4 ms·
The answer seems straightforward then. More research to better understand mRNA vaccines and their consequences plus an effort to communicate what is found in a
by ALittleLight 6y ago
The answer seems straightforward then. More research to better understand mRNA vaccines and their consequences plus an effort to communicate what is found in a way that is digestible for lay people.
- tolbish 6y agoHow much more easily digestible can you get than this? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...
- ALittleLight 6y agoI suppose that gets points for being easily digestible, but it is also from a source that has knowingly lied to the public about covid safety in the past year (masks), it doesn't address any specific concerns related to the vaccine, and this document itself is obviously wrong. For example, it calls the vaccine a "a harmless piece" of mRNA when side-effects to the vaccine that are fairly considered harmful (fever, feeling bad, malaise, etc) are well documented and commonly known. If they wanted to do a good job, the information should come from a trustworthy source, it should present the best arguments against the vaccine, and discuss the merits and lack thereof of those arguments. It should genuinely present the risks and the benefits and a good analysis of the tradeoffs. This document clearly falls well short. You can't expect to convince people like this.