COVID-19 vaccine discussion

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

I mean, okay...sure, I have general sympathy because that sucks.

I just meant (and I think you know this if you've followed the thread of the conversation) a specific sympathy for not being able to sue Pfizer or what have you. In that scenario you voluntarily took a vaccine because you wanted to. You didn't have an authority pressure you into it, and then have no legal recourse should you be injured.

If Pfizer or Moderna made a product that has a safety profile on par with other medications, why should they be the ones on the financial hook for AEs?

1) have health insurance, use it.  Greatly minimizes financial exposure.  My empathy is minimal for those that could have health insurance at a reasonable price but choose to keep the money instead  (I have a stepbrother in this category)

2) for other, probably unusual circumstances, set aside a pool of money.  Of course that’s a government handout so some would be opposed to that on those grounds  

 

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's almost like there was a concerted effort during the first wave to act like there was nothing wrong at all, or something. 

That has nothing to do with the being made. CMS data collection and sharing was a shit show, the non-CMS data is not much better. People were getting shots left and right without the admin being documented consistently to electronic healthcare data sources that are one of the primary tools used for post authorization safety surveillance. It's all understandable in terms of how it played out. The objective was the get shots in the arm. But the reality is that the exposure data is totally unreliable, in a world where these data sources already have significant limitations. 

Edited May 7 by Anastasis

17 hours ago, Poester said:

My friend got the OG Covid and his taste/smell have never fully recovered. He says that coffee tastes like gasoline and marinara makes him sick to his stomach. I’d rather have the vaccine side effects I think. 
 

I don’t regret getting the vaccine, but it was unnecessary based on my age and risk factors. It’s easy to look back now and be more objective. At the time I definitely got swept up in the panic… Meh, live and learn I guess. 

Your first paragraph points out why it was necessary. And there is no age / risk factor  demo that was completely safe from the novel coronavirus. I recently saw a healthy 36 yo patient (33 when she contracted covid pre vaccine) who went into cardiac arrest and coded. She had Covid and mild fever aches and cough but went to ER with chest pain. She was being discharged from the ER after rule out MI (normal ekg and cardiac enzymes < 30 minutes prior to the arrest); they got her back and took her straight to the cath lab where they found complete occlusion of the LAD (widowmaker) and one other artery. 
 

so would you rather have had a super rare complication of Covid infection or super rare complication of the vaccine?

I know this topic is soon to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction here in the New Surly Journal of Medicine, so someone dust off the Covid Origin thread and we can figure that one out next.  

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Your first paragraph points out why it was necessary. And there is no age / risk factor  demo that was completely safe from the novel coronavirus. I recently saw a healthy 36 yo patient (33 when she contracted covid pre vaccine) who went into cardiac arrest and coded. She had Covid and mild fever aches and cough but went to ER with chest pain. She was being discharged from the ER after rule out MI (normal ekg and cardiac enzymes < 30 minutes prior to the arrest); they got her back and took her straight to the cath lab where they found complete occlusion of the LAD (widowmaker) and one other artery. 
 

so would you rather have had a super rare complication of Covid infection or super rare complication of the vaccine?

I can pray away the disease.  Duh

19 minutes ago, Andreas Vesalius said:

Not sure where you get 1% mortality rate

There are some red flags that should be followed. Now will they?

The official number of people with disabilities made a jump that coincided with vaccine rollouts and was concentrated in the employed population. 

What’s a couple million here or there?

There's also the issue of perisistently elevated excess deaths and increasing cancer rates. The cancer rates had been trending up but need to be followed further. 

Is any of this the vaccine? It's suspicious but we don’t know. Our public health services don't seem to be interested in investigation as far as I can tell. That's strange. 

 

The bottom line is our system is dismissing a lot of people with real issues. Surveillance has been poor for a variety of reasons, many discussed in that column. Ignorance is bliss for the govt. You don't believe me? Listen to the former FDA commissioner in the Nyt. 

 

But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies. 

“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”

“I’m disappointed in myself,” she added. “I did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn’t bring it home.”

Hmm what else happened at the same time as vaccines?

 

also brand new username and your first post is here? 

Why is this thread active in 2024?

