Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Maybe you're not following me, but I never said that vaccines ARE definitely harmful. I am just saying that there is enough reason to believe that a rushed and poorly tested vaccine COULD be harmful and therefore people are perfectly within their right to not get vaccinated and don't deserve to be called names and what not.
|
No but you were saying that squalene was.
I agree if the vaccine was poorly tested there would be reason to be concerned, but I don't think the vaccine is poorly tested. Less tested than others, more tested than some, due to the nature of the vaccine. Seems appropriate.
People are free to choose not to be vaccinated, just as others are free to question them on their decision and make points about doing something for the safety of others and such. And I don't recall calling anyone names, that's usually counter productive regardless the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
It means the people making the decision thought it was a better option in light of the evidence they had. You know, the debate about adjuvants isn't new and didn't just start now. I'd be surprised if the politicians decision had nothing to do with with the unknown surrounding them with this particular vaccine.
|
Exactly, they made the decision based on the evidence they had, AND the values and parameters they had set out. We have no idea if that evidence or parameters are any good.
Heck some governments still pay for homeopathy. Governments are stupid, that's why I like science.