| > It only works when the vaccine has no side effects long or short term. ... Now, we can name the drug. Let's call it Thalidomide. Is it worth causing, for example, horrendous birth defects to preserve herd immunity? Which is why I specified side-effects which are similar to the COVID vaccine. > What happens if the pharma companies make exactly one mistake? ... Let's call it Thalidomide. Do you think existing modern medical regulations would permit such an incident? Can you name a more modern example? > We skip all the normal trials (through cutting them short, whatever) and begin issuing it. Suppose we impose the same requirements as vaccines on the past. I.e. trials go through normally. > I think it's naive to think that there won't be any effect. Can you name examples in which side effects were demonstrated in vaccines up to past a year? Vaccines are metabolized, the effects are only apparent as long as the vaccines contents are within the body. > Such as, barring from PRIVATE non-tax-funded establishments. But bodily autonomy should go unquestioned. No matter which way you cut it vaccine mandates are a strike against civil rights. Do you agree that bodily autonomy only extends up to the point at which harm could befall another individual? To further examine your beliefs, suppose we create a simulation which can perfectly replicate the effects of a drug or vaccine on the human body. We can prove demonstratively that a drug will have no negative side-effects and that it will stop virus X. Are you still against vaccine mandates in this case? |
Hmm what would be the consequences of accepting that principle?