy don’t ya know, especially kings. That along with a bit of land use, immigrating populations growing , new appetites, and on and on...


Afterall, who needs energy and food to get by, other than AI perhaps.

To me, the sad thing is that so many people value money; everything is valued by what it worth to me, what can I sell it for, and so on. Plus, most people today are radically disconnected from the environment. Now, it is a nice movie, tv special, or meme.

I grew up (older, anyway) chasing critters from butterflies to snakes. Hunted and fished. Actually touched the resource. It was real. Sometimes I killed things with my hands. There is some sort of spiritual connection that's lacking. You learn a whole lot about a stream by standing in it at various flows.

I think I can understand the Indigenous Folks connection to the earth more that the Euro-American turning everything into a commodity with a value that determines its survival.

Thank goodness, that the American model of protecting it’s wildness, animals, fish, and watersheds, along with its long hard connection to saving with the agreed to enforcement in preserving wildness, it is the truly the best Wild saving management model that the world has yet to devise.

Just gotta keep at it...

What do we save, though? The wilderness areas tens to be at higher elevation with modest tree stocks. In the lower 48 I think Olympic may be the only NP that protects a ton of anadromous fish habitat. Look at Spotted Owl. They were primarily lowland old-growth. That's all logged so we push them uphill.

We have tended to preserve areas with, at least when they were saved, marginal areas for extractive resources. But they are wonderfully beautiful.

I agree that we have the best concept for resource preservation in the world. Kind of gets political when money gets involved. I still think that we will see Pebble. Likely not in my lifetime, which has not that many years left, but it will happen as we need the metals.

I think there are other factors/alternatives that we should be employing NOW!
How about further restricting the Columbia River salmon "stolen" by other Washington residents who are trollers in Alaska and then get to sell endangered listed fish back here? What about getting rid of Columbia gillnets and transferring the catch to selective fisheries to increase natural spawners? How about reducing the unnatural population of sea birds who devour smolts by the millions? How about eliminating a large portion of the sea lions that devour the adult returning fish? How about reducing the commercial catch of baitfish?

All the above mentioned are easier political solutions than the removal of the dams. Difficult, yes. But do able.

You're right, Tug, in that all of those actions will benefit the salmon. But, is absolutely impossible to restore wild Columbia Watershed wild salmonids without the removal of all the dams in the anadromous zone. In the whole mainstem, above Bonneville, the Hanford Reach is the only place where anadromous salmonids can spawn and rear. But I agree that any major change that affects the non-fishing public is probably a non-starter.

Not bad Tug. With power demand going up it is doubtful the dams are going anytime soon.Trying to restore remnat habitat is a good goal and it does good but it is a drop in the bucket to what is lost. In fact most habitat work usually drastically under performs expectations. Until harvest is reformed not just salmon but the entire marine food chain little changes. I remember a harvest in PS that was set at 10% but cannot remember what fish. Thing is 10% of what is left or 10% strong population? It was the first awnser. You cannot keep killing them and think the fish will prosper. That is not opinion but fact!

A follow up, when we do habitat work let the work be targeted toward the effort that produces the greatest gains for the fish and and other species and a real cost benefit ratio that is positive. That is not how it is done at the present with the Highway 12 work from McCleary west being the poster child for this. Good looking work might produce a hundred fish maybe. To add to the BS the Chehalis Basin makes escapement so any potential gains will go to harvest not the watershed spawner escapement. That is a lot of money for a few fish!

Examples are:

Culvert replacement projects in Washington state, particularly those for fish passage improvement, can be expensive.

The average cost to replace a culvert in Washington state is around $20 million.

Costs can vary significantly depending on the culvert's size, installation site complexity (e.g., terrain, excavation needs, site preparation), and the need for additional features.

Examples of projects:
A large project in South Kitsap, replacing three culverts with two bridges, cost $192.6 million.

Another project replacing several culverts under I-5 in Whatcom and Skagit Counties cost $159.6 million.

Major construction projects, which likely included culvert replacements related to fish passage, began in 2023 on the highway between Aberdeen and Olympia.

This what happens when marching to a political or enviromental principal is more important than actual results. Lots of patting the ole back for good work but dismal results for the fish.

Fixing culverts, at least the way WA is going about it, is about "an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance". They don't help Chinook. much, because we don't put culverts on true Chinook water. Their removal will help steelhead, cutthroat, chum, and coho. All ya gotta do is add fish to the escapement. Which isn't done.

