Get the Vax

70,062 Views | 709 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by The Hefty Lefty
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"My wrong opinion is better…than any layperson's, even if it's wrong, and they are accidentally right."

Just own up to being a snob about your education/opinion. It's ok.

Yes, I have a doctorate too, and recognize training matters, but you…are a snob about yours. Beside that, your example is also spurious, specific to a Caesarian section, at least earlier you advised as to your expertise in treating covid patients for covid, not all manner of medical practice. Geeze, just own your attitude, no reason to deflect.

I stand by my judgment and characterization, it's kind of sad you think you need to deflect from yours.
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The people who holler "Believe the science!" are the same people who think that there are more than 2 genders....
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Quote:

Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.

I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion
Let me give an example. 40 years ago niacin was given for cholesterol problems. We know from good studies that high HDL and low LDL are associated with less heart attacks. Niacin is known to cause HDL to rise and LDL to lower, and therefore was also thought to reduce heart attacks. Based on everything we knew at the time, including a lot of studies, this was a good preventative medicine. However, it turns out that we were wrong. Studies tested the direct effects of niacin on preventing heart attacks and the results were controversial but did not show any effects. So despite having excellent, well-informed reasons for using it, we were wrong.

Around the same time, some people were taking an herbal medicine called red yeast extract to lower cholesterol. You could find it in herbal medicine shops that also see rhino horn, tiger testicles, saw palmetto, and a hundred other "remedies" that don't do anything. However, once this medicine was tested, it was found to actually prevent heart attacks. Turns out the active ingredient of red yeast extract is a statin, and that established the standard of care all the way until now.

The wrongness in the first paragraph is a considered, measured, and tested wrongness. It incorporated the latest knowledge in biochemistry, pharmacology, and medical studies. The second paragraph was literally just someone using an herb based on a verbal tradition. These same people peddle a hundred ineffective treatments. Even though red yeast extract works, they had no idea why, what dosing to use, the possible side effects, or possible interactions with other medicines. The herbalists were right and the doctors were wrong. But the herbalists were lucky and ignorant, while the doctors were knowledgable and unlucky. It happens, but give me the doctors in the first paragraph over the herbalists in the second every day of the week.

The system used by doctors is also self-correcting, so even when we are wrong we fix it. We now know 1000x more than the herbalists pushing red yeast extract. We've created better versions of statins and we know the side effects and drug interactions. We know the target doses and what to measure when treating people with this. The herbalists were ignorant and right, but now the doctors are knowledgable and right. At least until we find more information to correct ourselves like we always do. Contrast this with verbal tradition and politics. These things do not tend to correct themselves when better information is available.
Great post! The bolded sentence above made me think of a recent exchange in my family text group. Even though my brother and I are not on speaking terms anymore, I see the stuff he shares. Well, he shared some nonsense from Joe Rogan and my mom started talking about how doctors "flip flop". But as I explained, it's not "flip flopping". It's the scientific method at work. Trained professionals/scientists observe and gather information. They test their hypothesis. They make corrections based on the new data. This shouldn't be controversial. We should encourage it, because as you point out, that's how we grow in understanding. That's how we move forward.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thaddeus73 said:

The people who holler "Believe the science!" are the same people who think that there are more than 2 genders....
Sex and gender aren't the same thing. And there are more than 2 of both. Unless you don't believe intersex people exist. But that's not the point of this thread. Start a new one if you want to argue that.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gender non-conforming & trans people always make for an easy deflection for those who understand neither. No point in taking the bait.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Zobel said:

I just don't have much interest in trying to have a good faith convo if there's no good faith on both sides. You're an active poster and I generally enjoy talking to you, but in the end if it's just going to be a waste of time I won't.

I guess I'm kinda confused - if a person shares a paper in a discussion thread, my assumption is they want to discuss the paper or at least observe a discussion.

I brought up crimes against humanity because the corresponding author of the paper you posted was recommended for indictment for them by the Brazilian senate for how they handled a different covid study, which is why the name was familiar to me. This involved giving high dose anti-androgenic hormones to both men and women apparently without informed consent, which can cause infertility in men and severe birth defects in babies in the womb and isn't supposed to be given to women at all. He also is the author of yet another covid study that is almost certainly completely made up. As one author put it, let's hope the hormone study was made up, too.

At any rate, when the corresponding author of a study has a history of fraud and really, really bad ethical and medical practices, it is pretty relevant to note.

You have a different opinion on ivermectin, presumably informed by research like the paper you linked, but you don't feel a need to debate, but you took the initiative to post the paper.