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

Why is this thread active in 2024?

Because every once in a while, some anti-vax nutcase under a new handle (we all know who it is) will periodically come in here to bump it. 

To wit, a post from this weekend that revived the discussion after three months of nothing.

 

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Your first paragraph points out why it was necessary. And there is no age / risk factor  demo that was completely safe from the novel coronavirus. I recently saw a healthy 36 yo patient (33 when she contracted covid pre vaccine) who went into cardiac arrest and coded. She had Covid and mild fever aches and cough but went to ER with chest pain. She was being discharged from the ER after rule out MI (normal ekg and cardiac enzymes < 30 minutes prior to the arrest); they got her back and took her straight to the cath lab where they found complete occlusion of the LAD (widowmaker) and one other artery. 
 

so would you rather have had a super rare complication of Covid infection or super rare complication of the vaccine?

I’m pretty sure I answered that question in my post you quoted. 

yeah...so like just don't interact?

1 minute ago, immamac said:

yeah...so like just don't interact?

Or lock the thread.

49 minutes ago, immamac said:

yeah...so like just don't interact?

What am I supposed to do? Work? Pfft. 

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Why is this thread active in 2024?

Yeah, the state Covid numbers are very low. Thankfully. Knock on wood.

Now we’re still catching up on the consequences of delayed care for everything else and the lack of primary care expansion due to poor funding and most hospital systems being underwater financially.

1 hour ago, immamac said:

yeah...so like just don't interact?

Your mixed signals about how to surly are confusing 

2 hours ago, Poester said:

I’m pretty sure I answered that question in my post you quoted. 

I read it as if you had it to do over again you wouldn’t get the initial vax. I’m sorry if I misconstrued. Novel viruses are very very bad. 

1 hour ago, Newdoc said:

Yeah, the state Covid numbers are very low. Thankfully. Knock on wood.

Now we’re still catching up on the consequences of delayed care for everything else and the lack of primary care expansion due to poor funding and most hospital systems being underwater financially.

Don’t worry HCA BSW and THR are buying all the distressed hospitals. Then everything will be great!

On 5/6/2024 at 6:45 PM, BeardIP said:

Okay, so let's assume you are right and there is nothing that makes the Covid vaccine and the vaccine's fast-tracking inherently more dangerous. Then why make it to where there is legal immunity and the people being compelled to take the vaccinations have no legal remedy, as they usually would? That strikes me as an implicit acknowledgement.

 

On 5/6/2024 at 7:32 PM, BeardIP said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects.

• Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
• A little-known government program provides benefits to people who can prove they suffered serious injury from a vaccine.
• That program rarely pays, covering just 29 claims over the last decade.

You're citing the PREP Act, which has been in some form the law of the land for almost 20 years, as an illustration of why the vaccine development and approval process of the Coronavirus vaccine about 15 years later was inherently dangerous?I believe that is about the definition of arguing in bad fucking faith. 

On 5/6/2024 at 10:53 PM, Captainant said:

It's almost like there was a concerted effort during the first wave to act like there was nothing wrong at all, or something. 

It's almost like the federal government acted in a manner to prevent a Panic-demic on top of a pandemic...  histrionics are well preserved even here   

4 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

A few points:

1) From what I've read, the PREP Act is not a blanket order for all vaccine development. In fact, from the website: 

The PREP Act empowers the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to immunize “covered persons," including pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers, that make what are called countermeasures including vaccines from liability in a declared public health emergency.

On March 17, 2020 (effective February 4, 2020), the Secretary of HHS declared the coronavirus pandemic to be such an emergency.

Thus the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines such as Pfizer and Moderna enjoy sweeping liability protection from personal injury or product liability suits.

2) Which, as I've said, is 1000% FINE AND GOOD, except in the cases where one was unreasonably compelled to take the vaccination. If being "mandated" to take a vaccine, you should not have legal impunity. Where it is a voluntary act of vaccination, protect the organizations who fast-tracked this to market all you want.

3) What I described above is a moral hazard and one that I am uncomfortable with. You and others might not be, and that's fine too, because reasonable minds can disagree, but it's a weird take to call someone bad faith for disagreeing with you.

