I intended to wait on this post until I was further along in the "Reasoning" posts, as it would have been a useful example later. It would probably have been less ranty, had I waited as wll, but, like the mathematician in the joke I shared a few posts ago, I seem to have hit my threshold.
"The Science" does NOT say a vaccine is safe and effective!
Politics says this!
Science does NOT declare a pharmaceutical "safe".
Science says: (Note, this is a made-up example. A real one would be considerably longer)
"Out of 1000 people who took this drug in a laboratory-controlled trial-
- 1 person died
- 5 people experience severe hair loss
- 20 people experienced temporary loss of bladder control
- an additional 10 people experienced permanent loss of bladder control
- 150 people experienced migraines which lasted up to 4 weeks after taking the medication.
Science does NOT declare a pharmaceutical effective.
Science says: (also, a made-up example)
"Out of 100 people in a double-blind, laboratory-controlled study, 58 experienced a reduction in symptoms, as opposed to only 48 in a similar study using a placebo."
(Note, if you consider that carefully, that means the above medication actually works for 10 out of every 100 people - 48 of them would have gotten better using anything which they naively believed would make them better. I have seen medications with even lower efficacy rates which are considered "effective")
You are NOT following the science when you arbitrarily force an entire population to take a medication.
You are NOT following the science by spending millions of dollars trying to coerce people into accepting your stance
Spending that money to research what types of people are likely to experience the various side-effects, now THAT would be following the science. Then you would be able to have the medication safely and voluntarily utilized by a higher population, with fewer instances of fatalities or life changing injuries. You might not even have to create a special court in an attempt to protect pharmaceutical companies and manipulate public opinion.
You ARE following the science when you ensure the entire population has adequate access to accurate information regarding the efficacy and risks, so that they can individually make an informed decision based on their personal history.
(But of course, to do that, the population- or at least the majority- would have to trust you, which would require that you behave in a trustworthy way...).
*End of rant.
Disclosure: I am emotionally invested in this subject- not just because I am a proponent of individual choice and accountability, but because I appear to be a recent victim of such policy. I had covid and have historically had a proclivity to side effects from medication, therefore I was disinclined to be vaccinated, based on my risk vs. benefit analysis. My employer opted to move quickly in support of the Biden mandate, and I was therefore compelled to be vaccinated. Shortly after taking the vaccine, a number of symptoms have manifest, including Tinnitus (A constant, maddening, high-pitched shriek in my ears), random joint and muscle pain, and potentially a return of chronic fatigue and reduced immune function (a bit early to tell on those, I really hope I am wrong.)
Certainly, it is fair to say I can't prove the vaccine was the cause. It COULD be absurdly coincidental timing. "I can't say for sure the gunshot caused the bleeding, but I wasn't bleeding until after I got shot".
