So... in a nutshell, a highly paid grifter off the American taxpayer and a butch "doctor" want medical providers to gauge patients' vaccine status, and if he/she has been jabbed, OK, but if they haven't, then they get "the 'misinformation' conversation" to bully them into taking it. Is that about the sum of it?
Yes that’s correct. The funny part is this surprising admission:
Dr. Buttenheim pinpointed two key challenges: providers’ lack of confidence in vaccine counseling and the absence of evidence-based tools to counter misinformation during short clinical visits.”
They never had pro-vaxx evidence. The animal trials failed, the human trials failed, and they never had anything to substantiate their claims of efficacy, which is why fauci continually had to downgrade the claim from 90-some% to 0%. They had to admit that the vaxx doesn’t prevent infection or transmission at all. All they were left with was claiming that the vaxx might reduce symptoms, but since you can’t have two versions of the same person, one vaxxed and one unvaxxed, then you can’t have a controlled study, and therefore the claim is evidence-free speculation.
If Chelsea and Butterheim were smarter or less wicked, they would take the lack of evidence as a sign that they are on the wrong side of the debate, instead of complaining that doctors don’t have faith in getting results from evidence-free bullying sessions.
So... in a nutshell, a highly paid grifter off the American taxpayer and a butch "doctor" want medical providers to gauge patients' vaccine status, and if he/she has been jabbed, OK, but if they haven't, then they get "the 'misinformation' conversation" to bully them into taking it. Is that about the sum of it?
Yes that’s correct. The funny part is this surprising admission:
They never had pro-vaxx evidence. The animal trials failed, the human trials failed, and they never had anything to substantiate their claims of efficacy, which is why fauci continually had to downgrade the claim from 90-some% to 0%. They had to admit that the vaxx doesn’t prevent infection or transmission at all. All they were left with was claiming that the vaxx might reduce symptoms, but since you can’t have two versions of the same person, one vaxxed and one unvaxxed, then you can’t have a controlled study, and therefore the claim is evidence-free speculation.
If Chelsea and Butterheim were smarter or less wicked, they would take the lack of evidence as a sign that they are on the wrong side of the debate, instead of complaining that doctors don’t have faith in getting results from evidence-free bullying sessions.