richard_smith237

The mRNA issue is separate from other vaccinations, though the Covid fiasco lead lots of people to question – and ultimately lose faith in – vaccination as a whole (I am one of them). Dr. Palevsky warned in 2021 that this episode would probably deal a fatal blow to the vaccination industry. Indeed... and we have the recent measles outbreak in the USA (discussed in other threads)....

That really depends on how well-informed people were. I was certainly aware from the outset that no vaccine offers 100% protection, and Covid vaccines were no exception - just like the seasonal influenza vaccine, which varies in efficacy year to year and primarily reduces the severity of illness rather than guaranteeing full immunity. If people believed the Covid vaccine would completely prevent infection, that may reflect a misunderstanding - either through assumptions, poor communication, or in some cases, a failure by health professionals or public messaging to explain things clearly. In the midst of a global crisis, with a constant stream of evolving information, it's not surprising that many people made assumptions. The sheer volume of noise - media headlines, political soundbites, social media posts - often overwhelmed the more nuanced messages about what the vaccine could and couldn’t do. It was never a magic shield, but rather a tool to reduce serious illness, hospitalisation, and death, and to help slow transmission - especially in the early stages. I'm sorry to hear that... Meanwhile my folks have taken yearly Covid-19 vaccines and influenza vaccines without issue, and more importantly, without coming down with serious symptoms of Covid or Influenza. Yes, my son received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine (a viral vector platform). However, we’ve not had further Covid vaccinations since, as I believe the severity and risk profile of the virus has shifted significantly since the early waves. As we approach winter, more recently we have instead prioritised the seasonal influenza vaccine. In our case, this presents a more immediate and practical concern. In past years, we have picked up the flu, which has disrupted several precious days of our break. Given the likelihood of exposure to seasonal flu the flu jab feels like the more appropriate safeguard for our circumstances. Possibly... but that circles back to the necessity of a unified stance in the face of what was perceived as an existential threat. In times of crisis, especially when the science is still emerging, it’s not uncommon for governments and institutions to centralise decision-making and messaging in the name of public safety. It's often said that “a committee of one is the only way to make a decision during war” - and while that kind of top-down approach definitely seems authoritarian, it's perhaps considered necessary to prevent chaos or paralysis. Whether it was the right move in hindsight is still up for debate, but at the time, even with hindsight I think its valid argument to suggest that unity and clarity were essential tools in managing uncertainty.

Indeed, many people who received the Covid-19 vaccine experienced what became known as "Covid arm" which is an innate immune response, signalling that the body is recognising the vaccine and mounting a defence. Alongside this, common side effects such as fever, chills, fatigue, and muscle aches are also manifestations of the innate immune system activating. These symptoms are generally signs that the vaccine is doing its job - stimulating the immune system to prepare the body to fight the actual virus if encountered. The reaction / response is typical with many vaccines (of all types) and an indication of immune activation rather than cause for alarm - though for some... they thought it meant there was something wrong with the vaccine...

The political messaging aimed to be clear, motivational, and unifying, but in doing so it often simplified complex realities. This led to some public confusion and I'd agree political lying when vaccine effectiveness against transmission turned out to be less than hoped and when Covid-19 became endemic rather than eliminated. ... But ulimtately, the message we received in the UK was that vaccination did not offer sterilising immunity but helped build herd immunity and help protect those who couldn't be vaccinated or didn't develop strong immunity themselves. I agree... The sidelining of some doctors and experts who challenged the mainstream view was deeply troubling, especially when professional reputations and livelihoods were affected. However, it felt very much like a time of war, where a unified stance was deemed necessary to face an existential threat. In such moments, governments often prioritise collective action and social cohesion over individual dissent to protect the greater good. This maybe a poor comparison, however, I'll run with it: Conscription during WWI and WWII limited personal freedom for many, but was widely accepted as necessary for national survival. That doesn’t mean such measures are without ethical challenges or consequences, but history shows that during crises, societies often accept - and sometimes expect - strong, centralised decisions to navigate unprecedented dangers - the issues in 2020 and 2021 were that social media also changed the landscape from an information and misinformation perspective. Obviously, the key is ensuring that these decisions remained transparent, proportional, and subject to review once the emergency passes... I haven't taken the Covid-19 vaccine since, my parents do because they are in a high risk group, they take the seasonal influenza vaccine too. Ongoing investigation and independent, peer-reviewed studies are essential - not just during a crisis, but always. Science thrives on transparency, scrutiny, and the willingness to revise conclusions as new evidence emerges. This process builds trust and helps ensure policies are based on the most reliable, unbiased information possible. Without that, public confidence and effective decision-making suffer - that can be deadly if another more serious viral thread evolves (or is leaked).

