Originally Posted by
BoomBoom
Harmful relative to what? What if not vaccinating carries a 1% risk, but vaccinating carries a 0.001% risk? It would entirely be in keeping with past practice for docs to ignore the latter. And like I said in other posts, there's likely a high degree of correlation between those harmed by/concurrent with the vaccine and those that would have been harmed worse by covid without the vaccine.
It's not like vaccine complications are new. There's a whole govt agency set up to compensate those affected by it.
I mean, we see how these deniers are. You don't think docs want to avoid feeding their idiocy?
But no, there's no way a million docs are in on some grand secret. But that's not the same as just ignoring an argument over whether the vaccine completely eliminates your risk (no complications) or just vastly reduces it (some complications, but orders of magnitude less risk than the full blown disease), especially when we don't really have the data to know which it is. It's entirely expected that docs would just bow out of that discussion, they do it in dozens maybe hundreds of other ways.
I mean, we are talking about the same profession that said germs weren't real until all the old docs died and were replaced by young docs that accepted the evidence. Among other examples, like covid being airborne. Group think is strong among doctors.