I am genuinely interested to understand how can a scientist claim that the new mRNA vaccine technology is 100% safe and doesn’t have any significant long term health effects?

There is a clear bias in the scientific community, pharmaceutical companies and public health authorities to push one simplistic narrative that the mRNA vaccine is safe and effective. Any dissenting opinion questioning the mRNA vaccine safety or efficacy is labeled idiot, conspiracy theorist and anti-vax.

This toxic scientific debate climate makes critical data gathering and research challenging. Most career driven scientists, medical doctors or researchers don’t want to go against the main narrative and lose their credentials and livelihood.

Questioning the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines represent a threat to the institutions mandating and advocating for that technology. A threat that might lead to vaccine hesitancy, lost in credibility, lost of financial revenue and legal liability.

There are few brave scientists with a good track records of scientific research, publications and citations. I can’t name them all, these are a few top ones that I followed their work on this topic:

There is a clear signal form various public heath safety reporting data bases and scientific research that show an increase risk of Myocarditis after the mRNA injections:

Myocarditis is one advert event among many that Pfizer own clinical trials has revealed even before vaccine mass deployment.

I can’t personally ignore or dismiss renown scientific researchers and medical doctors warnings regarding the vaccine safety and efficacy. I am not against vaccines in general, they truly save lives.

I am strongly against vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, especially since the vaccines were never tested or designed to stop the transmission.

I don’t want to live in a future dystopian technocracy were the state controls all aspects of my life, I am pro choice, liberty and informed consent.

I hope that everyone that took the mRNA shots are and will be alright.

@freemo Dr. Freemo if you reading up to this, I hope you consider the scientific research I shared here, and acknowledge the concerns that some people have regarding the mRNA vaccines.

🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱  
@ringo If i wasnt clear about my position, your an idiot if you still think the shot is dangerous at this point, though I would have agreed with ex...
Follow

@voidabyss @freemo
As you are pro consent, and so am I, yet we reach opposite conclusions on the basis of that this seems like an ideal place to QOTO.

and given that Vaccines for COVID have been measured to reduce transmission.
(and note yes the original testing to grant the emergency use authorization did not test for that, it is subsequent research on large cohorts over longer periods that measured the effect on transmission)

but moving onto consent, as you are ... pro consent,

how can you plausibly at all be against mandatory vaccination for workers in aged care homes? That for me makes no sense at all.
Where is the consent by the elderly to be exposed to the unvaccinated?

Without the vaccine mandate, patients in the homes are neither informed about nor consent to the increased level of risk that unvaccinated health care workers pose to them.

For the purpose of keeping it simple I only wish to know about why you want that (aged care home) uninformed consent to happen. What gives those health care workers the right to enforce lack of good medical practice and care on the patients of the old folks homes?

But for reference: TBMK: There are similar removal of actual choice and unilateral imposition of risk without consent in all the other places in my country where mandatory vaccination is required in order to be allowed to put other people at risk by the risky behaviors of the unvaccinated.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.