Do you think it was ethical to have been put in that position? It seems that you would have taken the vaccine in any case, and that's fine, freedom of choice is essential, but don't you find it disturbing to think that you couldn't have refused if you had wanted to? At the time, I understood the situation for what it was. Initially, I was sceptical - I genuinely thought the global response to Covid-19 might be an overreaction. But as I delved deeper, I came to appreciate that authorities were working from a framework shaped by previous outbreaks like SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. The data and modelling from those events made it clear that early, decisive action – including isolation, quarantine, and travel restrictions – was the only responsible route, given what was then unknown. I’ve always believed in vaccination. It’s one of the cornerstones of modern public health, and I’m convinced it's a major reason most of us are even alive today. Epidemiological models consistently estimate that, without vaccines, the global population would be 3 to 4 billion fewer – a staggering difference, but one supported by historical case fatality rates and mortality statistics from vaccine-preventable diseases. So when it came to the pandemic, I placed my trust in the science. Vaccines were never going to be perfect – no vaccine ever is. But the principle is sound. And while early data showed that the Covid-19 vaccines might not have the high efficacy rates we’d hoped for – perhaps not even matching the typical 40-60% efficacy of seasonal flu vaccines – they still represented a significant reduction in risk, both for individuals and for the wider population. Where politics became relevant for me was not in the decision to get vaccinated myself – that was straightforward. It was in the expectation that others would do the same, especially in shared environments like travel or work. I found reassurance in knowing that those around me posed a reduced risk – to me, my family, my friends – because they, too, had been vaccinated. That mattered. Now, do I believe in freedom of choice? Absolutely. But I also believe that social media played a damaging role during the pandemic. Misinformation, often in the form of memes and unverified anecdotes, spread faster than any virus – and disproportionately influenced those without the tools or background to properly assess scientific claims. Sometimes, for the sake of public safety, society does need to make certain decisions for people. That’s why we have seatbelt laws and speed limits. So was it ethical to be put in a position where refusal would have been difficult? That depends on perspective. I didn’t feel coerced – I felt informed. But I do recognise that some felt backed into a corner, and I sympathise with that discomfort. Ultimately, I believe the ethical balance lies in doing what protects the most people, while striving to communicate truth with honesty, humility, and clarity – something that was, unfortunately, often lacking during the heat of it all. The same principle applied to my son's school. We were required to provide a full vaccination record as part of the enrolment process. Had there been gaps, I’ve no doubt the school would have had the right – and, arguably, the responsibility – to request that certain vaccines be administered before accepting him. That’s not about control; it’s about collective responsibility and protecting those who can’t protect themselves. So… do I like mandates like that? Not particularly. Do I think they're necessary? Yes, in many cases I do. As for whether it's ethical – that’s more complex. With the benefit of hindsight, the ethics become somewhat grey. But in the moment, with the information and urgency we were facing, I genuinely believed – and still largely believe – that requiring vaccination for international travel and for working in close-contact environments was an ethical stance. It was a proportionate response to a global crisis, aimed at minimising harm and keeping society functioning.

I was in exactly the same situation... though I researched everything I could and was far less cynical of the vaccines.