4) This ammendment from last year actually makes sense to me now that the vaccination is 100% voluntary and people aren't at risk of losing their livlihoods or reasonably expected rights and privileges for not getting the vax: Eleventh Amendment to the Declaration under the PREP Act for COVID-19 Medical Countermeasures

 

You're pointing out that PREP Act isn't a blanker order for all vaccine development after you used the PERP Act and cited it as a blanket Act that allowed all immunity, and you framed it that way to sell your point. Then you started hedging. See the irony there? Hence, ARGURING IN BAD FAITH.

Yeah, I'm just not going to get up in arms about a public health emergency, learning from it, and making changes after the fact. 

16 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I think there has been some miscommunication:

"I'm pointing out that the PREP Act isnt a blanket order for all vaccine development." Yes

"After used the PERP Act and cited it as a blanket act that allowed all immunity." No, I used it as an example of why you can't sue for being vaccine injured, if you were unreasonably compelled to take the vaccination, that was fast-tracked and rushed to market during a public health emergency. I don't care about any other immunity that may or may not exist for any other vaccination development.

"Then you started hedging. See the irony there? Hence, ARGURING IN BAD FAITH." I lost your thread of logic on this and think you are just backing into some sort of confirmation bias about what you think I think and not what I said, based on your past experiences.

"Yeah, I'm just not going to get up in arms about a public health emergency, learning from it, and making changes after the fact." That's fine as it's your prerogative. I'm simply arguing from the other angle which is that public health emergency or not, legal immunity for drug manufacturers and quasi mandates for people to take this vaccination, is a moral hazard. It was a decision and it was made and we are living with it, but one can think it's a garbage position and talk about it without being bad faith. 

I mean, some people thought Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus was fine and others saw it as problematic and it remains an interesting debate to this day. It's okay to not agree with you Sydney and not be in bad faith. I hope one day you learn that.

Someone cited that they didn't think this development as inherently more dangerous. You responded with, and I am paraphrasing here, "Then why make it immune from legal action" CLEARLY implying that experts knew it was inherently more dangerous, therefore they made it immune. That's what you did. 

The rest of everything you're talking about whether it is immune from legal action is just noise. Hell, I'm not even sure I disagree with you, I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. But before all of that happened, you clearly implied the government believed it was more dangerous, that's why they gave it immunity. This part, right here:
 

On 5/6/2024 at 6:45 PM, BeardIP said:

Okay, so let's assume you are right and there is nothing that makes the Covid vaccine and the vaccine's fast-tracking inherently more dangerous. Then why make it to where there is legal immunity and the people being compelled to take the vaccinations have no legal remedy, as they usually would? That strikes me as an implicit acknowledgement.

Personally, I think that the government probably gave them exemption to get the fucking wheels moving on something, and you see it as "They knew this whole MNRA process was super dangerous and this is how they covered their asses" type conspiracy stuff. That's gaslighting, dude. 

Edited May 8 by SydneyCarton

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Personally, I think that the government probably gave them exemption to get the fucking wheels moving on something, and you see it as "They knew this whole MNRA process was super dangerous and this is how they covered their asses" type conspiracy stuff. That's gaslighting, dude. 

This.  1000X this.

I can't wait for the next necro bump for chrispy and his merry band of assholes to fight the good fight against the tyranny of vaccination. 

 

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

First, thanks for the clarity. I'd rather respond to points than guess or just resort to name calling.

I think the word "inherent(ly)" is doing the heavy lifting here. 

I was responding to the poster who said that fast tracking this and stacking steps in parallel is inherently more risky/dangerous than going through the motions serially. I mean, just conceptually and logically speaking, how could it be equal in risk?

Ask yourself this, if there is no inherent difference in the manufacturing risks, then why not just make the process more efficient and turn the "fast track" into the standard? It's because the overwhelmingly likely reason is that by optimizing for speed, you are sacrificing something-- and whatever that sacrifice is (e.g. an uptick in risk) it's deemed worth it, but it's also not nothing.

I simply think that a pro-human and winning move would have been to absolutely fast track the go to market, but leave an option for legal remedy if injured by the product.

