Alright you don't have to "scan every word" but at least read a little bit about the guy
https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-sho...
https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-sho...
To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the public research.
None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research". As someone who largely agrees with all of those points, if you came to me tomorrow and said "here's a promising new application for mRNA technology that industry won't support", then I'd consider funding it.
I'm so sick of people treating nuanced arguments like bingo cards.
> None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research".
If I said "paying our mortgage is a dead-end, someone else can fund it, there are good alternatives to paying it, and therefore I'm de-prioritizing paying it"…
Would "I'm defunding our mortgage" be a substantially accurate summary of my position? (Yes.)
Deprioritizing == "giving priority to something else".
It isn't hard to be nuanced. Particularly in this case, when you realize that the manufacturers of the mRNA Covid vaccines have made literally billions of dollars with which to do research.
It takes a lot of effort to find that much nuance.
The nuanced description for your position is "a pretty huge stretch".
Deprioritizing something enough becomes defunding pretty fast.
Like that five year old JIRA ticket that no one bothers with.
And right there, you acknowledge the difference. Have a nice day.
"I'm not murdering you, I'm just doing a very, very large blood draw!"
Do you find people fall for this often?
But I’m not a fascist trying to justify the total destruction of the CDC anti-vaxxer dipshits.