That would be a fair critique if public health messaging had claimed perfection from the start - Did it ??? (I don' think it did)... The initial guidance reflected the best available evidence at the time, under immense pressure I might add. Early data showed vaccines reduced transmission and severe illness, not that they eliminated risk entirely. As for side effects, no medical intervention is risk-free, but serious adverse events were and remain statistically rare. Science evolves - its strength lies in self-correction, not omniscience. Expecting flawless foresight in a crisis isn't reasonable; what matters is whether decisions were made responsibly with what was known at the time - again, back to the burden of decision making power. We need to ensure we distinguish his [Dr. Redfield's] take on mRNA vaccines vs the other Covid-19 vaccines and vaccines in general here. ... continuing on... Dr. Redfield’s acknowledgment reflects an important aspect of science: its willingness to evolve and adapt as more data emerges. That’s not a flaw in the process - it’s a feature. Early conclusions weren’t lies; they were provisional judgments based on limited information during a rapidly unfolding crisis. I agree with you in praising Dr. Redfield’s humility - but it should cut both ways. Intellectual integrity also means recognising that early missteps don’t invalidate the overwhelming benefits of vaccination, nor do they justify rewriting history through a lens of absolute certainty after the fact. Unless it's an outright ridiculous conspiracy theory, the most persistent ones tend to cling to a shred of plausibility or truth - that’s what gives them traction. It’s true that some individuals have adverse reactions to vaccines; that’s always been understood. But those cases, while real, don’t outweigh the broader imperative of protecting public health. The risk-benefit balance overwhelmingly favours vaccination, especially during a global crisis. Also, scepticism toward Big Pharma is not only understandable - I think it’s healthy. The pharmaceutical industry has a long and well-documented history of lobbying, profit-driven motives, and, at times, ethically questionable behaviour. And yes, the entanglement between corporate interests, media narratives, and political agendas does erode public trust. But it’s important to separate distrust in the system from distrust in science itself.... The COVID-19 vaccines were developed by scientists across the globe - not just by profit-driven executives - and their efficacy was tested, scrutinised, and independently reviewed by a wide array of regulatory bodies. Public health should never be blindly entrusted to corporations, but neither should it be derailed by cynicism that disregards evidence simply because of its origin. Holding Big Pharma accountable and valuing life-saving science are not mutually exclusive. We got here because, in the chaos of a global crisis, people looked to institutions for stability - not out of blind obedience, but out of necessity. That doesn’t mean scepticism isn’t warranted, especially when power and profit are involved. But not every act of trust is ignorance, and not every alternative view is truth. The challenge is to question critically without throwing out evidence in favour of contrarianism for its own sake.

You know what? I’m actually leaning more towards your view on the ‘coercion’ angle. While it may not have been coercion in a strictly legal sense, I’ll concede that, given the psychological and social climate at the time, describing it as coercion is a fair and accurate characterisation.

You have way too much of a hard-on for me... If you’re capable of posting anything resembling an intelligent argument, I’ll gladly match it with an equally intellectual response. Notice how my responses to Rattlesnake remain free of venom? That’s because he contributes well-researched, thought-provoking discourse - something you evidently can’t manage. I have no patience for fools, apologies if that forces you to resort to imagining me as some caricature in a Hollywood flick as the only way your fragile ego can cope with being outclassed.

I'm with you all the way on this - right up until the moment a virus emerges with a 30% case fatality rate and the transmissibility of influenza.... ... At that point, one could reasonably argue that those refusing to vaccinate and continuing to transmit the virus might bear some degree of criminal or civil responsibility -or, at the very least, should be required to self-isolate. It's a deeply complex debate, because it forces us to confront the uncomfortable tension between individual autonomy and collective survival. In such a scenario, the usual moral frameworks erode, and the discussion shifts from what is ethically ideal to what is existentially necessary... Those who bear the burden of decision-making power often face choices that many of us could scarcely imagine making ourselves. While it may be somewhat hyperbolic to invoke Churchill’s decision to allow Coventry to be bombed - sacrificing thousands to protect the secret that Allied forces had cracked German codes - the weight of such impossible decisions is always subject to intense scrutiny from critics and the lens of history. In the context of COVID-19, it is now being asked: would it have been better to simply do nothing and isolate only the vulnerable, creating a two-tier society? With the clarity of hindsight, perhaps. But at the time, no one truly knew. The uncertainty was profound, and the decisions had to be made with incomplete information, balancing public health, ethics, and survival in real time. 20/20 hindsight gives us the luxury to critique decisions fully equipped with all the facts and outcomes, something those making choices in the moment simply didn’t have

