I addressed the freedom question in the post above.
The vaccination itself in my view is a distinct issue from forcing vaccinations which I find to be absolutely repugnant and immoral.
The argument by the way that justifies forcing injections into citizens that don't want them because it affects other people could be extended to practically any individual freedom or right people have. Most choices you make in your life can be shown to affect other people in your community or society directly or indirectly.
If you choose to have a child you affect the society around you so lets let people who run the government decide if you should have a child, and maybe they'd like to get rid of some of the children you have already which aren't working so well for greater good as they see it.
It is a specious argument to force injections on other people because of your own fears.
On the vaccination itself again, I am not anti-vaccination which is in my view a word used just to dumb down any public debate. The issue I have is the deliberate suppression of any findings or data from Medical Scientists and Medical Doctors that do not conform to a pre determined agenda.
For example there are many doctors, some of who are by every measure EXPERTS that do not agree with the predominant views on the effectiveness of the vaccine. Some call its real safety into question as well.
Is it acceptable to literally attack and blackball those doctors for simply presenting their own findings and views on the topic?
Even data itself from studies that don't conform to the government view are being attacked and suppressed.
For example:
--------
Vaccinated People 3-times More Likely To Die From Delta Variant Than Unvaccinated
--------
I'm not saying that the data there is correct nor am I saying how it should be correctly interpreted.
That is a debate for Medical Doctors and Scientists of that field. I have read views interpreting that study already in different ways.
My point is let's not pretend that Medical Science is saying one thing and so called "Anti-vaxxers" or religious zealots are the only people saying anything else. The vaccination itself should not be a topic that cannot be debated in terms of efficacy or even safety.
One final point on the topic. I notice one thing is curiously absent from all the discussion about the importance of the vaccination in reducing the spread of the virus which I presume is the strongest rational push for the vaccinations. Of course there is debate as to whether it even reduces he spread since vaccinated people can still spread the virus to others, but why is there almost no discussion about potential adverse effects of the vaccination?
Even the Center for Disease Control's own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System gets attacked CDC's own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting site
This government site itself gets attacked just for making the data available (and they actually make it pretty hard for the average person to even access and analyze). The government crushes dissent and debate in its own ranks.
How can we or any individual for example weigh any potential risks of adverse events versus the benefits of reduced COVID impact if their is political pressure to suppress data or discussion on adverse events?
The vaccination itself in my view is a distinct issue from forcing vaccinations which I find to be absolutely repugnant and immoral.
The argument by the way that justifies forcing injections into citizens that don't want them because it affects other people could be extended to practically any individual freedom or right people have. Most choices you make in your life can be shown to affect other people in your community or society directly or indirectly.
If you choose to have a child you affect the society around you so lets let people who run the government decide if you should have a child, and maybe they'd like to get rid of some of the children you have already which aren't working so well for greater good as they see it.
It is a specious argument to force injections on other people because of your own fears.
On the vaccination itself again, I am not anti-vaccination which is in my view a word used just to dumb down any public debate. The issue I have is the deliberate suppression of any findings or data from Medical Scientists and Medical Doctors that do not conform to a pre determined agenda.
For example there are many doctors, some of who are by every measure EXPERTS that do not agree with the predominant views on the effectiveness of the vaccine. Some call its real safety into question as well.
Is it acceptable to literally attack and blackball those doctors for simply presenting their own findings and views on the topic?
Even data itself from studies that don't conform to the government view are being attacked and suppressed.
For example:
--------
Vaccinated People 3-times More Likely To Die From Delta Variant Than Unvaccinated
--------
I'm not saying that the data there is correct nor am I saying how it should be correctly interpreted.
That is a debate for Medical Doctors and Scientists of that field. I have read views interpreting that study already in different ways.
My point is let's not pretend that Medical Science is saying one thing and so called "Anti-vaxxers" or religious zealots are the only people saying anything else. The vaccination itself should not be a topic that cannot be debated in terms of efficacy or even safety.
One final point on the topic. I notice one thing is curiously absent from all the discussion about the importance of the vaccination in reducing the spread of the virus which I presume is the strongest rational push for the vaccinations. Of course there is debate as to whether it even reduces he spread since vaccinated people can still spread the virus to others, but why is there almost no discussion about potential adverse effects of the vaccination?
Even the Center for Disease Control's own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System gets attacked CDC's own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting site
This government site itself gets attacked just for making the data available (and they actually make it pretty hard for the average person to even access and analyze). The government crushes dissent and debate in its own ranks.
How can we or any individual for example weigh any potential risks of adverse events versus the benefits of reduced COVID impact if their is political pressure to suppress data or discussion on adverse events?
![[-]](https://www.mavsboard.com/images/collapse.png)