And I think the phrase "implicit acknowledgement" is doing the exact word you want it to do in your earlier post. And with your follow up above, you're basically doubling down on "OF COURSE IT'S MORE DANGEROUS, HOW COULD IT NOT BE?" The answer is, we don't know, it was the first time and no one knows what they don't know until they do something. Which leads me to my next point. What happens if the two drug companies say "You know what, if you made me do have legal remedy, we're just not going to do it, becuase we don't know what we don't know."

Becuase that's what they'd have done. And who knows what the death toll looks like now worldwide. 

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

Ask yourself this, if there is no inherent difference in the manufacturing risks, then why not just make the process more efficient and turn the "fast track" into the standard? It's because the overwhelmingly likely reason is that by optimizing for speed, you are sacrificing something-- and whatever that sacrifice is (e.g. an uptick in risk) it's deemed worth it, but it's also not nothing.

Cost efficiency.  

5 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Ask yourself this, if there is no inherent difference in the manufacturing risks, then why not just make the process more efficient and turn the "fast track" into the standard? It's because the overwhelmingly likely reason is that by optimizing for speed, you are sacrificing something-- and whatever that sacrifice is (e.g. an uptick in risk) it's deemed worth it, but it's also not nothing.

And like I said above, the increased risk is contained within the clinicals and borne by the volunteers. 
 

if, for example, a normal dose escalation trial would start at x dose and increase until toxicity is established but in this case all of the dose cohorts are run in parallel, the higher dose cohort has higher risk because there’s no tox data available to inform dosing. 
 

but at the conclusion of all of that, the final dose selected is based on the same overall trial data and just as safe as other dose decisions. 

On 5/7/2024 at 9:34 AM, immamac said:

Why is this thread active in 2024?

6 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I do stand by the idea that by invoking the PERP Act, there is "Implicit acknowledgment" of a POTENTIAL for risk and the desire and need to legally shield yourself from that risk. 

And if we took away the legal immunity and the drug companies felt that developing, in a fast tracked manner, a drug was an existential risk then....isn't that proving my original point... that the potential for risk incurred from speeding up the traditional process to bring a vaccination to market... is what makes it inherently different and potentailly more risky?

It would only prove your point if a) it was ascertained after the fact that speeding up the traditional process created some flaw in the process that made the vaccine more dangerous to people and b) the drug turned out to be an existential risk. 

Neither has been proven to be true after the fact, covid has has basically been proven to be in line with side effects from other vaccines. So basically you're arguing for something that has been proven wrong after the fact. 

And I don't think bolding your added new work of POTENTIAL proves what you think it proves in this back and forth. 

I am ignorant to how long into long term effects monitoring we typically go before approving a drug. I have a hypothesis that the time from emergency use authorization to full approval may inform that timeline. 

Get vaccinated, you stupid shits!

On 5/6/2024 at 10:44 AM, BeardIP said:

It's obvious that there were going to be negative side effects. No chemical, medicine or drug is 100% safe for 100% of a population. Latex and Peanuts and Sulfur and even the moldy penicillin bread out front shoulda told ya.

That a small % of folks had some sort of averse reaction and/or vaccine injury is not the problem.

The problem that the article seems to be highlighting, which I think is a good thing to spotlight, is that for those who were vaccine injured, they should not be ignored.

Especially when the pharma and government had legal immunity with a rushed product.

Did you mean sulfa?

59 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

In my mind "risk" and "potential for risk" are saying the same thing; six one way and half a dozen the other. In no way, shape or form was it communicated that there was a definite or provable risk, just that by suspending legal remedy, there is an implication of an inherent difference-- an addition to the element of risk/potential risk. I mean, this seems like risk management 101 stuff. 

Looking back, I agree with you. The results are more or less in line with any other vaccination with regards to side effects (as far as I can tell and from what I've read).

But, again, the MAIN crux of the argument and issue, is that this vaccination was something that was more or less "mandated" for a goodly number of people by an unreasonable expectation for many sectors of employment and rights/privileges. If you are going to compel and force people into a vaccination, it's unethical and morally wrong to not offer a legal remedy or option for adverse outcomes. That is 100% my point.

I feel like a broken record, so I'll just leave it at that.

