3 ms·

I’m not sold on third doses or more either. Its a mRNA vaccine for two variants ago and we dont use that standard for other viruses. Decent example but this is

I’m not sold on third doses or more either. Its a mRNA vaccine for two variants ago and we dont use that standard for other viruses. Decent example but this is a separate issue than the premise I started with or replied to. I think myocarditis is a good example of remaining objective with data. At risk people know what they need to do and it is no longer selfish for the rest of us to not help that. Nobody can kill as many grandmas as Cuomo’s nursing homes, its impossible now and a booster also assumes additional risk whereas the initial doses did not.

incrudible 5y ago
> Decent example but this is a separate issue than the premise I started with or replied to. I disagree. The question is, is the the system broken or not? To me, this example suggests that it is indeed broken. Then, did it just break or was it broken all along? Is it possible that we mandated vaccinations to millions of people that were more likely to be harmed than helped by these vaccines? If so, would we know, eventually? The status quo in the pharma industry is to never do more trials than absolutely necessary, lest you risk discovering something that runs counter to business interest. I suspect a very similar attitude would exist among regulatory bodies that risk discovering that it has been advocating a potentially harmful medical intervention to people that didn't need it. The only entities that have a vested interest in figuring this out are private health insurances. If these vaccines are worth taking, let them charge a premium for refusal.