But look, even in this post you can't help but insult people. "Snotty doctor" - seriously? I don't think trolling is the right word here, but this also doesn't seem like you are willing to carry on a serious conversation.

Don't get me wrong - I actually would prefer and enjoy a serious conversation. That's why I come to this forum. Just doesn't seem like that's why you do.
You seem to want to continue to want to discuss/argue about that white paper, which...I don't. I've conceded you made some good points, I don't follow that author, and I just...found it of interest. I do consider my opinion informed, and do have a difference of opinion but I'm not willing to just engage in a link/study/paper/discussion only on the basis of your (non-published/public) criteria of doctors whose studies are ok. Frankly, I think it would be a derail of the thread to go too far down that rabbit hole, anyway. Ivermectin and HCQ are not...really on topic, but there is a forum for such discussion.

Again, philosophically, I think crimes against humanity have been committed and support prosecuting the people responsible for this as relates to Covid-19.

Last week you were upset I brought up too many specifics on a subject you didn't want to discuss and now I just don't really disagree with you but you are...frustrated by my lack of specific disagreement?

How would you characterize this type of flippant arrogance without it being, well, insulting? Is the term 'snotty doctor' really off base?



Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.
diehard03 said:

Im with you overall, but i think bears mentioning that the powers that be have put on a masterclass on how not to communicate in this situation. When you present yourself as an expert and use condescension as a tool, you lose the ability backtrack when the science leads you in another direction.


We are experts. Even when we end up being wrong, our wrong is based on tons of similar experience combined with all the most current information. When the most current information changes, then we update our opinions making them less wrong. That's how this works. We only know when we're wrong when new information proves it.

Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.

I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion

You also (responsively) posted a meme about how we are not vaccinating population groups that are not at risk of serious consequences from infection (which the vaccine doesn't prevent). That's not serious argument/discussion, either, I'd note, as well as being factually wrong despite your resort to Dwight Shrute as a source, per the WHO link I've provided since (as well as common sense about healthy kids).

Please don't be upset, is all I am saying, as to my position, or unwillingness to debate exclusively on your terms. You're welcome of course to your own opinions on any of this just as you are to your concepts of doctrine/dogma/theology.
Partially in response to you but also generally applied…Why do posters on TA find it so hard to say things like…'You know, I've thought about it and you're right"…or "Yes, I probably should have been more thoughtful in my description of that poster or tempered my response". It's like posters see admitting they're wrong or inaccurate in their responses as a character flaw. I certainly think we'd think twice about our responses if Christ was physically looking over our shoulder as we type (of course he's with us anyway…). Being the better person…can actually be a good character trait.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How'd the opioid epidemic self correct? Lots of doctors doing their homework before prescribing it?

Arguing that if you have enough time you'll get it right kills a lot of people in the meantime. Pride may keep you warm at night but this isn't a village of one.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BluHorseShu said:



Partially in response to you but also generally applied…Why do posters on TA find it so hard to say things like…'You know, I've thought about it and you're right"…or "Yes, I probably should have been more thoughtful in my description of that poster or tempered my response". It's like posters see admitting they're wrong or inaccurate in their responses as a character flaw. I certainly think we'd think twice about our responses if Christ was physically looking over our shoulder as we type (of course he's with us anyway…). Being the better person…can actually be a good character trait.
As someone who is often guilty of this, thank you for this much needed reminder.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

How'd the opioid epidemic self correct? Lots of doctors doing their homework before prescribing it?

Arguing that if you have enough time you'll get it right kills a lot of people in the meantime. Pride may keep you warm at night but this isn't a village of one.


You probably won't like this answer, but doctors didn't create the opiate epidemic. Bureaucrats did. Overdose deaths from opiates track directly with stricter drug laws and stricter controls on physician prescribing. We're professionals after all, and even the docs who hand that stuff out like candy are smart enough not to kill their own patients. The rare doctor exceptions to this end up in jail on manslaughter charges and rightly so.

When narcotics laws get more strict, less patients get narcotics. These people are addicted, so it's not like all of them are going to just stop being addicted now that I can't write their meds. So they start getting meds from friends and family, and then they start buying narcs off the street. Shockingly, friends, family and street dealers don't know how to treat pain and addiction in a safe and controlled way. So these patients end up with widely varying doses, many of which are lethal.

The opiate epidemic is an argument that even a terrible doctor is better than an interested layperson. First, because even a drug pushing hack doesn't kill their own patients. Even if they did, there's a nice paper trail and they end up out of the profession and in jail.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

AGC said:

How'd the opioid epidemic self correct? Lots of doctors doing their homework before prescribing it?

