>>14123130Anons are contesting this on the basis of this vaccine being different, but that's the wrong grounds. It doesn't matter whether the vaccine is "cleared" or whether it's likely to have side effects. It doesn't matter if the vaccine is inert.
The boundaries of evidence in testing new chemicals are actually quite small. It's not like having a clearly illuminated room. It's like being in a cave with a single lantern. You steadily walk and measure out the cave. Occasionally you find a wall, or a pit, and have to keep it organized in your own head.
Most importantly, you can't prejudge whether a chemical is going to be safe based on prior chemicals. You will ALWAYS be surprised. Just like you should not trust someone who says "I know this cave is safe, because I've seen caves like it before and they're also safe"
And when the studies are done poorly, it undermines the quality of the information available. And even legitimate information loses validity when it's not properly documented.
Just like if someone just hands you a map of the cave with no reason to trust them, you shouldn't assume it's valid. Are there photos or drawings you can use to audit the map as you move through the cave? Is the map complete? Is the map using standard cave-mapping procedures and symbols that you can reliably intuit as you move through?
What we have with the vaccine is:
>A different kind of cave that is being sold to us as a normal cave>A incomplete map>Photos that don't match up to locations in the cave when we try to explore it.>Unexpected pitfalls that weren't marked in the mapAnd in the face of this, those who really want to continue to explore the cave should be allowed to continue doing so, but those who decide "This cave is too dangerous for me, I have no clue what's ahead and I can't trust my map!" should be allowed to turn back.
