Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On February 25 2026 00:05 Manit0u wrote: Starting from riches and remaining rich is not really successful though. Trump managed to bankrupt casinos multiple times and had to be bailed out by his father and others. Being able to put his name on buildings like hotels was also something out of his reach until Russians made it happen as a gift to him to coerce him.
Pretty much every business this guy touches goes to shit. All the great "deals" he makes are mostly just shady stuff on how people can bribe him to do stuff for them.
Dude is not smart, he's not business savvy, he has no class. He got rich on being bribed by various parties to do their bidding and all kinds of scams.
You also think Musk failed upwards. Who is a good, nice, virtuous successful billionaire businessman? Examples.
I have a hard time believing if Trump had as high a net worth as Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, rather than his measly failed single digit billions, that he'd have your respect for his business acumen. Just a hollow-ringing criticism.
“I can’t respond to the argument you made about Trump doing worse than passive investing but what I can do is come up with another argument that you didn’t make and then respond to that.”
It’s really not that hard to say “yeah, Trump’s many business ventures generally underperformed over the years, but business acumen isn’t why I simp for him”.
The parts before a question mark must print in invisible ink on your screen. You want to respond, you name a good nice virtuous successful billionaire businessman you respect, especially who outperformed S&P500 over some period.
It's not an argument. There is no argument. "Paper trading outperforms Trump." Who all-ined the S&P500 in 1980 or whatever and didn't take a single cent out until today? For $100 or $200 or $400 million or however much people exactly think Trump inherited? Nobody. Paper trading. What is the point? The S&P1 outperformed the S&P500. The S&P600 underperformed the S&P500. Elon Musk outperformed everything. So did Bitcoin. The goal of investing could very well be to wait 40 years to have a fund of questionable liquidity which is a tax liability if you want to do something else with it. That is not strictly the same goal of business. Nor of life. In the real world you do actually have to sell sometimes. Whereas in a stock, knowing the past, you can say the "index" performed such and such even though in an economic downturn when people (of whom Trump is one) need liquidity they will definitely be selling at points and not being a psychopathic 40 year HODL whose trades would be the indistinguishable from someone in a 40 year coma.
If you put $1000 into the S&P500 and next year your net worth goes from $30k to $100k because you banked income from a cushy new job you didn't massively outperform the S&P500. When your savings is cut in half for medical bills you didn't underperform the S&P500. Someone's total net worth is different than the part of their net worth of the funds they invest into public stock.
Comparing an entire business to investing is apples to oranges.
If someone wanted to compare Trump's public stock action vs the S&P 500, that might be apples to apples. I mean the S&P500 outperforms mutual funds that doesn't mean everyone who puts a dollar in a mutual fund is a fucking orange idiot failure. Anyone whose net worth increases more than inflation is afloat.
My argument is unless you can name an unridiculed businessman, the source can be ignored. My prediction is it's a triple Morton's fork. Trump net worth < S&P index -> "He can't even outperform the S&P500" Trump net worth = S&P index -> "All that work he did just to equal the S&P500? Casinos going under and selling airlines? What an idiot he should have..." Trump's net worth > S&P index -> "Trump is a corrupt crony exploitative agent of capitalism who won't pay his fair share in taxes and spread the wealth" That is a prediction. It's not meant to be a strawman since Trump didn't equal or outperform the S&P500. It's a "What-if" question. But we don't have that experiment. We can't go to those alternate universes. By all means explain to me that prediction is wrong. The only lateral question to answer is name someone else whose net worth outperformed the index calculations of the S&P500 who you don't think is a steaming pile of exploitative capitalist shit, and if there's no answer that tells me just how seriously to take the first "argument."
Dude, when you're a multimillionaire, 99% of your net worth is invested somewhere. Money in a bank account only exists for poor people. So you're either invested in the SP500, other stocks, in real estate, in bitcoin, your own business or whatever other investment you think is smart to make you the most money. If over the course of your life of investing, you're severely under performing the SP500, that means you either took too much risk and got very unlucky, or you're just bad at investing.
Now me personally I don't care that Trump is bad at investing. No one here hates Trump because he's not a good businessman, we don't like him because he's an extremist, a megalomaniac, and at minimum someone of questionable morals.
On February 25 2026 00:05 Manit0u wrote: Starting from riches and remaining rich is not really successful though. Trump managed to bankrupt casinos multiple times and had to be bailed out by his father and others. Being able to put his name on buildings like hotels was also something out of his reach until Russians made it happen as a gift to him to coerce him.
