Political Junkie Too wrote: “Take the time to refute at least one scientific point to demonstrate “it’s junk” to the rest of us.”
I did. “His real point is we should stop all vaccinations during this pandemic until the number of infections drop below a critical value. Why do you think it is credible to argue that we shouldn’t fight a disease with vaccines that are safe and effective?”
Political Junkie Too wrote: “This is hyperbole. I don’t need to wonder what his motivations are if his science is sound. Can you demonstrate that his science is unsound?”
If his science is so sound then why has his science been ignored by the scientific establishment. Even he admits he’s only received ‘silence’.
Many here have cast doubt on mRNA vaccines because of financial motivations. Why is it inappropriate to question his motivations. He sounds like a car salesman telling you to avoid death trap chevrolets and buy his ford instead.
If his science is so sound then why has his science been ignored by the scientific establishment. Even he admits he’s only received ‘silence’.
Politics is the only feasible explanation. These are the people who said hydroxychloroquine was poison because President Trump endorsed it before the election, only to retract and support it after the election. These are the people who took China's side at the WHO over Trump's side, because Orange Man Bad.
If the science were there to rebut (not necessarily refute) the arguments, they wouldn't be silent. This is the "trust the science" crowd that hammered us for a year. So, where's the science to rebut the science? Silence is avoidance, not rebuttal.
Many here have cast doubt on mRNA vaccines because of financial motivations. Why is it inappropriate to question his motivations. He sounds like a car salesman telling you to avoid death trap chevrolets and buy his ford instead.
He does not, and again, that is hyperbole.
He has a reputable CV, which you are waving away as a "car salesman." He said he gave a presentation at a symposium of his peers, he said he's writing a paper to be peer-reviewed but time is short, he said his letter was a synopsis of that larger paper. I recall that people also questioned the motivation of Dr. Fauci because of his investment history. Did that disqualify Fauci from providing a scientific basis for his conclusions?
Are unproven allegations of parallel interests enough to discredit some, but not others?
So far, you have not addressed any of the science that he presented. You only attacked it as opposition to the current vaccine, only challenging the motivation of the doctor but not the premise of his arguments. You attempted to diminish his credentials without evidence, suggesting allegations that were also levied at others on the other side of the debate. You invoked the silence of others as refutation instead of affirmative argument, and only generalizing these others as "healthcare professionals" without specifying the people or their CVs to make such claims.
I want to be convinced one way or the other, but your approach is not getting me there.
-PJ