Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no science if doubts aren’t allowed.
Slight change: There is no science if reasonable doubts aren't allowed. The thing with this pandemic is, that the time where you could have a reasonable doubt in the vaccines are over for a while now. We vaccinated half of earths population. If there would have been horrible side effects they would have shown. The more data we gather the clearer the picture becomes and the less reasonable certain doubts become. The t…
I am glad you have declared the time for reasonable doubt is over. How about this: Would it be reasonable to say there should be long-term random trial studies instead of no saying no short-term side effects have occurred, yet, since that is how science is (was?) done? Pfizer eliminated their long-term control study group by vaccinating them. Would it be reasonable for scientists to review the FDA's approach and data they used to quickly approve the vaccines? Why does the FDA want to have 55 years to release the data? Is that reasonable given current technology to search, sort, filter, and redact or organize what they want to share to comply with the FOIA request? And the review could prove that people are at risk if errors or omissions are found, so they should staff up, and comply. Would it be reasonable for those of us who have had COVID to wonder why natural immunity is being totally ignored by the US government? It's a pandemic of the immune vs. the non-immune, and not the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated. Or the old and unhealthy vs. the rest. Why a privately funded study on natural immunity by John Hopkins being done because our unquestionable CDC has done barely any given most studies show natural immunity is equal if not better than the vaccine more in line with how natural immunity has been viewed for decades? As rare as myocarditis is, vaccine causes it more in 16-24-year-old males than a COVID infection, and your risk of a serious COVID infection in that age group assuming you're not obese and suffering from other comorbidities is small enough that you should have the right to decide on whether it is good for you or not to get jabbed. If you are winded and have trouble making a flight of stairs, you have other issues aside from COVID you should be addressing. And if you get vaccinated, you need to get boosted soon thereafter to be in the "in crowd". Is it reasonable to point out that more than three quarters of hospitalizations and deaths involve older aged people and involve comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, and expect policies to be more intelligent and discriminatory in using data to make societal decisions that minimize COVID serious hospitalizations and deaths while also minimizing impact to the well being of the younger, healthier population that are not in the same risk category, our economy, mental health, and quality of life with reasonable risk? They post an article of a six-year old that says they were otherwise healthy, and then you see a photo, and the child is beyond a doubt, obese, and who knows what other comorbidities were at work. Great to way to scare mass vaccination of healthy children as human shields for uninformed fearful parents and adults. Where is the healthy skepticism of people pre-COVID when big pharma was not given a pass without scrutiny? Aren't we at present dealing with the opioid crisis they helped create? I am shocked people trained in science have bought the current version of "The Science" which is nothing other than shut up and do it or else. I and my family are not anti-vax. We have had our vaccinations for everything other than COVID, except we had COVID and recovered. Why is my job being put on the line over a jab I don't need, and does not protect anyone else given my status? I get tested weekly in order to be able to go to my office (pre-mandate policy), yet 6 of 175 people have had a COVID infection after a double jab, and at least 2 of those had a booster! How come they don't need to be tested? They can give it to me, other vaccinated people, and anyone who is not vaccinated nor immune. And boy, do the miracle vaccines seemingly become less miraculous each month as studies show how quickly their effectiveness fades or is downgraded. A vaccine has to show 50% effectiveness for the FDA to approve it. They are touted as helping the majority of the population, which is at lower risk for serious hospitalization or death. I am not suggesting you wait and get COVID, but I am asking for you to think about the naturally immune. By the CDC's own numbers over a month ago, it is at least 140 million people in the US. When combined with those who have been vaccinated, why would you divide society based on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated vs. immune vs. non-immune, and why do people just buy into this memory-holing of natural immunity and embrace the authoritarianism of "The Science" and not actually, you know, science?