Pretty much every business this guy touches goes to shit. All the great "deals" he makes are mostly just shady stuff on how people can bribe him to do stuff for them.
Dude is not smart, he's not business savvy, he has no class. He got rich on being bribed by various parties to do their bidding and all kinds of scams.
You also think Musk failed upwards. Who is a good, nice, virtuous successful billionaire businessman? Examples.
I have a hard time believing if Trump had as high a net worth as Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, rather than his measly failed single digit billions, that he'd have your respect for his business acumen. Just a hollow-ringing criticism.
“I can’t respond to the argument you made about Trump doing worse than passive investing but what I can do is come up with another argument that you didn’t make and then respond to that.”
It’s really not that hard to say “yeah, Trump’s many business ventures generally underperformed over the years, but business acumen isn’t why I simp for him”.
The parts before a question mark must print in invisible ink on your screen. You want to respond, you name a good nice virtuous successful billionaire businessman you respect, especially who outperformed S&P500 over some period.
It's not an argument. There is no argument. "Paper trading outperforms Trump." Who all-ined the S&P500 in 1980 or whatever and didn't take a single cent out until today? For $100 or $200 or $400 million or however much people exactly think Trump inherited? Nobody. Paper trading. What is the point? The S&P1 outperformed the S&P500. The S&P600 underperformed the S&P500. Elon Musk outperformed everything. So did Bitcoin. The goal of investing could very well be to wait 40 years to have a fund of questionable liquidity which is a tax liability if you want to do something else with it. That is not strictly the same goal of business. Nor of life. In the real world you do actually have to sell sometimes. Whereas in a stock, knowing the past, you can say the "index" performed such and such even though in an economic downturn when people (of whom Trump is one) need liquidity they will definitely be selling at points and not being a psychopathic 40 year HODL whose trades would be the indistinguishable from someone in a 40 year coma.
If you put $1000 into the S&P500 and next year your net worth goes from $30k to $100k because you banked income from a cushy new job you didn't massively outperform the S&P500. When your savings is cut in half for medical bills you didn't underperform the S&P500. Someone's total net worth is different than the part of their net worth of the funds they invest into public stock.
Comparing an entire business to investing is apples to oranges.
If someone wanted to compare Trump's public stock action vs the S&P 500, that might be apples to apples. I mean the S&P500 outperforms mutual funds that doesn't mean everyone who puts a dollar in a mutual fund is a fucking orange idiot failure. Anyone whose net worth increases more than inflation is afloat.
My argument is unless you can name an unridiculed businessman, the source can be ignored. My prediction is it's a triple Morton's fork. Trump net worth < S&P index -> "He can't even outperform the S&P500" Trump net worth = S&P index -> "All that work he did just to equal the S&P500? Casinos going under and selling airlines? What an idiot he should have..." Trump's net worth > S&P index -> "Trump is a corrupt crony exploitative agent of capitalism who won't pay his fair share in taxes and spread the wealth" That is a prediction. It's not meant to be a strawman since Trump didn't equal or outperform the S&P500. It's a "What-if" question. But we don't have that experiment. We can't go to those alternate universes. By all means explain to me that prediction is wrong. The only lateral question to answer is name someone else whose net worth outperformed the index calculations of the S&P500 who you don't think is a steaming pile of exploitative capitalist shit, and if there's no answer that tells me just how seriously to take the first "argument."
Dude, when you're a multimillionaire, 99% of your net worth is invested somewhere. Money in a bank account only exists for poor people. So you're either invested in the SP500, other stocks, in real estate, in bitcoin, your own business or whatever other investment you think is smart to make you the most money. If over the course of your life of investing, you're severely under performing the SP500, that means you either took too much risk and got very unlucky, or you're just bad at investing.
Now me personally I don't care that Trump is bad at investing. No one here hates Trump because he's not a good businessman, we don't like him because he's an extremist, a megalomaniac, and at minimum someone of questionable morals.
You say you don’t like him because of his bad morals. However I choose to imagine that even if he had good morals you still wouldn’t like him. Therefore I imagine your criticism to be dishonest. How are we to seriously consider you as a judge of morals when I literally just imagined you also disapproving of Mr Rogers? As such I will sidestep the entire issue of morality because clearly you are no judge of it. I am very smart.
On February 26 2026 07:11 Geiko wrote: No one here hates Trump because he's not a good businessman, we don't like him because he's an extremist, a megalomaniac, and at minimum someone of questionable morals.
