"If you were convinced the virus is a serious issue, wouldn't you encourage ppl to get jabbed? "
Assuming I have above-average intelligence, which is a given if I have an Md degree, how could I be convinced the virus is a serious issue, when the CDC itself says the survival rate - without meds - is 99.9%? When it says the risk to children is practically nonexistent?
And why would I encourage "ppl to get jabbed" when there is no evidence that the experimental gene therapy shot prevents one from getting the virus, or prevents one from transmitting the virus to others?
And why, before encouraging people to take rushed, incompletely tested, gene altering therapy, would I not first do some research on my own, especially since members of my profession (AmericanFrontlineDoctors, for instance) have loudly and visibly raised the possibility of alarming potential side effects. Some of them - such as death - being irreversible.
I think the more likely explanation is that these doctors are also sheep - medical sheep, but sheep nevertheless - afraid to question any authority, and disinclined to think for themselves, especially if that might negatively affect their bottom line.
Doctors, and there are many of them, who actually care about their patients' lives, are doing everything they can to discourage people from taking the shot.
"If you were convinced the virus is a serious issue, wouldn't you encourage ppl to get jabbed? "
Assuming I have above-average intelligence, which is a given if I have an Md degree, how could I be convinced the virus is a serious issue, when the CDC itself says the survival rate - without meds - is 99.9%? When it says the risk to children is practically nonexistent?
And why would I encourage "ppl to get jabbed" when there is no evidence that the experimental gene therapy shot prevents one from getting the virus, or prevents one from transmitting the virus to others?
And why, before encouraging people to take rushed, incompletely tested, gene altering therapy, would I not first do some research on my own, especially since members of my profession (AmericanFrontlineDoctors, for instance) have loudly and visibly raised the possibility of alarming potential side effects. Some of them, such as death, being irreversible.
I think the more likely explanation is that these doctors are also sheep - medical sheep, but sheep nevertheless - afraid to question any authority, and disinclined to think for themselves, especially if that might negatively affect their bottom line.
Doctors, and there are many of them, who actually care about their patients' lives, are doing everything they can to discourage people from taking the shot.
"If you were convinced the virus is a serious issue, wouldn't you encourage ppl to get jabbed? "
Assuming I have above-average intelligence, which is a given if I have an Md degree, how could I be convinced the virus is a serious issue, when the CDC itself says the survival rate - without meds - is 99.9%? When it says the risk to children is nonexistent?
And why would I encourage "ppl to get jabbed" when there is no evidence that the experimental gene therapy shot prevents one from getting the virus, or prevents one from transmitting the virus to others?
And why, before encouraging people to take rushed, incompletely tested, gene altering therapy, would I not first do some research on my own, especially since members of my profession (AmericanFrontlineDoctors) have loudly and visibly raised the possibility of alarming potential side effects. Some of them, such as death, being irreversible.
I think the more likely explanation is that these doctors are also sheep - medical sheep, but sheep nevertheless - afraid to question any authority, and disinclined to think for themselves, especially if that might negatively affect their bottom line.
Doctors, and there are many of them, who actually care about their patients' lives, are doing everything they can to discourage people from taking the shot.