3 ms·

> they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic Who should judge that and why? I think that’s what makes free speech a basic ri

> they don't meet the minimum standard to actually have an opinion on the topic Who should judge that and why? I think that’s what makes free speech a basic right in functional democracies - there is no pre judging it. Challenging authority and science is important if we want to seek truth. In the case of vaccines, for example, people were getting censored for discussing side effects. Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. But not long ago it was labeled as a “conspiracy theory” and you would get banned on Twitter or Reddit for mentioning it.

kaibee 2y ago
> Myocarditis is now officially acknowledged as a (rare) side effect of the MRNA based COVID vaccines. Sure. But the MRNA vaccines were the first ones to be available and the Myocarditis risk from getting COVID-19 while unvaccinated is still multiple times higher than the risk from the MRNA vaccine. So, all that telling people about the risk of myocarditis does is dissuade some portion of people from getting the MRNA vaccine... which leads to more cases of myocarditis/deaths.