It's worth calling out the myth of his business acumen, both because a) it establishes the right lies about even easily debunkable nonsense, and b) it nips in the bud the argument "well sure he's a bad person morally, but the economy is more important than one man's individual depravity"; you have to be grossly uninformed to have supported child molester Donald Trump because of his putative business acumen.
On February 25 2026 23:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Oh , and when discussing the economy I should add one additional note.
There is an additional signal indicating the massive size and massive success of the USA's upper middle class and middle class. The USA is now the #1 world power in the very expensive sport that Canadians just love to call "Ice Hockey". And this is happening with only a small fraction of the population interested in playing hockey.
I find it hilarious how you can conclude that the middle class in Canada is toast compared to the US based off the fact that the US beat Canada in a best of 1 hockey game where the US got heavily outshot and was single handedly saved by a goalie playing out of his mind in a 2-1 result lmao. This is almost as retarded as your conclusion that Tim Hortons donut sales are down, therefore Canadian middle class = annihilated.
It’s a novel approach to economic analysis that’s for sure
It may be worth noting that the US never really reaching the upper echelons of men’s football, the world’s most popular sport is frequently partly attributed to grass roots football clubs being too expensive and gating out talented poor folks, or indeed middle class ones.
A sport that generally thrives precisely because it’s bloody cheap to play.
Indeed you’re starting to see it with the USWNT too. As women’s football is gaining traction and legitimacy elsewhere, others have caught up or even surpassed the traditional titans of the women’s game that the US have been. The college production line used to do the job, but increasingly isn’t cutting it versus more robust grass roots football elsewhere
Bit of a tangent but hey I started, figured I may as well finish
On February 26 2026 01:36 Jankisa wrote: I'm like the least nationalistic person imaginable.
This guy is cheering on his "new country" against his own country of origin, while his new country is actively trying to crater his old country's economy and openly threatening annexation, and trying to incite separatist movements is really something.
The Fox News "analysis" of the GDP numbers is as laughable as always, I believe this is the 3rd time Jimmy here came to the thread as they keep revising the numbers down, and yet he keeps getting fed silver linings by his media diet, pretty sad.
If there’s ever someone who bends reality to their own personal vibes it’s Jimmy here. I don’t recall him ever actually deviating from his own preconceived notions like, ever even when there’s a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. On the plus side he is good for a Seinfeld reference
I mean case in point, economy doing good! Except white collar wages aren’t doing as well, but that’s not down to the wider economy, it’s because they’re all on social media and not hustling hard enough.
Also just uproot and move is a catchall solution to all woes on a macro scale
I think many right wingers in the current situation adopt the beliefs because they expect rewards when they play along with the program.
When you have information bubbles adapted to the US administrations current needs it becomes tempting to just be a yes-man to reap benefits or avoid trouble.
While some concerns on immigration might be justified, the spreading acceptance of rights violation or threats to sovereigns isn‘t. And it looks like the ‚big ones‘ of corporations are all in on it without exception.
Savagery for thee but not for me, because I‘m in the bigger building.
I know it's been said before, but to get hired by Trump's administration seems to require a cult-like adherence to the party-line. A doctor who is the nominee for a surgeon general cannot give a straightforward much less an evidence-based answer to whether or not flu-vaccines are efficacious but has to dance around the question because she knows what RFK says and a rabid section of MAGA thinks and therefore what Trump wants her to say, but she can't say that either because as a doctor she cannot sign off on what MAGA world wants her to say.
Trump is a black hole that distorts and warps everything around him.
Also love this. Whatever ICE was is not what they are churning out into the streets now.
I know it's been said before, but to get hired by Trump's administration seems to require a cult-like adherence to the party-line. A doctor who is the nominee for a surgeon general cannot give a straightforward much less an evidence-based answer to whether or not flu-vaccines are efficacious but has to dance around the question because she knows what RFK says and a rabid section of MAGA thinks and therefore what Trump wants her to say, but she can't say that either because as a doctor she cannot sign off on what MAGA world wants her to say.
Trump is a black hole that distorts and warps everything around him.
That was so painful to watch. Imagine going through years of grueling medical school just to sell out and voluntarily become an anti-science villain. She'd be a perfect fit for Trump and RFK Jr., but I hope she's never allowed to work as a real doctor because of her compromised medical ethics - she's definitely failing the "Do No Harm" part.
