There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Now, I think the 10 years worth of data is big ask that is not available at this time. But, your point (as I see it) is that no-one is studying anything. It is the mRNA vax or nothing. There are no studies being performed (that we are aware of) to check the efficacy of prophylactic alternatives to the mRNA. Ivermectin, HCQ, Z-pak, or anything else.
It begets several questions: first is if this 99% survivable outside of a vulnerable populations why would we have this mRNA stuff be jammed into our bodies? Second, is If the mRNA stuff works, then why are so many who have taken it still getting sick? Third, if the mRNA stuff is so great, then why would a booster be necessary? Fourth, why are they so adamant that those who have had it and recovered take the dopey shot? What value does it confer for those who have recovered?
It seems that a reasonable conversation about anything surrounding this, is impossible with each side dug-in and irrational about their positions.
The freedom of choice side merely wants to be free to choose our own health care direction. That is not irrational.
Look at your own tag line.
We have no desire to be RULED.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Now, I think the 10 years worth of data is big ask that is not available at this time. But, your point (as I see it) is that no-one is studying anything. It is the mRNA vax or nothing. There are no studies being performed (that we are aware of) to check the efficacy of prophylactic alternatives to the mRNA. Ivermectin, HCQ, Z-pak, or anything else.
It begets several questions: first is if this 99% survivable outside of a vulnerable populations why would we have this mRNA stuff be jammed into our bodies? Second, is If the mRNA stuff works, then why are so many who have taken it still getting sick? Third, if the mRNA stuff is so great, then why would a booster be necessary? Fourth, why are they so adamant that those who have had it and recovered take the dopey shot? What value does it confer for those who have recovered?
It seems that a reasonable conversation about anything surrounding this, is impossible with each side dug-in and irrational about their positions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
My point is that they don’t have data to prove that it’s safe and effective. Even the pharma FDA filings said they had ‘data gaps’ and they didn’t have data on pregnant women, co-morbidities, infectivity or immunity. They said “we don’t know”. The CDC then made false unsupported statements.
you said: “It seems that a reasonable conversation about anything surrounding this, is impossible with each side dug-in and irrational about their positions.”
Each side isn’t irrational - the CDC demansd we accept at face value any false statement they choose to make. They’ve been lying to us for 18 months and together with the MSM, they insist we obey their every unconstitutional prounouncement. They deny life saving medications and force ones that are toxic - we are supposed to obey.
No one refuted Zelnko, McCullough, or Steve Kirsch. The CDC/NIH/Fauci ignore all accountability and fabricate the narrative.
Ivermectin is FDA approved, safe, in use for years. How is it ‘dug in’ and irrational to demand access, standard access including off label prescription, of a safe FDA approved drug while fighting off experimental vaccines that ‘no one cares’ if they have data about?
The pro-jab crowd is utterly irrational, as they only had the word of now-proven liars, and all the data they relied on is now shown to have been falsified.
Nice try at the equivalence game.