Arguing that if you have enough time you'll get it right kills a lot of people in the meantime. Pride may keep you warm at night but this isn't a village of one.


You probably won't like this answer, but doctors didn't create the opiate epidemic. Bureaucrats did. Overdose deaths from opiates track directly with stricter drug laws and stricter controls on physician prescribing. We're professionals after all, and even the docs who hand that stuff out like candy are smart enough not to kill their own patients. The rare doctor exceptions to this end up in jail on manslaughter charges and rightly so.

When narcotics laws get more strict, less patients get narcotics. These people are addicted, so it's not like all of them are going to just stop being addicted now that I can't write their meds. So they start getting meds from friends and family, and then they start buying narcs off the street. Shockingly, friends, family and street dealers don't know how to treat pain and addiction in a safe and controlled way. So these patients end up with widely varying doses, many of which are lethal.

The opiate epidemic is an argument that even a terrible doctor is better than an interested layperson. First, because even a drug pushing hack doesn't kill their own patients. Even if they did, there's a nice paper trail and they end up out of the profession and in jail.
Not all doctors agree. Really, the answer is to follow the money. You're a doctor, you know that most aren't ever punished, I am sure.

Quote:

First, in all fairness, I will start with physicians. We overprescribe opioids, just as we overprescribe antibiotics. But it is generally well meaning; we don't want our patients to experience pain. But then we prescribe 30 or 60 pills when 5 or 20 would have been adequate. We do that because we are used to prescribing in multiples of 30; 30 days for a month supply of a once a day medication, 90 days for a mail-order prescription. Prescribing 6 or 10 pills will undoubtedly result in a phone call from a pharmacist asking for a round number of pills, taking up time better spent entering meaningless information into our electronic health record systems. It is the leftover pills that sit forgotten in the medicine cabinet which often lead to trouble, stolen by a relative or visitor and abused. But sometimes it is that prescription that was provided for true pain that leads rapidly to tolerance and addiction. Healthy Living magazine recently published a heart wrenching story of a woman whose life was nearly destroyed by two weeks of oxycodone prescribed by a well-meaning physician for arthritis.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ya know, in my response to him originally, I even said I partially agreed. Partially, with his points. Frankly, I didn't research the doc's in the paper, it came up on my twitter news feed. What are you looking for?

Zobel and I go back and forth on various forums, and while he varies in his expertise he is a good poster, imho, whom I do respect. But, he demands total agreement; an engineer's mindset, basically (which is totally fine). That's why when he frames a discussion (religion, philosophy, energy, whatever) it is in tight parameters, of his selection, and any variance outside is intolerable. He blasted me for bringing up too many points that he didn't want to debate/discuss about BEV's in f16 last week (fine, his prerogative).

Yes, some toleration for dissent/partial agreement is better for a discussion. That's what I…tried to accomplish. You're welcome!
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You misunderstand the opiate epidemic. It's not about addiction, it's about deaths. Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of accidental death in the US, higher than car accidents, drowning and firearms. It has quadrupled since 2000. That spike in deaths started when prescribing laws became more strict, and doctors are prescribing less.

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/report-shows-decreases-opioid-prescribing-increase-overdoses

So if we're prescribing less and more people are dying, then it's illogical to blame all these deaths on us.

Addiction is a separate ballgame. Everyone know addiction is a possible effect of opiates. Every doctor who prescribes to every patient knows this, it is in the handouts when you get the medication, and it's ubiquitous in the media. Sometimes it's still the best medicine to use, but it gets really complicated and difficult. How do you weight someones chronic severe pain with no quality of life against the only good treatment for that pain if you will almost certainly make them an addict? These questions don't have right answers, only least bad answers based on each individual. So yes, doctors do get people addicted to opiates, and it's almost always due to someone suffering and begging us to do ANYTHING to fix it. It's a sad game all the way around, full of some awful human tragedies.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No, I don't.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The opiate epidemic is about deaths. So I addressed that. You countered with an article about presription drug abuse and addiction. Those aren't the same things even though they are related. So if you understood the issue, then why did you respond with a tangent? We can talk addiction if you want. It's incredibly fascinating. We've learned more about addiction in the last 10 years than the prior 100 years. Might want to start another thread though. Pretty far off the OP of vaccination for COVID.

