Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
No but you were saying that squalene was.
|
I was just pointing out that there have been adverse effects from squalene adjuvants in the past. You disregarded the article in its entirety, but I don't.
Quote:
|
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.
|
What I have read is that for this vaccine to go through normal testing, it would take until sometime next year. I understand why they are not doing that, but it should still be a concern as adverse effects from past vaccines have taken several months to surface. The number of people tested is not the only variable to consider. And there seems to be a lot of different information out there regarding how much testing was actually done. Escuse me if i don't just take what is posted on here as the gospel. If I was in the medical profession and it was my OPINION that everyone should get vaccinated, I could say whatever I wanted. I'm a professional enviromental scientist and have worked in global warming studies, but I am sure that if posted my opinion on that and framed it with facts that supported my opinion (while leaving out facts that didn't), people would still be making up their own mind on the matter.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well you missed it then.
And mistakes 30 years ago are still pretty relevant considering we still make them all the time.