> On the one hand you say that you support "discussion of these topics in a meaningful way." > On the other hand, you criticize me for desiring to read medica

> On the one hand you say that you support "discussion of these topics in a meaningful way." > On the other hand, you criticize me for desiring to read medical papers in an attempt to make informed decisions. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm trying to say we ought to have a meaningful discussion about these topics and bad actors are making it worse to do so. People who simply take those talking points ("makes you think huh?") and regurgitate them and THEN say "why can't we discuss this" don't faithfully want discussions, they want EYEBALLS (read -> $$). I can't tell if this you're viewpoint, but you sure are sharing a lot of the same characteristics of these people ("I can research everything myself damnit!") You absolutely should have the right to read white papers AND also trust that the government entity that interprets such articles has your best interest in mind. But you're insinuating that we should simply just have research/white papers and leave it to the general populace to interpret whatever they want. That is, IMHO, more dangerous than the alternative, especially when it comes to vaccinations where there is a near binary effect in place (you either get herd immunity or you don't, everything in between is potentially worse).