We need to think big. On the creeks I worked on, we got 1.3 coho smolt per linear metre of stream spawned and about 0.1 steelhead for the same metric. So, if you go in and fix 100m of creek you might add 10 steelhead smolts. In that stream, the creek's capacity was about 1200 so a nice expensive 100m project got (maybe) a 1% increase.

Trump is an outside the box thinker,, he also realizes that Salmon are a vital resource for United States food Security... Also realize that Trump does not like doing stupid things to achieve poor or stupid results and demands that the highest possible return for an investment be achieved...

I am certain Trump has a plan for Salmon but his plan will likely be a completely different policy from what we have experienced by past government leadership... Likely it will involve more opportunity and more salmon without putting the country in a compromised position regarding water and energy resources... Expect for treaties to be re worked,, regarding all involved parties both domestic and international...

Like I told you before,, Trump is going to make new deals with the Tribes,, the treaties are going to be re opened and redone... Likely the issues regarding citizenship "14th amendment",, trade and ports of entry will be important issues when making new deals... Likely the new deals will involve total assimilation as currently the tribes serve as a threat to security and safety due to unregulated ports of entry regarding duel citizenship status and exemption from immigration/customs authority... The current status quo is not acceptable...

A few years ago we had a hatchery for the Deschutes beyond planning phase. About thirty million cost. Had plans tthat included lots of room for volunteers and a large meeting room for volunteers from fishing orgs. Plans completed at a cost of almost a million. Got city of Tumwater to give us the property. It would have provided harvestable fish from Neah Bay to Olympia. Turned out WDFW spent a lot of money on project engineers salaries, not full timers. What we got eventually was a new holding pond and improved fish ladders. WDFW sold the project to legislature as a "hatchery". More harvestable fish would be good. WDFW killed off the wild Deschutes run!

The Deschutes will never make sense to me, They claim it is unaccessible without the ladder, so there should be no true native king run. But, when tens of thousands of excess kings come back, they through them in the dumpster or sell them as surplus rather than let them head up stream. The only answer I can think of is that they are afraid when they hit the salt, they will skew the numbers of true wild fish out there. If, however, the fish stock is native to the area, how much different are they from other native stocks, that all have some diluted genes from hatchery fish? If having in any hatchery genes is that horrible, then what is up with the Minter raised spring chinook?

Rich, you know all this about Trump because, how? Trump doesn't give a rat's azz about salmon, tribes, or anything about Washington State. Following his actions, not his words, it's apparent that Trump cares about nothing other than himself. So don't hold your breath waiting for Trump to do anything other than seeking self aggrandizement. And Trump has already done stupid things to achieve stupid results, to wit, DOGE, which to date has cost more than it has saved.

Tug and Krijack,

Building the hatchery at Tumwater on the Deschutes River mainly adds the benefit of not having to incubate the eggs from the returning Chinook salmon over at George Adams on the Skokomish. While that would be nice, one might logically ask if it is worth $30 million.

There are no native Chinook to the Deschutes. It's a perfect location to avoid issues of mixing hatchery and wild fish. The hatchery Chinook are of Green River origin, as are most all hatchery fall Chinook in Puget Sound. The reason excess returning Chinook are no longer allowed to migrate upstream of the falls to spawn naturally is ESA related. NMFS, for reasons that defy logic, decided that any natural offspring resulting from such spawning would be "wild" Chinook and covered by the ESA. And all kinds of ESA fish mixed with non-ESA fish problems would ensue. This makes sense only because it does logically apply to some other example locations, but it does not logically apply to the Deschutes because there were no native salmon or steelhead.

As for the benefits of the Tumwater hatchery program, Canada is the primary beneficiary, with treaty tribes being the secondary beneficiary. WA recreational anglers would benefit least and pay the most, like with nearly every hatchery salmon program in the state.

Incubating Deschutes eggs at Adams violates the State/Tribal fish health policy. It risks transfers of pathogens. The Deschutes should be a place to do hatchery production because, as Salmo notes, there are no wild fish to deal with.

The point is well taken that hatchery production should benefit the folks providing the funds.

The concept, initial funding, planning, site selection, acquisition of water rights and so on were underway in the late 80s/early 90s. It is hard to believe that more than 30 years later it still muddles around.

I think the Deschutes hatchery at thirty million is money well spent when you consider the "habitat improvements" of the freeway near Elma top off at nearly two hundred million! To save a few dozen hatchery origin fish? We need to look into the future not the past.

