Re: [OT] Professor inflitrates pro-Palestinian encampment; union leader calls for consequences

On 5/12/2024 10:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1rtuq$37l07$1@dont-email.me>,
  moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 5/12/2024 7:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 12, 2024 at 3:54:42 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 5/12/2024 6:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

   In article <v1lpp9$1gnv5$1@dont-email.me>,
     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
  

   On 5/10/2024 1:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  

And now the Scarf Lady, Dr. Deborah Birx, says that thousands of
Americans could be injured from the mRNA Wuhan Flu shot and that
some groups should not have been forced to get the jab.
>
Weird how she wasn't saying that when Biden's decree was "take the
shot or you're fired" in the federal government. Back then, she
and your vaunted 'fact checkers' would only repeat the mantra that
it's 'safe and effective'.

>
You mean it *shouldn't* have been called safe and effective?...

   Ask the people who were injured from the jab whether they think the
government should have told them it was safe.

>
I'm asking what a responsible public health official ought to have said.

>
How about the truth?

>
The truth is that every medical procedure *including NO procedure*
carries some risk.

 And an ethical medical professional explains the type and extent of that
risk, as well as its frequency of occurrence in the population.
 They don't ignore the risk and just tell you "it's safe and effective".
(And don't forget the denigration and censorship of anyone who suggested
otherwise, who have yet again turned out to be right in the end.)

People who know there's always a small risk don't need to be told.  And people who *don't* know it will grossly overreact when they *are* told. So, the public at large heard "safe and effective", which, in context, the vaccine very much was.  Meanwhile, one needn't support censorship to strongly disapprove of sensationalist life-threatening disinformation.