>YouTube is banning anti-forced Sars COVID2 mRNA drug activists and blocking all anti-forced Sars COVID2 mRNA drug content
FTFWaPo
I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm happy to have my measles, mumps, rubella, and other vaccines. I'm looking forward to getting the new HPV vaccine (gardasil) now that they've started recommending it for adults and you can actually get your doctor to give it to you (a couple years ago they would refuse if you asked and said you'd pay for 100% of it).
Resisting this latest moneygrab by big pharma and power grab by authoritarians is not "anti-vaccine".
That's incredibly disingenuous. Because this drug is fundamentally different from what a vaccine is.
If the authoritarians and their followers pushing this can't even admit that it so radically different from a vaccine as to be outright lying to call it one, how can we even talk about it?
>a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease
> A diesel powered train is still a train, even if the original trains were steam powered.
The new vaccine does the same job as the previous ones.
Your argument is something like:
"We were using a crude method to teach the immune system. We found a better, more precise method. This new method is new therefore it must be bad."
Using another analogy, it's like complaining that CDs are bad and that they're not actually disks, because you know, the original disks were using a mechanical principle to work while CDs use optical principles.
Definitions change, technology changes.
And "Big pharma" is the one also making the aspirin you most likely trust. Aspirin, paracetamol, heart drugs, etc.
False analogy. They made a drug and are calling it a vaccine. That the ministry of truth changed what their definition of 'vaccine' is at the same time changes nothing about reality.
>Ok, so why does it matter if it's a "drug" and not a "vaccine"?
Because they keep calling people who want to take the drug "anti-vaxxers" lumping them in with people who are against vaccines.
I'm not anti-vaxxer, so it's a lie to call me one. I also am not interested in taking the anti-COVID drug.
Not wanting to take the new, barely tested, anti-COVID drug does not make me an anti-vaxxer even if you change the definition of vaccine to include the anti-COVID drug.
>You're just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. As they say, don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.
No, I am not. People have died, and had their health permanently degraded from this anti-COVID drug. I'm weighing the risks of that against COVID. I'm at very low risk of serious illness from COVID, and unknown risk from the anti-COVID drug. So I'm not taking the drug.
It's not "contrarian" and it's not "making a mountain out of a molehill" it's my body, my choice.
I thing vaccines are amazing and I look forward to new ones. The anti-covid drug isn't one. It's that simple.
The fundamentals are the same. It's something with the relevant spike protein that your immune system can identify, but without actually being the virus that causes the disease
FTFWaPo
I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm happy to have my measles, mumps, rubella, and other vaccines. I'm looking forward to getting the new HPV vaccine (gardasil) now that they've started recommending it for adults and you can actually get your doctor to give it to you (a couple years ago they would refuse if you asked and said you'd pay for 100% of it).
Resisting this latest moneygrab by big pharma and power grab by authoritarians is not "anti-vaccine".
That's incredibly disingenuous. Because this drug is fundamentally different from what a vaccine is.
If the authoritarians and their followers pushing this can't even admit that it so radically different from a vaccine as to be outright lying to call it one, how can we even talk about it?