That’s your subjective opinion about my position. It’s interesting your entire post is about me. Forget about me and my position and discuss the emerging data. Think about what we were told the vaccines would do back in January, and how much the goal posts have moved. It’s pretty stunning and is without a doubt “fluid, and open ended set of possibilities”.
“Forget about me and my position and discuss the emerging data.”
It is of course hard (Impossible) to discuss the data to any productive end, if there is not a specific thing we are looking for. There are multiple variables, and individual variables must be isolated to be tested.
All you do is cast aspersions, and then run away from them, and attempt to avoid accountability for their lack of merit, when actually examined. Throw a rock and run away. Oh that wasn’t me - that was this guy on twitter who said it. Well why post it, if not to make that same point?
My conclusion is that your objection to the vaccines is not objective or logical (unless the logic is to mislead, for some other motive).
There is no real grounding in principle or objectivity. Whatever fits the narrative, at the moment.
If it were to be objective scientific analysis, it would have to start with a clear statement of a testable hypothesis. That is what you repeatedly refuse to do, resorting to rhetorical maneuvers, like “we have been over that before” (when previous discussions never produced the clear hypothesis requested).
The ancient Greeks separated the study of logic from that of rhetoric, for good reason. Your arguments are at heart, simply rhetoric, in pursuit of a biased, pre-determined conclusion.