I don't have a problem with the main crux of your argument, as I stated. I have a problem with the gaslighting thinly veiled "implications" that the government knew it was more dangerous than other vaccinations, when in fact the method has proven to be EXACTLY as safe as pretty much every other vaccination, which you made on the WAY to getting to your main point.

 

On 5/7/2024 at 9:34 AM, immamac said:

Why is this thread active in 2024?

I just caught my first case last week. In a weird way I was kind of excited to finally be included with the rest of the world, except for that fourth-ish day when I did not want to be inside of my own body. So much information will be playing out about the virus, the different countries based on the response or non-response, and the vaccines for many years to come.

 

 

Edited May 12 by JohnnyRage

On 5/7/2024 at 9:34 AM, immamac said:

Why is this thread active in 2024?

Because you touch yourself 

Hydroxychloroquine could have caused 17,000 deaths during Covid, study finds:

Quote

Nearly 17,000 people may have died after taking hydroxycholoroquine during the first wave of Covid-19, according to a study by French researchers.

The anti-malaria drug was prescribed to some patients hospitalized with Covid-19 during the first wave of the pandemic, "despite the absence of evidence documenting its clinical benefits," the researchers point out in their paper, published in the February issue of Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy.

Now, researchers have estimated that some 16,990 people in six countries — France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the U.S. — may have died as a result.

That figure stems from a study published in the Nature scientific journal in 2021 which reported an 11 percent increase in the mortality rate, linked to its prescription against Covid-19, because of the potential adverse effects like heart rhythm disorders, and its use instead of other effective treatments.

Researchers from universities in Lyon, France, and Québec, Canada, used that figure to analyze hospitalization data for Covid in each of the six countries, exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the increase in the relative risk of death linked to the drug.

In fact, they say the figure may be far higher given the study only concerns six countries from March to July 2020, when the drug was prescribed much more widely.

Hydroxychloroquine gained prominence partly due to French virologist Didier Raoult who had headed the Méditerranée Infection Foundation hospital, but was later removed amid growing controversy.

It was also considered something of a “miracle cure” by the then-U.S. President Donald Trump, who said: “What do you have to lose? Take it.”

 

Okay, we're literally talking about 'A Belgian Dip', then?

 

It's honestly shocking that an anti-parasitic with immunosuppressive properties was a bad idea to take when you have a viral infection. Mind blowing really.

There's some viral flu/whatever shit going around. I got picked it up last Wed night on a business trip to Pennsylvania. Started with a scratchy throat and sinus. It's been a full week of thick sinus issues, non-stop coughing, fatigue, on and off again fever. Got tested yesterday. Not Covid or flu, doc thinks it is viral. I haven't been this sick since, well, Covid but I was feeling fine after a week with Covid. Not this shit. A week later, still feeling like absolute shit. This motherfucking cough will not go away. Gave it to the wife. She's vaxxed with the latest and greatest. Didn't prevent her from getting this shit.

Reading the Austin Reddit board, this is going around in Austin. Same symptoms. Some tested positive to Covid, many didn't. The kicker is that the cough lasts 1-2 months. Yay me.

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

There's some viral flu/whatever shit going around. I got picked it up last Wed night on a business trip to Pennsylvania. Started with a scratchy throat and sinus. It's been a full week of thick sinus issues, non-stop coughing, fatigue, on and off again fever. Got tested yesterday. Not Covid or flu, doc thinks it is viral. I haven't been this sick since, well, Covid but I was feeling fine after a week with Covid. Not this shit. A week later, still feeling like absolute shit. This motherfucking cough will not go away. Gave it to the wife. She's vaxxed with the latest and greatest. Didn't prevent her from getting this shit.

Reading the Austin Reddit board, this is going around in Austin. Same symptoms. Some tested positive to Covid, many didn't. The kicker is that the cough lasts 1-2 months. Yay me.

'Business trip' you say?

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30 by Dnaguy

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

There's some viral flu/whatever shit going around. I got picked it up last Wed night on a business trip to Pennsylvania. Started with a scratchy throat and sinus. It's been a full week of thick sinus issues, non-stop coughing, fatigue, on and off again fever. Got tested yesterday. Not Covid or flu, doc thinks it is viral. I haven't been this sick since, well, Covid but I was feeling fine after a week with Covid. Not this shit. A week later, still feeling like absolute shit. This motherfucking cough will not go away. Gave it to the wife. She's vaxxed with the latest and greatest. Didn't prevent her from getting this shit.

