> Unproven != disproven.
How many people have been convinced by the supposed effectiveness of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine that they then decided to not get vaccinated?
It's really not as simple as "unproven != disproven".
How many people have been convinced by the supposed effectiveness of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine that they then decided to not get vaccinated?
It's really not as simple as "unproven != disproven".
US Census collect data on reasons for vaccine hesitancy [1]. #1 and #3 are distrust - of vaccines and of government - which anecdotally matches my network. If that's the case, then we should expect that mischaracterizing treatments to promote vaccines [2] would not be very effective, and most Western countries now are leveling off fairly low in their vaccination rates [3]. But rather than more honesty, we're getting more mandates.
I think Dr. John's Cambell's position, of honest assessment, would have been better as the official position [4]. It's hard to imagine how trust could be regained now though without some sort of reckoning.
1. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/ho...
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gndsUjgPYo
What’s been fascinating about the data arising from Pfizer, moderne and astra Zeneca dosing intervals is that it seems quite likely that the spacing is quite to highly responsible for this rather than something inherent to the formulation which is adding to our body of evidence and understanding
And I'm not really a big follower of science. I just assumed it was like "the flu shot" which you need to get every year.