The same people who refuse the vaccine take unknown substances in 'supplements' which have no regulation at all. It makes no sense. Explain it.
Maybe these "same people" that you're describing exist, but they definitely aren't everyone in the set of people who refused the vaccine. They might just be the loud people.
The parent comment said 'it's not needles, don't insult me! it is because this specific vaccine is [same argument against other things which aren't outrage fodder and not addressing any of the other established vaccines which are subject to outrage]. '
It did nothing to explain away the needle aspect except 'needle phobia is uncommon', which explains nothing since a phobia is DSM classified as a 'disorder' and an 'aversion to needles' wouldn't count.
Thanks for telling me about yourself, though. It was interesting.
Not everyone who refuses the vaccine takes supplements. Your comparison is like saying "why don't you take this research chemical ('molly'), you smoke cannabis already".
I didn't ask why specifically about tylenol and supplements, I said explain why the outrage over vaccines and not other things.
The "outrage over vaccines and not other things" is in part because the mrna vaccines are new technology. People are hesitant to try something totally new on themselves.
>> The "outrage over vaccines and not other things" is in part because the mrna vaccines are new technology. People are hesitant to try something totally new on themselves.
> The MMR vaccines are not mRNA. You are completely missing the point.
Ironic, as you now choose to ignore the explanation.
If you failed to explain an implicit assumption, that's ok, as it's hard to communicate over forums. Introducing MMR (there is no reference to this in "another post") as if there was a misunderstanding on the poster's part is a non-sequitor at best and dishonest at worst.
I didn't 'introduce' anything. The grandparent post is about 'vaccines' in general. the mRNA vaccine is one of them.
The entire comment section of this article can be perused in a few minutes. Cntrl-f and I find all your comments. At this moment there are 5 (4 of which are this thread). There hasn't been some elaborate discussion that's hard to follow.
> replying to a specific part of my response to another person is not a miscommunication,
Plainly dishonest. Got it.
Let's break this down with an example:
P1: What don't you like about milks?
P2: I don't like cows.
P1: Goats are not cows.
Is P1 dishonest? If you say yes, I would disagree with you and say that you are attributing to dishonesty what is for you reading comprehension problem. If you say no then I say you are grasping at straws in order to find flaws in my argument because you cannot find a real one.