There are many many more of these sort of responses than we know about, and there are several reasons for that, but two seem to be primary.
1) Fear of retribution. I heard recently from a reliable source that many doctors who work at university research hospitals cannot say publicly what they really think of the current mRNA tech because they would never get another research grant.
2) As Dr James says in the interview linked below, for certain "cause of health" oriented medical professionals the risk benefit ratio is skewed negative for getting the vaccine.
These are intelligent, informed, and highly educated medical professionals. Threats of retribution against the exercise of informed opinion and personal body autonomy is a dangerous precedent.
Which is obvious, right?
For a balanced perspective we also must consider the influence a "medicine for profit" bias has on a narrative that is so intrinsically wrong that it has to be protected by censorship.
I was personally neutral on vaccines before this pandemic. I am cause of health oriented myself and felt I was strong enough to handle any negative impact the vaccine might have, and took the first jab. Unfortunately I had a severe reaction that lasted 6 weeks that has disabused me of that notion.
I am no longer neutral on vaccines as a result of my personal experience combined with the censorship of legitimate public debate among health scientists. Censorship is a type of lie. It reminds me of a sales pitch that is unguided by moral compass.
For profit medicine has a problem that needs to be fixed.
Very thoughtful discussion.
ReplyDelete