Put two and two together, if they are saying the risk benefit from the shots is negative for children who aren’t at risk from the virus, then don’t you think the same would apply to adults who aren’t at risk from the virus?
The extent to which people seem to have given up independent thinking around this issue seems troubling.
Read between the lines because unfortunately it is highly unlikely to see politicians and public health authorities say this so bluntly when they were the ones just recently pushing these, on net deleterious shots. A sensitive issue and political minefield to say the least.
Why should people get the original shot if they haven’t already? It clearly doesn’t work, it clearly has potential for very negative side effects, and even if it did work it is designed for the original strain, which isn’t around anymore. Makes no sense…
I meant read between the lines for your own well being and that of others to see the writing on the wall of what is going on here, not as a principle for the HN style guide.
>cites population wide adherence
That is just face-saving.
“Re-vaccination” is offered not required.
It has nothing to with previous widespread injections. That had if anything negative overall effect.
More people have died from the virus after the shots than before. The shots were supposed to stop contraction of the virus, let alone dying from it.
I know it’s sucks to think about, cognitive dissonance inducing even, especially if you were gung-ho on the injection bandwagon just a year ago, but let’s face facts.
The extent to which people seem to have given up independent thinking around this issue seems troubling.
Read between the lines because unfortunately it is highly unlikely to see politicians and public health authorities say this so bluntly when they were the ones just recently pushing these, on net deleterious shots. A sensitive issue and political minefield to say the least.
Why should people get the original shot if they haven’t already? It clearly doesn’t work, it clearly has potential for very negative side effects, and even if it did work it is designed for the original strain, which isn’t around anymore. Makes no sense…
I meant read between the lines for your own well being and that of others to see the writing on the wall of what is going on here, not as a principle for the HN style guide.
>cites population wide adherence
That is just face-saving.
“Re-vaccination” is offered not required. It has nothing to with previous widespread injections. That had if anything negative overall effect.
More people have died from the virus after the shots than before. The shots were supposed to stop contraction of the virus, let alone dying from it.
I know it’s sucks to think about, cognitive dissonance inducing even, especially if you were gung-ho on the injection bandwagon just a year ago, but let’s face facts.