Given the speed with which the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, I completely understand the initial scepticism - I felt some of it myself, to be honest. But things quickly veered into the absurd when anti-vaxxers began claiming that DNA was being altered, revealing just how much misinformation and misunderstanding was out there - especially from people who couldn’t even tell you what the acronyms stand for. It’s certainly worth emphasising that mRNA vaccine technology wasn’t cobbled together in a matter of months. In reality, mRNA vaccine research has been underway for over 30 years. As you point out, though, the first mRNA vaccines to receive widespread approval and public rollout were the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020. For context: In the 2010s, companies like Moderna and BioNTech began testing mRNA-based vaccines for illnesses such as flu, Zika, and rabies in clinical trials. By 2020, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic massively accelerated funding and development, resulting in the first-ever mRNA vaccines authorised for human use - rolled out at scale, and with remarkable speed and efficacy. That efficacy was crucial, as it came during a period of global uncertainty, when data on case fatality rates, underlying risk factors, and comorbidities remained limited, and the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 had triggered widespread concern and urgency. So while the technology had been simmering in labs for decades, it wasn’t until the pandemic that it saw full clinical validation and global deployment. That doesn’t mean the vaccines were "experimental" in the sense that they were untested or hastily improvised. On the contrary, mRNA vaccine platforms had undergone years of preclinical development and early-phase human trials for other diseases, such as influenza and Zika (as mentioned earlier). What the pandemic did was compress timelines - not by skipping safety steps, but by overlapping trial phases, pouring in unprecedented funding, and streamlining regulatory processes. In that sense, the speed was extraordinary, but the core science was not improvised. The line between “new” and “experimental” became understandably blurred under the pressures of a global health crisis, but I think it’s misleading to suggest these vaccines were rolled out without a solid scientific and clinical foundation. Regarding 'coercion' - thats highly emotive language and requires clafication - this is part of the issue when debating such topics - emotive language is chosen over factually based prose. The question of whether society was "coerced" into taking mRNA vaccines depends on how one defines coercion, and perspectives vary widely based on cultural, political, and personal viewpoints. Most people were not forcibly vaccinated - no one was physically compelled. In many countries, vaccination remained a choice, and informed consent was required before administration. mRNA vaccines underwent regulatory review and were recommended, not universally mandated. But, there were coercive pressures (in a broader, social or institutional sense): - Employment mandates: Many workers, especially in healthcare, education, and public services, were required to get vaccinated to keep their jobs - Access restrictions: Some countries implemented vaccine passports, restricting entry to venues, travel, or public spaces without proof of vaccination. - Social pressure and messaging: Government campaigns, media narratives, and peer influence painted vaccination as not just a health choice but a civic duty, which, while well-intentioned, often bordered on moral pressure. - Limited options: In some places, mRNA vaccines were the only available option during early rollout phases, leaving no choice for those hesitant about the platform - this is the part I can see as being wrong - people lacked a choice between vaccine types. So, was it coercion? Legally? No, not in most democratic countries. Practically or socially? For many people, yes - it felt coercive, especially when livelihood, freedom of movement, or social participation were tied to vaccine status (I could not work without proof of vaccination). Ultimately, the context matters. During a global emergency, governments weighed public health priorities over individual autonomy. Whether that balance was struck fairly is still being debated - and will likely be studied for decades to come.... ultimately, its the crux of the 'Covid-Vaccine' debates we have on this forum.... (but certainly not part of the larger Anti-Vax debate which simply find ridiculous).

