2 ms·

> "You seem to have a problem with the process being non-traditional," Really? Because that's not what I said. You can't change a process - especially not a m

> "You seem to have a problem with the process being non-traditional," Really? Because that's not what I said. You can't change a process - especially not a medical one for 100s of millions of people - and then say "We're 100% certain of this. This is all new. There are no long term side effects. And if you think or say otherwise, we will cancel you." Anyone who knows even a bit of history - medical or otherwise - and is comfortable with that is a either naive, or on the take. To clarify, I don't have a problem with an non-traditional process. That being said, the way the process was "sold" set off my BS detector too many times. The two are disconnected to a fault. For example, there's this: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137152/these-brazilian-besties-are-inventing-an-mrna-vaccine-as-a-gift-to-the-world https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137... Long to short, we've had "OMG the variants..." repeated over and over, how important the jab is to that, and then how in a worldwide pandemic the threat of variants can come from anywhere. Yet, 2 docs in Brazil have to invent their own vax? And promise to give it away? While USA Big Pharma...does what??? counts their money? Because variants aren't a threat? See? Again, complete disconnect. Disconnect that no one should be comfortable with.

marcosdumay 4y ago
> You can't change a process - especially not a medical one for 100s of millions of people - and then say "We're 100% certain of this. This is all new. The testing process? Of course we can, statistics is quite an established and predictive science. Again, looks like you have a problem with a non-traditional process. You also seem to have a falling for low-quality science journalism. Both are understandable, but your failure of understanding the vaccine policies around the pandemics were due to your partial understanding, and not fault of the policies.

marcosdumay 4y ago

> You can't change a process - especially not a medical one for 100s of millions of people - and then say "We're 100% certain of this. This is all new. The testing process? Of course we can, statistics is quite an established and predictive science. Again, looks like you have a problem with a non-traditional process. You also seem to have a falling for low-quality science journalism. Both are understandable, but your failure of understanding the vaccine policies around the pandemics were due to your partial understanding, and not fault of the policies.