Reading the Austin Reddit board, this is going around in Austin. Same symptoms. Some tested positive to Covid, many didn't. The kicker is that the cough lasts 1-2 months. Yay me.

I would bet that its RSV.

Have had it the last two years.  Kicked my ass worse than each of my now 4 times with Covid.   

Fauci on the Hill.

 

 

 

Idiots yelling at someone who has taken dumps with a higher IQ than them.  Very productive.

On 5/30/2024 at 11:23 AM, Incredulity said:

I would bet that its RSV.

Have had it the last two years.  Kicked my ass worse than each of my now 4 times with Covid.   

Sounds serious. You should get the vaccine for it. 

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Sounds serious. You should get the vaccine for it. 

despite my avatar, I am not over 60

On 6/3/2024 at 9:28 AM, kevwun said:

Idiots yelling at someone who has taken dumps with a higher IQ than them.  Very productive.

Strangely, two of the people very visible behind Fauci were Jan6 insurrectionists. Lotta overlap between the COVID deniers and the insurrectionists

They were there to serve as intimidators to Fauci on someone's direction.  As if Fauci hasn't received enough threats in the last few years.  

Fauci will have a dozen institutes and schools named after him by the time my daughters are my age.  

Fellows will spend time in a federal prison which won't go well for him given those pretty lips.  Raiklin will be dead by his own hand in an apparent overdose and/or firearms accident.  It's really not that hard to hurt people in this day and age of untraceable money.  

Having said that, I think I'm gonna hold off for my latest booster which is due.  Last couple were rough and I've other health shit going on and am on two Rx's for the first time in my life.  

 

bullshit, that's Kelly Leak.  I'm sure of it.

Could be.  He is wearing a "Chico's Bail Bonds" shirt under that blazer.  

On 6/4/2024 at 10:35 PM, YGIFS said:

They were there to serve as intimidators to Fauci on someone's direction.  As if Fauci hasn't received enough threats in the last few years.  

Fauci will have a dozen institutes and schools named after him by the time my daughters are my age.  

Fellows will spend time in a federal prison which won't go well for him given those pretty lips.  Raiklin will be dead by his own hand in an apparent overdose and/or firearms accident.  It's really not that hard to hurt people in this day and age of untraceable money.  

Having said that, I think I'm gonna hold off for my latest booster which is due.  Last couple were rough and I've other health shit going on and am on two Rx's for the first time in my life.  

 

Fauci is responsible for more deaths outside of the folks who actually leaked the virus. He is a narcissistic demon who if there is any justice will burn in hell.

More broadly, he and the public health establishment writ large lied about everything.

They lied about masks.

They lied about Ivermectin.

They lied when they said the vaccine would prevent infection.

They lied in order to close schools. (We had good evidence it was not necessary.) 

They lied about the 6ft distancing. (No evidence)

They lied about taking millions from Big Pharma. (260 NIAID scientists took $690 million in royalties from Big Pharma between 2021 and 2023. That's more than $3 million per scientist.)

They lied about the origin of the virus.

They signed a letter saying if you protested for BLM you would be safe, but if you gathered for MAGA you would transmit the virus.

They lied about natural immunity.

They lied about vaccine side effects. 

They lied to make kids take a vaccine for a virus to which they were immune.

 

You cannot just lie about every fucking thing you say, then turn around and say "trust us". There is documented evidence of the huge harm caused by their "advice", especially to kids. But the most damage they did was to convince people not to take the vaccine because they could not be trusted but rather are inveterate liars dispossessed of any conscience whatsoever. If there is another pandemic, there will be mass refusals to take any vaccine, despite any evidence. There is no trust, and their shouldn't be.

I am vaccinated, and obviously very pro vaccine, because I read the studies. But science requires the confidence of the public, and the public health establishment could not have done a worse job. 

Edited June 5 by Thetexashammer

Good fucking god

When's the brain worm vaccine gonna be released?