comments under the article are really worth reading
It's too late now to untangle the ball of string. Who in the hell is going to believe the peddled narrative at this point with all the lying that's been going on?
A vaccine skeptic may brush off a proponent by saying, “It’s approved for emergency use only; it’s not FDA-approved. I don’t think we should require it.” The skeptic is beginning with a fact that’s easily established and shareable. But when pressed, they might reveal that their line of thinking is elsewhere: “There are no long-term studies, and I’m worried about possible long-term effects.” Because the two objections aren’t exactly logically connected, the proponent concludes it is irrationalism all the way down.
Read that again:
Because the two objections aren’t exactly logically connected
the FDA isn't perfect, and isn't always on our side, but I'm pretty sure that there is a correlation between the drawn-out FDA approval process and treatments with fewer long-term side effects.
Yeah but not exactly. They have to be exact because everything is exact.
(post is archived)