> I'm well aware of the prices increases over the summer. But in october, I noticed the price drop to the $2 range. And then all of a sudden, the price increase

> I'm well aware of the prices increases over the summer. But in october, I noticed the price drop to the $2 range. And then all of a sudden, the price increased to $4 the past week. Which would have NOTHING to do with your links. It's hard to guess what your argument is when you haven't plainly stated it. With the statements you have made, it sounds like you're accepting the links that I posted as truthful, but that they don't matter because they are "old". On that basis, it sounds like your position is: ======== These links show that this bird flu epidemic, unprecedented in history, continued to grow from 50M in late 2023, to 100M in mid 2024. At which point the epidemic had been steadily growing for 18 months. That's why prices increased over the summer. And then we instantly fixed the problem. And now there is no way that the death of 30% of the US flock could have price ramifications 5 months later. ======== Now, this sounds ridiculous to me, and so I apologize if I have set up a strawman. I can't imagine anyone actually believing this, but I also can't see a different interpretation of what you have said. By the way, here's another link, this one from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/data-map-commercial.html https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/data-map-comm... The May 2024 link I posted above had the total poultry deaths at 92M. It is unclear whether that 92M figure included the 4.2M chickens that needed to be killed in Iowa. I rounded the figure up to 100M. I apologize if you viewed this as deceitful. The CDC link states that as of 11/8/2024, the poultry death count had now reached 105M. So, another 13M deaths (another 14.1% increase in total death count) since that May 2024 figure. You didn't need to restrict yourself to only the links I posted. I chose links that were easily digestible, with the info up front in the headlines. The CDC page requires a bit of reading to get to the figures. You could have done the web search I recommended and found these other links... You also say: > It's third world shenanigans. But "third world shenanigans" covers a lot of territory, so I'm not sure what you mean. Usually "third world shenanigans" means that the administration of whatever country is being talked about is corruptly benefitting from those shenanigans in some fashion. But I don't see how that applies here as well. What shenanigans are occurring, and who is benefitting from them? It would really help if you would plainly state your positions. > I may be mistaken, but your wall of text describes you. Are you a journalist, or a laid off journalist, by any chance? Yes, you are very mistaken. But who I am doesn't matter, unless you are making an ad-hominem argument. Can you elaborate on your positions without ad-hominem or name calling?