BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
None of this is reassuring. Do you really think it bolsters your argument that the only time the technology was used in humans was in those whose prognosis was "gonna die anyway so why not"?
"First time" is not "only time". We're all going to die anyway and I'm sure you didn't read the abstracts to see how long patients lived, what side effects were observed, etc., but if you want to know what the side effects of the vaccine technology are years down the road, you've now got a place to start and do your own research. There are multiple human trials.
Do you want to do some research and then form a belief based on available information or do you want to have a belief and just assume all data fits it/ignore anything that doesn't? I'm not an expert by any stretch, I surely don't understand the underlying chemistry and biology...but you don't have to be an expert to understand the statistical outcomes and understand the correlations between these human trials and how the technology was so readily adapted into huge human trials once large amounts of resources were funneled into the arena.
With that, I'll bow out. People who want to learn have a place to start and have a more informed opinion regardless of what they decide. People who won't do that basic research aren't going to be convinced by anything or anyone because they've already made up their mind and it's easier to just be confident in a belief then challenge it.