No. I really don't get it. I don't get why people get so worked up about some digital fake photos showing things that never happened. It's almost as if the world has gone crazy. ... as I said... << if it has to be explained to you then you'll never get it anyway >>

Going back to my earlier comment: << if it has to be explained to you then you'll never get it anyway >> You just don't get it... Perhaps try the same thing yourself... This time using the PM and post the image publicly on social media and see how your "things that never happened" argument holds up...

What you dismiss as harmless “fun” worthy of a mere slap on the wrist has rightly been recognised in the examples I provided - by both a school and the police - as serious, damaging, and deserving of a firm, proportionate response. (expulsion from school). You seem to believe you’re the lone voice of reason in some warped fairytale. In truth, you’re the one lost in fantasy - because only someone utterly detached from reality could look at the sexualised targeting of underage girls and call it a prank that they'll get over. ... And as for your claim that this is being “conflated with a real act”: this was a real act. A deliberate attempt to humiliate, sexualise, and publicly defame a child. Fake or not, the intent and the damage are real. If they'd pasted her face onto a pornographic cartoon, the harm wouldn’t be theoretical - the bullying, the mockery, the trauma would still be painfully present and it was so repeatedly for over 20 girls while nothing was done about it... hence it the issue snowballed and reached social media. You’re not splitting hairs, you are not the voice of reason... You are are excusing abuse....

So 7 years jail for a fake digital pic showing things that never happened, school expulsion and a police record are a "measured" response? Maybe in Crazyland. I'm not "underreacting". I'm reacting proportionately. You're overreacting. Wow.. thats a special level of Gaslighting - 7 years jail and a police record... Your reading comprehension has failed you as much as your common sense...

Not at Birmingham, I usually find we're the only ones in the queue as we were this trip, even on a flight from Doha - most passengers use the UK Channel e-Gate The last few times I’ve passed through Birmingham airport (three times in the past two years), I’ve found myself stuck queuing in the Non-UK line - while all the E-Gates remain completely empty. Meanwhile, UK families with children, who can’t use the E-Gates, have already cleared the Non-UK counters. I find myself caught deep in the queue with Non-EU citizens, yet that queue moves faster once other immigration officers are freed from a single boarding control counter to help out. Its not a complaint - just an observation that 'going through the UK line with my Wife' would be faster than going though the Non-EU line. BUT - Europe takes the biscuit - Arriving at airports there from the UK the Brexit fallout is in full swing as EU passengers pass speedly through well occupied boarder control counters and UK citizens are queuing up for the Non-UK line which is full of 100's of British Passengers and few officers !!! (almost as if it was deliberately planned this way !!!)... Paranoid - maybe, but evident nonetheless.

WE don't know that at all Richard. Just cherry-picking from some anti-science garbage as usual. As for the balance of evidence you speak of. That's just utter nonsense. Covid-19 didn't pose a threat to anyone. All a big fraud. Please don’t make the mistaken assumption that I would ever include you in any ‘we’ I refer to. When I say ‘we,’ I do not mean those who spout the kind of outlandish and baseless claims you have put forward. Even your fellow anti-vaxxers draw the line at denying the existence of viruses, disputing their isolation, or dismissing pathogenic viruses altogether - and suggesting antibiotics are unnecessary because ‘nature has the answers’ is simply beyond reason. You inhabit a world of your own making. So no, you are emphatically not part of the ‘we’ - quite the opposite, in fact and its the reason I barely give your comments much attention.... just not worthy.

Cameroni reveals a profound failure to grasp this essential reality. While I wholeheartedly endorse measured responses, there is an equally dangerous risk in under-reacting - one that perpetuates harm and deepens trauma, a nuance he evidently fails to appreciate. He's missing the point entirely, but he also risks enabling the very damage he seems blind to...

