GoogEvil
How can misinformation be determined misinformation if it is continually changing in direct contradiction to the previous details? And what does it change to that it won’t be changed again misleading itself so it never should have been printed as a replacement for the previous guidance? It’s the song that never ends. Chicken or egg?
wy69
“Immunizations like for measles”
No matter what one's opinion of the current Covid vaccinations is, we can't sustain a free society when opinions are routinely censored.
Indeed. See this study:
Since there is no significant difference between viral load among vaccinated or unvaccinated, it stands to reason that the vaccinated are at this moment the "super spreaders".
It does seem true that the vaccinated are less likely to get seriously sick from covid if they do catch it, but no reason to believe they are less likely to catch or spread it. Maybe their immune systems can defeat the virus faster but I don't know of any data that shows transmission rates to be lower among the vaccinated. Logically one may even conclude that a false sense of security among the vaccinated results in them being more social, more active, and thus spreading at a greater rate than the unvaccinated who are more likely to take greater precautions.
IF it wanted to ban ‘misinformation’, FYouTube needs to ban itself!
See this post for all the vaccine misinformation.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3999304/posts?page=1
MARGARET BRENNAN: I appreciate at the outset you laid out the bureaucratic process that- that happens within the government to say yes or no on these vaccines. But we’re in the middle of a national health crisis where trust has been diminished or clarity and communication is so important. Was this the right way to actually get this done? I mean, almost every day we had a different message on whether to take the booster or not.
DR. WALENSKY: Yeah, I want to actually articulate this. This- this is not the bureaucratic process; this is the scientific process. You have scientific experts, academicians who are talking about the FDA advisory committee. The FDA puts its authorization. You have academicians, people working their entire career in immunology and vaccinology, informing the CDC. I think that this is an important scientific process and an important scientific dialogue. It has been scrutinized. It’s been watched in ways that it has never been before, but this has been the process that has held us in good stead. And that- I think is important for people who might- and- and it’s very transparent. And I think it’s important for people to understand and be able to watch the science, so they have confidence in the process.
SCIENCE IS NOT CONSENSUS. If it were, we’d still be believing that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around IT. And that there are only four elements, earth, water, fire and air. And that illness is caused by imbalance of the humors. And that drawing a pint of blood is a viable treatment for, well, almost everything.
Crikey!
We have a vaccine that’s been around for less than a year, so I find it difficult to prove all the problems associated with it. I’m not denying them just think it needs more time and investigation. With that said I find it just as difficult to prove that it doesn’t. It we use their reasoning it seems to me that one claim is just as disingenuous as the other.