“Doctor, since long-term studies of a drug are usually the number one factor in determining if a doctor is going to prescribe it to their patients, how do you justify prescribing an experimental treatment that has: zero long term studies, a growing list of deaths, side-effects and adverse events, and the fact that it isn’t even a vaccine, but rather a gene therapy, for something that has a 99% survival rate if contracted?”
GREAT question here.
A retired physician friend of mine asked me yesterday if I had taken the vaxx(s) after he said he’s taken both.
As this friend is very outspoken, I thought it was going to be the last convo we were going to have/I anticipated a fight.
I (gently) replied with just the first part, “Aren’t long term studies supposed to be the number one criteria for determining if you’re going to write a drug?”
He seemed a little surprised at the question and (to his credit) sheepishly said yes.
For me it just proves that if you don’t actively follow your head, your emotions can destroy you.
(post is archived)