It was a simple question, what reputation have 15 year olds built up? Spare me your sanctimonious nonsense. This is clearly one of those "if it has to be explained to you then you'll never get it anyway" scenarios.... At 15, a girl's reputation is her social currency – respect, dignity, and trust among peers. Being sexualised by AI fakes shatters that fragile identity in the most public, humiliating way. To claim she has no reputation to tarnish is ignorant at best, callous at worst. My response towards you isn't sanctimony... its direct judgement of the depravity of your thought process ! So she'll have plenty of time to build her confidence and social standing. Mud sticks, damage can be lasting. Confidence and social standing aren’t built in a vacuum - they’re shaped by how others treat you. Being publicly humiliated at 15 can leave scars that time alone won’t heal. Telling her she’ll "recover later" ignores the real damage done now. Nobody's saying they're "unaffected" what I'm saying is that the relatively minor shocks to their self esteem will pass fairly quickly at that age. Relatively minor shocks? Spreading fake nude images of teenage girls isn’t a minor shock - it’s a violation with lasting impact. At 15, wounds to self-esteem don’t just ‘pass’ - they can shape mental health, trust, and relationships for years to come. Dismissing this pain as fleeting reveals your lack of understanding about real emotional harm. Generating FAKE sexual images of acts that never happened! No - the girls faces are not faked, they were superimposed on the images of naked women using AI to 'merge' the image i.e. like photoshopping a face onto something else. Pretty much, it's almost harmless. “Almost harmless” is a dangerously blind understatement - its like saying your approach to this is 'almost stupid' !! Creating and sharing falsified explicit images of minors is a profound breach of trust and dignity, causing deep, lasting harm. To call it ‘almost harmless’ is to dismiss trauma inflicted on vulnerable young lives - you are effectively enabling such behavior with your approach. I hope you are never in a position of authority to respond professionally to such issues. Lol "digital assault", now you've jumped out of the bush, lol. Thats exactly what it is: Its a form sexualised digital assault... as much as you'd like to downplay such issue. No to involve police and demand expulsion is fantastically over the top. You want to ruin a buy's life at 15 because he created a fake nudie pic? What are you crazy? Its not - ask 20 young female victims and their families. Real acts would, fake imagery should warrant minor disciplinary action at most. By theschool. Not police. Further enabling - highlighting your moral disconnect. I think your thought processes are fundamentally disturbed if you want to ruin a 15 year old boy's life with school expulsion and police, because he created some fake digital nudie pics. That's insane. Nope... That boy and others have learned a lesson... and many others have been protected. That boy can go to another school, others in the same school have also learned that lesson - this won't happen again... until it does and the boys are handled in the same manner reinforcing that this behavior is not acceptable and not tollerated. IF you had a 15 year old daughter and this happened, and you found out it had been happening to others all year and nothing had been done about it. If you found out it had happened previously with a 'minor slap on the wrist'.... would you be arguing so forgivingly ? Forgive the gaslighting: but perhaps you think a 'boob grab' at school is also just kids messing and only to be dealt with by a slap on the wrist ? ... This faking of the imagery crosses a firm boundary - one the boys knew they were crossing, but did not fear any consequences - if dealt with firmly, other young girls at the same school and others (if a prescient is set) will be protected.

Was he complaining ?... I read his commentary as just that... commentary.

Going through Birmingham immigration this April I went through the non-UK Channel with my wife and granddaughter - no issue. Probably half the immigration and customs officers at Birmingham are of mixed heritage, that reflects the city, and they all speak impeccable Brummie - warms the cockles of my heart to hear it. I think you missed the point... Using the Non-UK Channel is slower, a lot slower on flights from the Middle East and Asia.

That "permission of the spouse to enter through the UK channel" varies from UK Airport to UK Airport. I've been told different responses from 'Boarder Control" so many times, I still have no idea - whether we can go through the same channel or not. The last time I went through Heathrow with my (Thai) Wife, I was told to use the UK Channel. The last time I with through Birmingham with my (Thai) Wife, I was told we had to use the non-UK Channel. The response is so inconsistent I don't think there is any official policy other than that which each individual airport applies and that seems to vary from year to year.

