7 ms·
This is blatant historical revisionism. It was always "save and effective" and that's all people know. Furthermore if you refused to take it you were forced out
by greenavocado 3y ago
This is blatant historical revisionism. It was always "save and effective" and that's all people know. Furthermore if you refused to take it you were forced out of the company.
- hazbot 3y agoYou could both be right, especially depending on where you live and work.
- hackerlight 3y agoIt was always "effective enough relative to the safety risk of rare blood clots". There was never any attempt to suppress knowledge of blood clots, it was international news and widely acknowledged by everyone as a risk associated with the AZ vaccine.