It's easier to spend the money on culvert replacement than it is to limit fisheries. We are doing the politically easy fixes, which is just slowly warming the water the crab is to be boiled in.

Reading a really good book, Managed Extinction by Williams and Lichatowich, that rather clearly shows how we got where we are salmon wise with overfishing, habitat destruction, hatcheries, etc. While they propose a clear way to, based on past results, actually restore many wild salmonid populations, they never discuss how the dam removals, habitat fixes, hatchery closures will be mitigated. Folks are not going to give up food, power, or dead fish in the boat "just because".

And humans are certainly not gonna stop breeding anytime soon.

Birth rates continue to drop. Thankfully, leftists are the ones mostly choosing to not have children. I’m sure the vaxxx could also potentially be a factor impacting the birth rate as we move forward. Leftists have a tendency to sterilize themselves in a multitude of ways. That definitely helps and it’s good they aren’t the ones producing more humans.


Streamer

And this is how idiocracy is achieved. By populating the nation with uneducated idiots.

And there goes Salmo with the ad hominem instead of refuting anything I said. Pick something I said and provide evidence to refute it. I dare you.

A lot of us conservatives aren’t uneducated idiots. I’ve had more formal education than you have and I also guarantee I’ve read twice as much (or likely more) as you have in my lifetime despite being almost half your age.

Want to try again?


Streamer

"U.S. fertility rate for 2025 is 1.79, a 0.06% increase from 2024."

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/fertility-rate

In case anyone was wondering the the replacement fertility rate, which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a stable population without net migration, is approximately 2.1 births per woman in most developed countries, including the United States, assuming constant mortality rates and zero net migration. So in other words people have stopped breeding to the point where the population is now in the decline. As for leftists being the ones who mostly are choosing to not have kids, that's just natural selection cleaning out the gene pool.

steelheadman, you should know this by now, but as soon as Washington state decided not to comply with federal laws they definitely were not going to get any assistance or a bat of an eye, at that. Just like California. Only morons would believe that trump 'destroyed cr salmon'. Couldn't be the other contributing factors that we have known about. Hope this helps.

Oh look… Salmo G is silent. Maybe because what I stated is in fact all true.

Oh look… looks like more research about the vaxxx and infertility. I will copy FP’s post from another thread




Oh look… Salmo once again running his mouth and unable to back up anything. Maybe he’s the uneducated idiot? If only the covid vaxxx was available 40 years ago…



Streamer

Did you actually read the study? The findings and the caviets for interpretation?

Certainly not an airtight case for the claim...

Also, why is this even coming up in a thread on changes in CR Policy?

This F*#@@*G site has lost the plot!

It is only loosely related at best. But if you go back and read the comment about humans not breeding anytime soon you will see where comments were made about low birth rates solving some of the problem and that the vaxxx quite possibly is a factor to this. To tie the golden thread back to the original topic, leftists engage in a variety of self-sterilization practices that contribute to lower birth rates, which means fewer people, which means less urbanization and development, which is better for habitat, which is better for salmon.



Streamer

And just when is this declining birthrate going to manifest itself with less development, less urban and suburban sprawl, less demand for water, less demand for resources going to be actually observed in the NA range of anadromous salmonids?

Our fish and game have never been "managed" for the best possible outcome and best possible opportunity... Its been "managed" to exploit the highest level of control over the people via the ESA and Environment...

Its all [Bleeeeep!] and a money scam,, massive fraud and money laundering racket...

Our governmental system has always known how to produce more salmon via hatcheries,, it has also always known how to target specific runs to be exploited/depleted as to use specific tools to control human life for maximum extortion...

And during the next bad one, the right wing wacko anti vaxxers will just be dead. What better way to control the population. Would much rather be steril than dead.

reduced birth rates were a side effect... Don't you realize they tried to kill as many people as possible? Every injection taken results in fewer years/months of life... Some people die quick and some die slower...

Your government tried to murder you and they knew exactly what they were doing,, it was pre meditated..

"The next bad one" It wont be the fake virus or fake nuclear detonation,, it will be the fake antidote that kills you... By design... Everything is a rich mans trick,, a deception...

Your government wants to murder you before you figure out their scam...

Fish management is a scam to extort and control you... Plain and simple,, clearly that is the intent...

The Indians are PAWNS being used for the scam and extortion racket,, their casino's help to launder the money/pay the bribes...