Thats the point - laws must evolve with technology, because the nature of harm has evolved. What might once have been dismissed as ‘just images’ now constitutes psychological assault, repetitional destruction, and social exile - all digitally scaled and enduring. The example I cited (from a School in Bangkok) was of a firm but measured response: serious, instructive, and preventative. That boy, and everyone around him, learned a line had been crossed - and crucially, they didn’t cross it again. And that’s the point. In that school (example I used), action worked. In this case, over twenty girls were targeted. Repeatedly. That’s not a failure of teenage judgement - that’s a failure of the system to protect, to act, and to send a clear message that digital sexual misconduct has consequences. When leniency is chosen over accountability, we don't just excuse the first offence - we invite the next......

Lol, what reputation can 15 year old girls have, pray tell? A young girl’s reputation is integral to her mental wellbeing. If you can’t grasp that simple truth, you’re clearly too entangled in the defence of your own foolish remarks to engage in anything resembling intelligent discourse. If that's true, that was way too harsh and a clear overreaction. Not thought so by other parents, the police or the school itself. But these images are nevertheless not real. And these girls at 15 years of age can hardly have a reputation to tarnish. Sure, they may be ridiculed and teased for a short time. But that will pass. To excuse this as harmless because the images 'aren’t real' is the height of intellectual dishonesty. The psychological toll is real. At 15, a girl’s identity, confidence, and social standing are still being shaped - precisely when reputation is most fragile. To suggest these girls have no reputation to damage is as absurd as it is cruel. Ridicule and humiliation at that age don’t simply 'pass' - they linger, often deeply and permanently, especially in a digital landscape where nothing is ever truly erased. Your remarks betray a disturbing disconnect from reality, as if teenage girls exist in a vacuum, unaffected by peers, perception, or shame. This isn’t just naïve its truly ignorant. Yes, I might ask the boy get a slap on the wrist, but I wouldn't want him expelled or have police charges filed! That's totally OTT. A 'slap on the wrist'? For generating sexually explicit imagery of underage girls ?... using their REAL faces. That response reeks of indulgence towards perpetrators and contempt for victims. This isn’t harmless mischief - it’s a form of sexualised digital assault. To shield the boy from serious consequences while the girl is left to carry the weight of public shame, humiliation, and potential lasting psychological harm is a grotesque inversion of justice. Claiming police involvement or expulsion is 'over the top' only exposes a breathtaking ignorance of the gravity of what’s been done. If creating fake nude images of minors doesn’t warrant real consequences, what exactly would? This kind of minimising attitude is precisely why victims so often suffer in silence - and why abusers learn they can get away with it. If no action is taken - society has taught this boy and everyone else that they can get away with such actions. If no action is taken - society has victims and everyone else that they have no voice. Meanwhile, you are teaching us (the forum collective) that your thought processes in such matters are fundamentally flawed to the point of being somewhat disturbed.

With respect, SF - when you choose to post on a forum specifically intended for discussion, especially when your comments are, at best, controversial and fundamentally flawed, it seems rather immature to take offence when others respond critically. If you’re not open to dialogue, then perhaps it’s wiser not to post at all. But you cannot reasonably expect to share views as questionable as those in this thread and face no challenge or contradiction. You’ve asserted that individual choices directly affect health outcomes, and even cited your own genetics and lifestyle as shields against illness. However, your argument collapses under the weight of your own example regarding childhood cancer. How can a child be held accountable for congenital illness? Or parents, for that matter? And how would you be at fault should your own genetics predispose you to certain conditions - something beyond your control? In short, your views invite scrutiny and discussion. That’s not a personal attack - it’s the natural consequence of engaging in a forum built for debate. If your opinions provoke reactions, perhaps they warrant more careful thought, not fragility in the face of dissent.