For one, there is no discussion of safety in the article. You are training your immune system to attack something. Attack what exactly? We tend to presume our immunity will attach only a single virus. But, that's not how vaccines work, unfortunately.

We have had a huge spike in auto-immune disease without understanding why. No one knows the cause or cure for Lupus. But, we sure are quick to train human immune systems to attack new things without a whole lot of concern about how our immunity will really react in a world where immunities over-reacting has become a regular problem.

One thing can kill people is a cytokine storm, an over-reaction of the immune system. In fact, a good portion of COVID deaths include a cytokine storm.

https://www.chicagotribune.com...

Then there is the fact that glysophate is in 5 of the most common vaccines used today, the primary toxin in Roundup. It is presumed to be there because of the use of GMOs in its ingredients. While it doesn't have a direct pathway in human cells, it does kill the microbiome causing leaky gut syndrome among other things, which can lead to auto-immune disease.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the blanket legal immunity we gave vaccine producers in the 80s in the USA. Why should they care about safety when we can't sue them for the harm their drugs do?

An example of things gone wrong is our current flu vaccine, which increases the probability of getting COVID by 36%.

https://www.disabledveterans.o...

The article talks about saving lives, but ignores the potential lives lost from auto-immune disorders and increase vulnerabilities.

Do you know why the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, a huge believer in the scientific method, would never condone using it to identify "disease" in water?

https://www.ted.com/speakers/k...

I'd love to reply to this with scientific discussion. I have loved /. since 1999! Best place for objective scientific discussion. Today the system is gamed so that those who get to moderate are marking as Troll anyone who favors open discussions and the scientific method over controlled consensus.

So, sadly, I can't critique was is scientifically wrong with testing water for a virus, or this comment will get modded negative to be sure it is not heard. I bet this gets modded down just for pointing out that /. has become a one sided place where the scientific method is no longer valued.

Except #4 is ridiculously untrue. All this distancing and wearing masks is ultimately going to make people sicker because it is weakening immunities. I'm a believer in immunity exercise and haven't had a cold or any sickness in well over 4 years, and have been continuously listening to a lot of microbiologists and scientists, while reviewing the data, and it is just illogical for healthy people to wear masks unless you are trying to re-create a 2020s version of Idiocracy.

Couldn't agree more.

I'd wear a mask to see Idocracy in a theater. Otherwise, no thank you. I'm a believer in immunity exercise and eating good home cooked meals with healthy ingredients, haven't had a cold or any sickness in well over 4 years, and have been continuously listening to a lot of microbiologists and scientists, while reviewing the data, and it is just illogical for healthy people to wear masks unless you are trying to re-create a 2020s version of Idiocracy.

I'd support that a choice.

I'd wear a mask to see Idocracy in a theater. Otherwise, no thank you. I'm a believer in immunity exercise and eating good home cooked meals with healthy ingredients, haven't had a cold or any sickness in well over 4 years, and have been continuously listening to a lot of microbiologists and scientists, while reviewing the data, and it is just illogical for healthy people to wear masks unless you are trying to re-create a 2020s version of Idiocracy.

I'd wear a mask to see Idocracy in a theater. Otherwise, no thank you. I'm a believer in immunity exercise and eating good home cooked meals with healthy ingredients, haven't had a cold or any sickness in well over 4 years, and have been continuously listening to a lot of microbiologists and scientists, while reviewing the data, and it is just illogical for healthy people to wear masks unless you are trying to re-create a 2020s version of Idiocracy.

It does look like ending end-to-end encryption will be the end result. The gas tank analogy is deceptive, because gas tanks are needed. End-to-end encryption is not "needed" from the viewpoint of a large corporation, so will be discarded. The security implications are the same. Anything other than truly secure communication will become a vector of attack and result in financial and other types of victims. Meanwhile, none of this does anything to actually address real child victims. We keep seeing bills going after pictures of children, but none trying to protect real children who are really being abused. In that respect, this is yet another bill that demonstrates that congress does not truly care about abused children.

Eye witness testimony? Great. It is a good thing we never had a problem with false accusers and poor perception.

If it succeeds they won't need a banking relationship.

The article seems to be more about pushing a solution of a central ID system as a presumed solution to the identity theft problem, even though it was the requirement that SSN's be associated with financial accounts that began the whole problem. Specifically:

"But the United States doesn't offer any type of universal ID, which means private institutions and even the federal government itself have had to improvise."

What's needed is better anonymity not increased centralized identity. On top of that, to the extent identity is needed, it should be more complex and IDs should be unique from one entity (e.g., bank) to another. If there is any centralized requirement, it should be identity policy and protocols, not the identity!

While it is true that authentication becomes an issue you can avoid despite an identity being public, the proliferating of common identities such as SSNs seems to be a catalyst for identity theft. The last thing I want is another government issued identity I cannot change or revoke that all my valuable assets become tied to.

Did anyone else catch this bias?

The best way to protect our assets is through anonymity. No one who steals identifying information such as SSNs, birthdates and phone numbers should be able to locate and steal the assets belonging to that person. A Universal ID helps thieves, not us.