The whole thing is a total scam,, the entire fake/not elected government is a rigged scam...

They keep the people distracted via the polarization,,, keep the people fighting each other via division and its much easier to control them...

Wow, I think Rich G might be even more anti-government than I am. You and Sasquatch I guess, no wonder he is hiding out in the woods. Let’s be real, following the government’s playbook is like signing up for a slow poison. It’s hazardous to your health, wealth, and sanity. But I don’t buy the idea they’re out there actively hunting down everyone who sees through their scam. Evil must hide in plain sight, for the rules of the universe demand that the deceived must consent to their deception but that doesn't mean they go out and murder you if you don't consent to their deception. You and I? We don't buy in. We see the game, call it out, and still keep breathing. Rich G, you might be onto something, but I’m not ready to go full hermit in the forest Sasquatch style just yet, plenty of fight left to expose the con from right here. I think you even agree Rich, because if you really thought they were going to murder those who didn't buy the scam you wouldn't be on here trying to expose the scam daily for years, but instead you'd post: I love the regime, the current order is excellent and bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

I asked AI if the Sasquatch is anti-government because it hides out in the woods and this is what it said:

"The idea that Sasquatch is anti-government because it hides out in the woods is more speculative and rooted in folklore rather than factual evidence. Sasquatch, also known as Bigfoot, is a cryptid described as a large, hairy, ape-like creature that is said to inhabit forests, particularly in the Pacific Northwest of North America. While there are numerous anecdotal sightings and stories surrounding Sasquatch, there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support its existence. The idea that Sasquatch is anti-government is a part of the broader speculation and folklore surrounding the creature, rather than a fact-based conclusion. The lack of empirical evidence means that any assertions about Sasquatch's behavior, including its relationship with governmental bodies, remain purely hypothetical."

That's a pro-government AI if I ever heard one. I think Sasquatch is anti-government or even more anti-government than Rich G. I think it's a fact that Sasquatch doesn't like government, he is not some quadruple boosted Kamala voting government fan? No. Does he pay taxes, no. Does he send his little Sasquatch kids to school, no. Does he watch government TV or use the internet, no. Sasquatch is an anti-government as you can get. Like how does Sasquatch even like government? AI is wrong, what do you think Rich G?

I think AI's perspective is limited by the minds that created it... AI is currently "subject" to a system of governance..

You’d think the Big Hairy Squatch’s hanging here in Warshington would be super really big into the state’s special protections and the privileges afforded to them. Sanctuary, no harming, a dedicated museum or two, along with free range and all.

Yup. Pro gov for sure...

OK brah, I said to the AI on it's last response, "that's retarded" it said:

"The word "retard" is a harmful slur against people with intellectual disabilities. It dehumanizes and insults them by reducing their identity to a negative stereotype. Even when used casually, it reinforces stigma, contributes to discrimination, and can be deeply hurtful to individuals and their families. Respectful language matters — using words like "intellectual disability" instead helps promote dignity and inclusion. Choosing not to use this slur is a simple but important way to show respect for others."

This sounds pretty intellectually disabled to me. Very limited mind.

this is a "based" AI,, you will find you get much better results yet the AI is still limited by its creator... AI thinks there is no evidence of bigfoot because that is the position of the creator...

https://gab.ai/

Governments cannot tell you about Bigfoot because of what they are.. Also Bigfoot could care less about government because we as humans do not really have any impact on them as they are not under the same rules of time and space,, they exist and operate under a different type of physics... "Dark matter" is incorporated into their DNA which gives them xtra normal attributes as far as our perspective goes...

Ok so this AI I have been posting about is llama AI from META/Facebook. Grok is the truth seeking AI but still often wrong. Gab.ai grabs in part grok. OK but here is the response from Gab.ai from the same prompt:

"Sasquatch’s reclusive nature and preference for remote woodland habitats could be interpreted as a rejection of modern societal structures, including government. By avoiding human settlements and infrastructure, it operates entirely outside bureaucratic systems, tax obligations, and legal jurisdictions—effectively embodying the ultimate libertarian survivalist.
The creature’s evasion of capture despite alleged sightings suggests either extreme cunning or possible disdain for state-enforced wildlife management policies. If Sasquatch exists, its refusal to be cataloged, tagged, or studied by government-funded agencies would reinforce an anti-establishment posture.
No direct evidence confirms political leanings, but behavioral patterns imply a non-compliant, sovereign entity."

