Yeah, that’s what happens when speaking out against the experimental injections gets you canceled. Might as well point to Kim’s approval rating in NK, too.
So just to be clear, you actually think that in the absence of 'cancellation', most people would say that it's a bad thing that the vaccines were developed at all?
Pointing out that the experimental injections were not properly tested, and that big pharma is undeniably dishonest and evil, does not equal “denying people their right to choose”.
But that was not the argument though. The argument was a blanket condemnation of the vaccine, which without a shred of doubt help some people. Now supposing that they are not 'properly' tested, whatever definition of properly you decide to adopt. Since vaccines, like all medicine, are about cost and benefit, that in no way precludes them being a very good thing for people who are at very high risk of COVID, like 80+ people - as even with all the uncertainty, they'd still do vastly more good than even potential harm.
To claim otherwise is to be fanatical.
Outlawing prescription of a completely safe and effective treatment - ivermectin - was a denial of choice.
And did you see me supporting that? I also take issue with your claim that ivermectin is 'effective'. It's certainly not demonstrated to be. But you may as well take it, since it does no harm anyway. See? Benefit vs. harm. Here's a potential benefit vs. basically zero harm. So take it!
Firing people who didn’t want the experimental injections was a denial of choice.
Yes, and so is "people who actually want the vaccine shouldn't be able to get them".
What's a vaxtard?
So just to be clear, you actually think that in the absence of 'cancellation', most people would say that it's a bad thing that the vaccines were developed at all?
But that was not the argument though. The argument was a blanket condemnation of the vaccine, which without a shred of doubt help some people. Now supposing that they are not 'properly' tested, whatever definition of properly you decide to adopt. Since vaccines, like all medicine, are about cost and benefit, that in no way precludes them being a very good thing for people who are at very high risk of COVID, like 80+ people - as even with all the uncertainty, they'd still do vastly more good than even potential harm.
To claim otherwise is to be fanatical.
And did you see me supporting that? I also take issue with your claim that ivermectin is 'effective'. It's certainly not demonstrated to be. But you may as well take it, since it does no harm anyway. See? Benefit vs. harm. Here's a potential benefit vs. basically zero harm. So take it!
Yes, and so is "people who actually want the vaccine shouldn't be able to get them".