Why don't the whitehat Governors just require any entity intending to force poison, show peer reviewed scientific studies to prove it's not a stupid idea? Then it's not just a argument over the lack of science. Who could continue to arrgue that its nor dangerous, without filling the most basic requirement of proving its not a lie? Think burden of proof. If i can sit here on the toilet and think of this, what are these governors doing? Playing the game, and not governing, thats what.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (4)
sorted by:
What will justify an acceptable peer review study? The governors will then need to get in to a discussion concerning peer reviews.
The problem comes down to dangerous or not, helpful or not anything going in to a person should be the individuals choice as should the consequences be theirs to carry. That is all the discussion needs to contain.
Of course it should be a choice, that's the discussion right? Of course it comes down to dangerous or not. If "peer reviewed" is defined in the requirement, then there wouldn't need to be a debate on acceptability. The requirement would bring into the light, the fact that there is no reason for it. It would both hinder the specific mandate, and redpill normies who think that the govt. has used science to deem the shots safe and effective.
So some could claim the FDA/CDC/NIH and the pharma companies reviews are peer reviewed. They are peers and review each other.
Ultimately the decision to undergo any medical procedure should not include a peer review or any review. An individual may want to study those reviews and they may not. Simply put it is not required not relevant to the idea of medical procedure decisions.