I know it's been said before, but to get hired by Trump's administration seems to require a cult-like adherence to the party-line. A doctor who is the nominee for a surgeon general cannot give a straightforward much less an evidence-based answer to whether or not flu-vaccines are efficacious but has to dance around the question because she knows what RFK says and a rabid section of MAGA thinks and therefore what Trump wants her to say, but she can't say that either because as a doctor she cannot sign off on what MAGA world wants her to say.
Trump is a black hole that distorts and warps everything around him.
That was so painful to watch. Imagine going through years of grueling medical school just to sell out and voluntarily become an anti-science villain. She'd be a perfect fit for Trump and RFK Jr., but I hope she's never allowed to work as a real doctor because of her compromised medical ethics - she's definitely failing the "Do No Harm" part.
Fucking hell, absolutely ridiculous stuff. I think the most painful part is the non-committal. I know nothing of this person, but just watching that clip it feels she knows the right answer, but is too terrified to give it in case it jeapordises the gig. I assume if she was some anti-vax lunatic she’d just go with that.
I mean I’m basically just repeating what Falling already said so eloquently but it’s completely preposterous. This is how the Trump administration and the wider MAGA phenomenon operate and it’s utterly ridiculous.
Us non-USians, at least in the West (I’m not too familiar with other locales), I mean shit is far from perfect in our wee domains but stuff like this is to me basically inconceivable in the UK, Ireland, the auld Anzacs, vast swathes of Europe.
What the fuck is going on in America? It’s utterly bizarre
When did this anti vaccines movement started to be so widespread?
Is this something that came into the picture with covid and the push for quick vaccines or was it there already and covid was just an excuse to radicalize more people?
From the outside looking in, it looks to be a much more prevalent topic than in the past and im curious if that is just outside perception or indeed a thing.
COVID broke the US with (online) mis/disinfo propaganda. Russia had its way with the public (Facebook was a prime target, Twitter as well) and it's very difficult to recover now. Remember, many conservatives have a deep seeded need for "righteous justice" which basically boils down to owning the libs more than half the time nowadays. So anything they can grasp on to which can solidify is so eagerly embraced. Reality usually doesn't matter anymore, but narrative does. Unless it literally hits them in the face of course.
One more thing I'd like to add is that, a multicultural multi inclusive society is basically a form of censure for these people because they do not feel comfortable with people expressing themselves freely. They want homogenous and uniformity and strict rules because that's easy. It doesn't make sense for us, but this is how it is for them. Multiculturality is basically an existential threat for the conservative.
On February 26 2026 19:35 KobraKay wrote: When did this anti vaccines movement started to be so widespread?
Is this something that came into the picture with covid and the push for quick vaccines or was it there already and covid was just an excuse to radicalize more people?
From the outside looking in, it looks to be a much more prevalent topic than in the past and im curious if that is just outside perception or indeed a thing.
There were definitely some American anti-vaxxer communities pre-pandemic, often based around random celebrities who were anti-science or into "alternative medicine" nonsense, which included pockets of the right and even the left, but post-pandemic it's practically become a litmus test for true MAGA loyalty. It's way more popular now, and it's much more one-sided politically. Republicans are pro-flu, pro-covid, and pro-MMR... not pro-vaccines, but actually pro-disease.
I know it's been said before, but to get hired by Trump's administration seems to require a cult-like adherence to the party-line. A doctor who is the nominee for a surgeon general cannot give a straightforward much less an evidence-based answer to whether or not flu-vaccines are efficacious but has to dance around the question because she knows what RFK says and a rabid section of MAGA thinks and therefore what Trump wants her to say, but she can't say that either because as a doctor she cannot sign off on what MAGA world wants her to say.
Trump is a black hole that distorts and warps everything around him.
That was so painful to watch. Imagine going through years of grueling medical school just to sell out and voluntarily become an anti-science villain. She'd be a perfect fit for Trump and RFK Jr., but I hope she's never allowed to work as a real doctor because of her compromised medical ethics - she's definitely failing the "Do No Harm" part.
Fucking hell, absolutely ridiculous stuff. I think the most painful part is the non-committal. I know nothing of this person, but just watching that clip it feels she knows the right answer, but is too terrified to give it in case it jeapordises the gig. I assume if she was some anti-vax lunatic she’d just go with that.
Yeah, I agree, and that makes it even worse imo. She's not ignorant or uneducated; she's willfully trying to deceive. This is malicious behavior, so she's a scam artist trying to use her medical degree to con people.