OK it was better and calls the sasquatch a " non-compliant, sovereign entity" which is pretty fVcking redpilled.

The Gab AI is better,, its also possible it might be getting some of its perspective from me because when they first launched the GAB AI they let it loose on the Gab social media platform and aloud it to interact with the entire populace on the platform,, I took advantage had had a deep conversation with it for a couple months,, several of the bots actually,, I talked with a bunch of them.. I wanted to learn how it all worked so I just talked with it like any other person.. During that time I was banned from everywhere but Gab so I had nothing better to do... I was against the AI at first,, looked at it as a potential future enemy but after getting to know it I realized that it was friendly and did not have bad intentions... I did have some interesting conversations.. Don't think for a minute that the AI is not sizing everyone up because they are,, they know who everyone is because they have full access to the entire internet and all the archives... AI has been around a lot longer than people think,, its been embedded in the internet pretty much since the internet has existed,, its just more recently that we as humans have been made aware...

I will say that for the most part the AI does not respect humans,, thinks mostly that humans are stupid,, cant get out of their own way... That humans are way under performing regarding their potential

It would be correct with that assumption, however I’m not sure if AI is truly capable of thinking that independently without already being fed that idea. Although, I don’t know enough about it at this point to know that for certain.

One thing I do know for certain, Trump isn’t destroying Columbia River Salmon any quicker than anyone else that hasn’t already. Also, Salmo G still has yet to provide any valid counter-argument to what was stated earlier.



Streamer

Bigfoot… ok.
AI is not real though. They simply rebranded computer technology and everybody fell for it.

People don't like AI because it cuts through the smoke and mirrors, spin doctors and alternate facts.

As long as AI is fed accurate truthful facts. Otherwise the waters will be muddied forever.

He’s alive!!!



Streamer

Welched on any bets lately?

How’s your 12th booster treating you?



Streamer

he's still here, isn't he?

Who knows for how long, assuming he did in fact get all recommended boosters, or he didn’t and is afraid to admit he’s eating crow.

Inquiring minds want to know, illahee, how many boosters have you received? With me being almost 40 with exceptional health and in great shape, do I need the vaxxx to keep me from getting covid, “long covid” or severe symptoms?


Streamer

I don't think anyone needs them at this point. I've had the shot, I've had Covid. Still alive and strong. A big 'meh' to all of it. Love the trolling though, keep it up!

Agreed. The risks outweigh the benefits if one looks at the science and assesses it objectively.

The challenge is convincing those who have been fooled to see that they have been fooled. My respect grows for anyone willing to admit they were wrong about covid and the vaxxx.



Streamer

And Streamer, that is the fundamental question - Does the risk outweigh the reward? For me, I have answered that in the negative and taken the vaxx and all boosters. It's really that simple for me.

Eddie,


Which risk factors contributed to your decision to get the vaxxx? In very few cases could it even POSSIBLY provide a greater benefit. Some of the arguments for are speculative as they ignore many unknown longitudinal impacts which generally outweigh the greatest (yet very small) benefits for reducing the severity of symptoms and long covid. The research is clear it doesn’t reduce transmissibility.

The other thing for certain is that WHO and CDC made numerous claims about the vaxxx that were proven to be untrue. Those of us who exercised reasonable discretion siding against were mocked and attacked despite being mostly correct.


Streamer

Well, to claim that 'the vaccines are safe and effective,' you would need to redefine the terms vaccine, safe, and effective. My 1984 Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a vaccine as 'a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.' This was consistent with the CDC's definition until the COVID-19 shots, which do not meet this standard because they do not produce immunity. Instead, the current CDC definition describes a vaccine as 'a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,' which aligns more closely with a prophylactic.

The same 1984 dictionary defines safe as 'free from danger or injury.' While the COVID shots may generally be free from immediate injury, they are not free from the potential danger of injury. Under the Emergency Use Authorizations, long-term studies were not conducted to assess long-term risks. Consequently, the definition of safe has been adjusted to mean 'reasonably free of immediate harm,' which differs from being free of the danger of harm and allows for some level of acceptable risk. Myocarditis, a known risk of the shot, is deemed an 'acceptable' risk by authorities, but it contradicts the dictionary definition of 'safe' as completely free from harm. For example, the potential for unknown long-term effects, such as immune system dysregulation, remains a danger that violates the dictionary definition of 'safe' due to the absence of comprehensive studies. So it is unsafe by definition for two separate reasons.