It seems you and a few others here are just mad at doctors in general for not falling lockstep behind your political ideology when it comes to treatments, perceived severity of disease, vaccines, and public health measures. Basically, anyone (such as nearly all doctors and the medical system at large) who thinks COVID is a deadly disease, advocated for any public health measure whatsoever, is pro-vaccine, and disputes the effectiveness of ivermectin and HCQ is suddenly your enemy and must be attacked. So all of sudden we're arrogant jerks that caused the opiate epidemic and joined the Nazi party in record numbers. The attacks are petty, uninformed and transparent. It's simple but exhausting to keep having to address them when they are completely off topic.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not upset about politics, doctors, or anything you provided/speculated about. You're sensitive I guess about your elitism/snobbery, but I on a reciprocal basis just don't want to go into a further back and forth. Really, there's no need, as you are the expert with no need to take in any feedback from me, as you've so explicitly asserted.

I am vaccinated for Fauci/Covid-19, have the antibodies (never got sick), and am disappointed in the loss of trust the public health officials/doctors have suffered in all of this. I still of course see doctors for medical advice, and will have a surgical procedure next week (performed by a doctor I trust). I do respect disparate opinions (including both those in my field and out who disagree with me) about my profession in general and my opinions about politics/religion/philosophy writ large.

In short, we are quite different.

Have a nice day.
Loyalty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wow. Ok.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yep. Government has historically made substance abuse issues exponentially worse through strict laws, including prohibition.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

AGC said:

How'd the opioid epidemic self correct? Lots of doctors doing their homework before prescribing it?

Arguing that if you have enough time you'll get it right kills a lot of people in the meantime. Pride may keep you warm at night but this isn't a village of one.


You probably won't like this answer, but doctors didn't create the opiate epidemic. Bureaucrats did. Overdose deaths from opiates track directly with stricter drug laws and stricter controls on physician prescribing. We're professionals after all, and even the docs who hand that stuff out like candy are smart enough not to kill their own patients. The rare doctor exceptions to this end up in jail on manslaughter charges and rightly so.

When narcotics laws get more strict, less patients get narcotics. These people are addicted, so it's not like all of them are going to just stop being addicted now that I can't write their meds. So they start getting meds from friends and family, and then they start buying narcs off the street. Shockingly, friends, family and street dealers don't know how to treat pain and addiction in a safe and controlled way. So these patients end up with widely varying doses, many of which are lethal.

The opiate epidemic is an argument that even a terrible doctor is better than an interested layperson. First, because even a drug pushing hack doesn't kill their own patients. Even if they did, there's a nice paper trail and they end up out of the profession and in jail.


On the contrary, the drug industry and how they've sold products completely undermines the idea of 'doctors understand the literature and muh science.' It's pretty well understood a nice pair of boobs and a round of golf sealed the deal until a few decades ago (when it became illegal). You'd like to wash your hands now but it's amazing what you'll give a patient for a few bucks.

Edit: getting a bunch of people addicted and then washing your hands of it is ****ed up. You and your 'we know the science' industry did this (and let's be honest, you're an industry, not some go it alone moral gold standard).
The Hefty Lefty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm late to the party, but this thread is embarrassing.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"I am vaccinated for Fauci/Covid-19"

What does this mean? Are you one of those people that think Fauci had a hand in creating the virus? Or just want to link him to it somehow?
Old Army Ghost
How long do you want to ignore this user?
follow the science

nypost.com/2021/09/08/covering-up-faucis-role-in-covid-leak-devine/
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rumor/Speculation is not science.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmendeler said:

Rumor/Speculation is not science.
Implementing vaccine mandates and shutting down cities is not science. Using words like should, need, ought, etc. is not science and yet this has been used endlessly since 2020 to fulfill political agendas.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ok
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orthodox Texan said:

schmendeler said:

Rumor/Speculation is not science.
Implementing vaccine mandates and shutting down cities is not science. Using words like should, need, ought, etc. is not science and yet this has been used endlessly since 2020 to fulfill political agendas.


These things are based on epidemiologic research. Vaccine mandates have been used for centuries now and have been extremely successful.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orthodox Texan said:

schmendeler said:

Rumor/Speculation is not science.
Implementing vaccine mandates and shutting down cities is not science. Using words like should, need, ought, etc. is not science and yet this has been used endlessly since 2020 to fulfill political agendas.

What an incredibly silly statement. there is absolutely 100% science behind all of this. Geez

The thing that keeps making my head want to explode is that there are ways to legit quantify this. There were actual examples of countries that did things correctly and the positive results followed. It's just willful ignorance.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More and more coming out about long covid is pretty scary stuff....


https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/cognitive-memory-long-covid-study-cambridge/
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Among those experiencing long COVID the new research found 78 percent had difficulty concentrating, 69 percent suffered brain fog, 68 percent reported forgetfulness and around 40 percent displayed a condition known as semantic disfluency (saying or typing the wrong word).
Apparently I've been suffering from Long-Covid for most of my life.

Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I will say that I have 4 coworkers that had covid pretty bad pre-vaccine. And all of them were noticably dumber when they came back to work.

1 is still no where near as sharp as he was pre covid, the other 3 took weeks to months to return to a pre-covid mind set.

A lot of lost trains of thought and diminished ability to math in their heads were the most noticable.

The ones that have caught it post vaccination haven't seemed to have the same issue.

And no more than I have to work with, I never wanted to risk it
c-jags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Duncan Idaho said:

I will say that I have 4 coworkers that had covid pretty bad pre-vaccine. And all of them were noticably dumber when they came back to work.

1 is still no where near as sharp as he was pre covid, the other 3 took weeks to months to return to a pre-covid mind set.

A lot of lost trains of thought and diminished ability to math in their heads were the most noticable.

The ones that have caught it post vaccination haven't seemed to have the same issue.

And no more than I have to work with, I never wanted to risk it


My wife had a brain fuzz for a few days after having it. She'd just lose train of thought middle of talking. She'd be working and then just look up and forget what she was doing. Lasted about a week.

Fully Vaccinated.
Ulrich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wasn't quite to that point, but I would definitely lose track of complex ideas. I tend to structure answers into sequential points to help people understand the components and interactions, but I would completely lose it about four points in. The first few days back I was in a haze, there's no telling what I said. That was really concerning.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Science:
-Getting the vaccine to elderly as they are the highest risk group.
-Shown reduction in symptom severity of those who got COVID after being vaccinated.
-Viral theory that mutations will be less deadly and more transmittable
-Decline in symptoms of COVID with decreasing age paired with real vaccine side effects for low risk populations.
-Real, serious, and even deadly vaccine injuries for COVID. Not an imaginary risk.

Not Science:
-Misleading the public about the efficacy of the first wide spread mRNA vaccine and obvious risk of easy mutations with coronaviruses.
-Pushing vaccines on populations with greater side effect risk than covid risk.
-Masks mandates, plexiglass, everyone sanitizing surfaces for an airborne virus and other sanitization theater
-Hiding information about side effects
-Medical boards threatening to pull licenses if the care providers write 'not medically necessary' covid exemptions.
-Hospitals being incentivized to lie about covid numbers to get reimbursed more money
-Hospitals stopping any other therapeutics that might help even if it was just anecdotal evidence
-Hospitals administering Remdisvir in the first place (see point about money)
-Congress exempting vaccine manufacturers from all liability
-Workplaces demanding vaccinations
-Shutting down the economy
-Lockdowns getting mocked by the virus as they finally spike areas that have held out through isolation. (New Zealand and HK)

Ramblin_Ag is just another doctor who does exactly what his bureaucratic owners tell him to do. He doesn't see the regulatory capture that invades every aspect of his job.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most of what you're claiming as "not science" actually has very good data and epidemiological evidence to support it. Of course not every countermeasure taken for a completely novel virus will work. It's a ****ing novel virus. We had to take high levels of caution until the threat was better understood.

Some of what you're claiming is "science," particularly around the danger posed by vaccines compared to Covid is bull**** and not supported by the research.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Most of what you're claiming as "not science" actually has very good data and epidemiological evidence to support it. Of course not every countermeasure taken for a completely novel virus will work. It's a ****ing novel virus. We had to take high levels of caution until the threat was better understood.

Some of what you're claiming is "science," particularly around the danger posed by vaccines compared to Covid is bull**** and not supported by the research.
So you gonna vaccinate your infants here chief? Kid gets sniffles and you're gonna sign em with increased risk of heart issues with every dose? We didn't 'have' to do anything. It was going to run its course, and it did. The government could have stopped with, we've created this vaccine, take it if you want it. now go on about your business.

After the first spike in 2019, the hospitals never dealt with being 'overrun.' The rest of this was just government gonna government.

Would have been real nice if the government had just decided to keep their hands of gain of function research in the first place.
Sb1540
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Most of what you're claiming as "not science" actually has very good data and epidemiological evidence to support it. Of course not every countermeasure taken for a completely novel virus will work. It's a ****ing novel virus. We had to take high levels of caution until the threat was better understood.

Some of what you're claiming is "science," particularly around the danger posed by vaccines compared to Covid is bull**** and not supported by the research.
You are assuming the best path for millions of Americans ranging in age/health/income can be lumped into a mandate for all. Narrow view of reality.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.