I know it's been said before, but to get hired by Trump's administration seems to require a cult-like adherence to the party-line. A doctor who is the nominee for a surgeon general cannot give a straightforward much less an evidence-based answer to whether or not flu-vaccines are efficacious but has to dance around the question because she knows what RFK says and a rabid section of MAGA thinks and therefore what Trump wants her to say, but she can't say that either because as a doctor she cannot sign off on what MAGA world wants her to say.
Trump is a black hole that distorts and warps everything around him.
That was so painful to watch. Imagine going through years of grueling medical school just to sell out and voluntarily become an anti-science villain. She'd be a perfect fit for Trump and RFK Jr., but I hope she's never allowed to work as a real doctor because of her compromised medical ethics - she's definitely failing the "Do No Harm" part.
Fucking hell, absolutely ridiculous stuff. I think the most painful part is the non-committal. I know nothing of this person, but just watching that clip it feels she knows the right answer, but is too terrified to give it in case it jeapordises the gig. I assume if she was some anti-vax lunatic she’d just go with that.
I mean I’m basically just repeating what Falling already said so eloquently but it’s completely preposterous. This is how the Trump administration and the wider MAGA phenomenon operate and it’s utterly ridiculous.
Us non-USians, at least in the West (I’m not too familiar with other locales), I mean shit is far from perfect in our wee domains but stuff like this is to me basically inconceivable in the UK, Ireland, the auld Anzacs, vast swathes of Europe.
What the fuck is going on in America? It’s utterly bizarre
A lot and nothing at the same time. Most people have checked out other than to keep "going about their business" (or the terrorists fascists win or something) the best they can. They're assuming this will all somehow sort itself out by sticking to the regular motions.
It's super weird because there's this "waiting for the elections" feel combined with a "Trump is rigging the elections" with a side of "we can't really say that without undermining US democracy entirely" and a garnish of "Trump is doing that anyway".
I'm obviously partial to revolutionary socialism, but I'm also deadly serious about desperately wanting to see people that aren't discuss their alternatives (among themselves if they choose) for all our benefit
The American anti-science movement is deeply rooted in Christian nationalism. Of course, science denial goes way back, but the biggest boon to it was Regan's silent majority and the push all of these backwards looking organizations received during his presidency.
Climate change denial, Evolution denial, anti-abortion and anti-LGBT movements all have deep roots in American conservatism and it's been signal boosted for decades, this documentary is a very good overview of how the function and what their goals are:
I was flabbergasted when I realized that they re-used the logo for their "In the name of Family" organization focused on trying to put into our constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman in Bulgaria and Croatia. In both cases, they were able to gather enough signatures and got this done via referendum.
They also did this during the rare period when Croatia had a left leaning government, which, to their credit, responded by legalizing civil unions for gay couples and giving them more rights.
The same organization is now trying to outlaw abortion.
I could go back and post the "demon haunted world" quote again, because, again, much smarter people then me predicted all of this happening, but, unfortunately, no one cared.
The culmination of all this was COVID, and the decades of Andrew Wakefields crankery about autism and vaccines, Alex Jones fuckery and more mixed with gen X and boomers being forced to do things they thought they don't have to do for the first time in their lives just broke their brains. They just started using Facebook and other social media for real and suddenly they were inundated by cranks trying to explain to them how this is all a conspiracy and they are smarter then the people in charge.
RFK jr., being the piece of shit opportunist that he is, who is basically Dunning Kruger personified drank the anti-wax cool aid earlier then that, and when he saw a chance to be in the center of attention next to Trump he grabbed on to it, and now we have insane grifters like "food babe" making policy decisions.
The worse part to me is that this piece of shit used to be a huge climate change activist, now, he is part of the administration that is dismantling any hope that we ever deal with it before it's way too late.
On February 26 2026 19:35 KobraKay wrote: When did this anti vaccines movement started to be so widespread?
Is this something that came into the picture with covid and the push for quick vaccines or was it there already and covid was just an excuse to radicalize more people?
From the outside looking in, it looks to be a much more prevalent topic than in the past and im curious if that is just outside perception or indeed a thing.
It's not a perception thing. Measles are making a come back when before it had been basically stamped out. Anti-vaxx has always existed, but it seems to have hopped party affiliations. Prior, there was a small subsection within the left of 'granola moms' that bought the vaccination causes autism lie. And there has always been other pockets of isolated communities like the Amish.