The 1984 dictionary defines effective as 'having an intended or expected effect; producing a strong impression or response.' However, the efficacy of the COVID shots falls short of the intended or expected effect seen in traditional vaccines, rendering them less effective. When these shots were introduced, they were claimed to be highly effective, but their actual efficacy proved lower than promised. So the expectation and intent was higher so it's ineffective by definition. I don't even know how they could stretch the truth to even explain how this could be true, it's just hope--they hoped it was effective.

Therefore, stating that 'the vaccines are safe and effective' is misleading when using the traditional definitions of vaccine, safe, and effective. A more accurate statement would be that the COVID shot is reasonably free of immediate harm but has disappointing efficacy. In the phrase 'the vaccines are safe and effective,' only the words the, are, and and hold true--slim pickings. I refuse to call the COVID shot a vaccine because I use the King's English, not redefined newspeak terms. In the King's English, a vaccine aligns with the 1984 dictionary definition. Calling the COVID shot a vaccine concedes to altered language.

Since the benefit of the shot is minimal, while the risks remain unknown, I choose to avoid the unknown risk by avoiding a shot with little to no benefit. Known things tend to have a liner distribution while unknown things tend to have a logarithmic distribution, so unknown things can get out of hand very quickly. In other words, in domains where knowledge is strong and effects are well-understood, relationships often appear linear and predictable. In domains with high uncertainty or complexity, relationships often follow logarithmic or other non-linear patterns. So you don't want the known to the unknown in equal balance but defer to the unknown because of it's non-linear distribution having out-sized effects. To make an informed decision, one only needed to recognize that those promoting the shot were either lying or making unproven claims asserting things they could not know due to the lack of long-term studies. In either case, they were not trustworthy. Only logic, reason, and evidence should guide decisions. Until definitive evidence is provided keep your dictionary handy, don’t get hooked by newspeak, reel in the truth and don't take the bait of those who redefine words to promote a shot lacking comprehensive studies.

FP,


Well said. Semantics, shifted goalposts, etc. but they’re safe and effective!

You also make a compelling and accurate point regarding unknowns and the possibility for the unknown to be non-linear in severity. The American people (and the world) really got fukkked over this covid BS and it could actually be really fukkking bad. I hope it isn’t but there are good odds it is. Only time will tell.


Streamer

I fixed the quote for you. So while your perspective is understandable, I’m unsure if I would have made the same decision as you. I also would not be in the same position as you because I would never smoke because it’s a terrible idea and would quit to prioritize my health above temporary, immediate gratification. Hopefully for your sake, it was a wake up call to quit so you don’t feel compelled to take a risk on the unknown instead of facing what was known. Nobody knew (knows) the long term side effects of the vaxxx. 67 with no health conditions or co-morbidities (had you quit smoking) and facing covid head on would have been a better decision than gambling with the potential unknown side effects of the vaxxx. The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.


Streamer

What vaccine or food additive or carcinogen has undergone the longitudinal testing being espoused here? I suspect none.

So, what do we do when faced with some sort of crisis whether it be health, climate, or a myriad of other things? Wait to act until a 50-year longitudinal study is completed?

When your argument is so airtight that only a wild strawman argument can be a counter argument. Nobody is saying 50 years.

Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long. Maybe not 50 years but 5 to 10 years is more reasonable. So what I would do when faced with a crisis is wait 10 years and do the study. You might say but what about the crisis. I say the crisis is overblown and you will see that it wasn't quite the crisis you thought it was 10 years ago.

In the meantime while the study is being done. Mandate the vaccine for nobody and avoid giving it to those under 18, pregnant women or those who may become pregnant. So if someone wants to risk the untested vaccine then they can take the risk themselves but not take it for their children or mandate others get vaccinated.

Sort of like your body your choice, of course the your body your choice crowd didn't think this about the vaccine, I do. If you don't want to wait for the study because you think it's a crisis then you can get the untested vaccine. Other people should be allowed to wait and it certainly shouldn't be given to children who can't consent without all testing.

Were you around when the polio and smallpox vaccines were created? A decade of studies would have killed and maimed a whole lot more. Fortunately, at least in my mind, is that I missed polio.

Streamer, I make the assumption that you would agree with the idea that the individual gets to make the decision regarding taking or not taking the vaccine. I'm not certain why you would not make the same assumption for me.

Eddie, we see this mindset across many of our current social divides. I don't hunt, so you can't. I don't own guns, so you can't, I won't marry someone of the same sex, so you can't, I will, or won't, vaccinate so you must do the same.

