3 ms·

How many news articles and recorded interviews repeat the phrase "safe and effective"? Maybe the "effective" part was a little misleading? Especially when these

How many news articles and recorded interviews repeat the phrase "safe and effective"? Maybe the "effective" part was a little misleading? Especially when these vaccines were explicitly billed as a solution to containment of the virus, to the degree that mandates were supposedly justified... Maybe you could argue that there was a disconnect between what virologists/epidemiologists were saying and what media, pharma, and government talking heads were saying, but it absolutely was sold as effective in preventing infection and spread. Hence the term "vaccine" which has since been redefined by the WHO and/or CDC (I forget which one changed the definition listed on their website). There is too much political momentum for our institutions to acknowledge that they may have made a series of significant errors in their assumptions.

ac2u 5y ago
>Especially when these vaccines were explicitly billed as a solution to containment of the virus My whole argument was that the experts I listened to in the media didn't bill it as such, and your argument to refute that is to restate the argument I'm combating. >Maybe you could argue that there was a disconnect between what virologists/epidemiologists were saying and what media, pharma, and government talking heads were saying That's exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying "most experts I listened to in the media, from day one, stressed that they didn't know it's efficacy on transmissibility yet" and your point back is "ok maybe the experts said that, but what about what the media and phrama and talking heads were saying"? When did I mention them? My entire point was that from day one this was being said, but people either weren't listening, or strategically choosing to forget.