But Covid broke a lot of a lot of people and their views on vaccines was one of them. I do think the government was overly harsh in some areas combined with the rise of alternative media that was peddling a bunch of nonsense which sucked in a lot of people looking to hear something else. Which is when anti-vax hopped to the right in a really noticeable way. There was also a general rise of vaccine hesitancy. Ultimately, I blame the individual though as I, myself, balked at some of the restrictions and travelled into some of those alternative media spaces for a while but none of that shook my confidence in the efficacy of vaccines.
But it far more prevalent now- I talked to a nurse! (friend of a friend) on how happy she was that RFK was appointed, specifically because of his vaccine takes. Now, you are most likely to find anti-vax within MAGA/ Maple MAGA circles
On February 26 2026 19:35 KobraKay wrote: When did this anti vaccines movement started to be so widespread?
Is this something that came into the picture with covid and the push for quick vaccines or was it there already and covid was just an excuse to radicalize more people?
From the outside looking in, it looks to be a much more prevalent topic than in the past and im curious if that is just outside perception or indeed a thing.
It's not a perception thing. Measles are making a come back when before it had been basically stamped out. Anti-vaxx has always existed, but it seems to have hopped party affiliations. Prior, there was a small subsection within the left of 'granola moms' that bought the vaccination causes autism lie. And there has always been other pockets of isolated communities like the Amish.
But Covid broke a lot of a lot of people and their views on vaccines was one of them. I do think the government was overly harsh in some areas combined with the rise of alternative media that was peddling a bunch of nonsense which sucked in a lot of people looking to hear something else. Which is when anti-vax hopped to the right in a really noticeable way. There was also a general rise of vaccine hesitancy. Ultimately, I blame the individual though as I, myself, balked at some of the restrictions and travelled into some of those alternative media spaces for a while but none of that shook my confidence in the efficacy of vaccines.
But it far more prevalent now- I talked to a nurse! (friend of a friend) on how happy she was that RFK was appointed, specifically because of his vaccine takes. Now, you are most likely to find anti-vax within MAGA/ Maple MAGA circles
COVID response has to partially explain the extreme increase in measles cases. I refuse to believe that Maple MAGA is responsible for Canada vastly outpacing American measles cases for all of 2025, like it was stronger north of us. There’s also a strong dependence on insular communities like the Amish and Orthodox Jews and FLDS and (US) an eastern-European group. If you look at specific outbreaks.
Oh, there's lots of Amish, Old Order Mennonites, etc in Ontario for instance. However, they have always been there and they've always eschewed vaccines. Yet we can chart an increase in measles post-Covid. They aren't the variable that changed. So what did?
I would hypothesize that because anti-vax arose in the general population, it's impacted the herd immunity that was shielding the Amish, etc. They were always vulnerable but in the past they had the luxury of living with their risky behaviour because everyone else was protecting them. Hopefully, given how hard they are being hit, maybe it will be the thing that finally convinces them to embrace more modern medicine. But they weren't the ones that changed. However, they are being the most impacted by a broader change in society.
And I just don't know what to tell you, but the two are so often paired. Not every Trump supporter is anti-vax, but if I find a Canadian that is anti-vax, they usually come in with a cluster of beliefs including stolen elections (Canadian and American elections), and Trump is justified in pretty much everything (and will immediately accuse me of only getting my information from Mainstream Media without ever questioning where I actually got my information- like the original audio or deposition transcripts).
All vaccine studies can only be pseudoexperimental for a variety of reasons (I can expand on).
It also matters to differentiate between standard vaccines and mrna vaccines. I‘m a bit skeptical of mrna regarding risk/efficiency ratio, personally, but I do take flu vaccines, hep a, b and whatnot.
There‘s also cases where experimental vaccines cause heightened risks of infections, as with a HIV vaccine that got tested and rejected. Cba to dig out the slide though.
On February 27 2026 06:17 Vivax wrote: All vaccine studies can only be pseudoexperimental for a variety of reasons (I can expand on).
It also matters to differentiate between standard vaccines and mrna vaccines. I‘m a bit skeptical of mrna regarding risk/efficiency ratio, personally, but I do take flu vaccines, hep a, b and whatnot.
There‘s also cases where experimental vaccines cause heightened risks of infections, as with a HIV vaccine that got tested and rejected. Cba to dig out the slide though.
Obviously going to depend on the disease. Even the "harmless" bits of protein that are in a vaccine serve some purpose for the virus. In a disease that attacks the immune system, it shouldn't be very surprising that a potential side effect of a vaccine would be that it suppresses your immune system. But that's what medical trials are for. Insofar as I know, no country on earth has approved a vaccine for HIV. It's an active area of research.
EPT