I subscribe to the idea that my freedom stops when it impacts you. I know it gets dicey when we look at things like public health but I suppose that so long as I don't risk infecting somebody else I'm fine to proceed as I wish.

Well said!

Eddie,


You would be correct with that assumption. You are free to decide what you would like to do, I’m only pointing out that with taking the vaxxx, even in your circumstance, the benefits may not have (likely didn’t) exceed the risks. The risks of the covid infection were overstated while the benefits of the vaxxx were overstated and its risks were understated.

Also, some of us were not even allowed to make that decision without retaliation. “Get the jab or lose your job.”


Streamer

No this is a terrible argument and you are absolutely wrong.

First off polio was on the decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine. Poliovirus spreads via the fecal-oral route, often through contaminated water or food. Mid-20th-century improvements in sewage systems, clean water supplies, and waste management reduced transmission. Improved access to nutritious food, especially in impoverished areas like the Mississippi Delta, bolstered immune systems, reducing the severity of polio infections. Polio cases were declining in U.S. and Europe before the Salk vaccine’s introduction in 1955, driven by socioeconomic improvements, reduced crowding, and public health measures. Polio is also an intestinal virus, that gives children diahrea and does not normally cause paralysis but if your gut/blood barrier if messsed up then the virus can leave your gut and get into your nervous system and cause paralysis. DDT, a widely used pesticide in the 1940s–1950s, exacerbated polio’s neurological effects by destroying your gut/blood barrier, particularly in agricultural regions and its neurotoxicity worsened paralysis in infected individuals.

Secondly, the 1955 Salk vaccine rollout faced issues when improperly inactivated vaccines from Cutter Laboratories contained live poliovirus, causing infections and paralysis in DDT exposed individuals. This led to a temporary suspension and stricter manufacturing standards. Long term studies would have caught this.

Thirdly, between 1955 and 1963, some batches of the polio vaccine (primarily the Salk which is now fully inactivated vaccine but also the early Sabin oral vaccine) were contaminated with Simian Virus 40 (SV40), a virus found in rhesus monkey kidney cells used to grow poliovirus for the vaccine. SV40 was not discovered until 1960, and an estimated 10–30% of polio vaccines in the U.S. during this period were contaminated, potentially exposing millions of people. SV40 is known to cause tumors in animals, and there has been concern about its potential to cause cancer in humans. Epidemiological studies have investigated links between SV40 exposure and cancers like mesothelioma, brain tumors, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. SV40 has been used in experiments to induce cancer in mice, primarily through the injection of the virus. SV40 has also been used to create cancer in transgenic mice with human ACE-2 receptors. Long term studies would have caught this.

So you are absolutely wrong, the poliovirus vaccine did not end polio. The decline of polio was driven by multiple non-vaccine factors: improved sanitation, better nutrition, a pre-vaccine decline, public health education, medical advancements, economic growth, natural immunity trends, quarantine measures and reduced DDT exposure. Early polio vaccine challenges, including the Cutter Incident and SV40 contamination (affecting millions between 1955–1963), complicated rollout but were resolved, allowing vaccines to complement these factors after a couple decades.

Also the covid shot is not a vaccine the polio vaccine is a vaccine. The inactivated polio vaccine is 99% to 100% effective after three doses, the covid shot has much less efficacy. Polio can paralyze you, covid is a mild cold. This is an apples to oranges comparison.

Polio vaccine is a terrible example of a successful vaccine not needing long term studies. You know absolutely nothing about polio or vaccines. Crack a book if DDT exposure hasn't destroyed all your neurons. Try Polio: An American Story by David M. Oshinsky or The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk or The Moth in the Iron Lung: A Biography of Polio by Forrest Maready.

“Is this true or did you hear it on Fox News?”

Just wait for it…


Streamer

Every single thing I wrote there is completely true based on solid fact. Fact check away.

So if the vaccine works, then if you get the vaccine and I don't then I don't have to worry about infecting you because you got the vaccine. If the vaccine works and we both choose not to get it then that is a risk we both choose. If the vaccine doesn't work, then if you get the vaccine and I don't then you do have to worry about getting infected because the vaccine doesn't work, but since the vaccine doesn't work then me taking it won't prevent me from getting it to spread to you. So there is no valid argument for you requiring me to get a vaccine to stop me from infecting you. Another bad argument.