You rely on "science" you say... how can you be so sure that the people that telling you "this is the science" tells you the whole truth?
You know the big pharma "science" says that pills is very good for you! The more pills you eat the better your life will get. lol great science huh?
You know food "science" tells you that aspartame isnt dangerous.
The medical science says that natural remedys is a hoax, but they use all kinds of plants and natural stuff and make a chemical replica of it and now says its very good and patents it so they can make cash of it.
Science used to say SMOKING ISNT DANGEROUS, in fact its good for you! Another great example of science...
Science also says there is no dangerous radiation from mobile phones, LOL.
GREAT "SCIENCE" YOU GOT THERE!
SCIENCE is a way of control, its have become the new BIBLE FOR PEOPLE,
if science says something then it have to be so right. Cause science cant lie to me, its impossible, all scientist speaks the truth. The ones who control the science and funds it with money would never make them lie to us. NO thats impossible! HAIL SIENCE! THE ONLY TRUTH!
I have read through your posts to see if you are qualified to have this conversation with and frankly I don't think you are. Science didn't say smoking didn't cause cancer, science proved it did cause some cancers, TOBACCO scientists stated it didn't cause cancer and until you can prove it does, then as an actual scientist you're handcuffed.
I see you didn't take me up on my offer, a smart kid like you with all the answers shouldn't have an issue putting up his money if he thinks he knows what he is talking about. I mean I don't understand the world, yet I can put up a 100k right this moment to prove you wrong, and a genius like yourself who KNOWS THE TRUTH doesn't have the jack, or doesn't believe his own BS, which is it ? I came back here as I said I would to see if you accept, shocker, you spout off more and don't back it up.
We are at a point where most science is corporate or (political) science or litagation science. Studies done to protect companies, studies done to back a lawsuit, studies done to further a political/religious mindset.
This type of science leaves you asking, what have we proven ? Take squalene for instance, Tulane did a very convincing study on the effects of squalene and Gulf War Syndrome. On it's surface it was almost unshakable until you understand that they were linked to Gulf War Syndrome attorneys looking to win a big lawsuit. They had an incentive to find a certain result.
So the DOD comes and does another study that squalene isn't linked to GWS. Their incentive is obvious, they don't want to pay out claims.
So at this point you're left with 2 flawed studies and have to weed through the BS. You start with common sense. This is where critical thinking takes place.
I don't Hail Science as you so dramatically stated, I hail thinking critically.
Does GWS even exist ? That in itself isn't an easy answer. They suffer anxiety and depression and fibromyalgia at a higher rate than the populace given comparative age. That's a +1 for it existing, but then you add the fact that most members of the military are less educated when returning from service, arrived back from the Persian Gulf war in worse financial shape than their friends who went to college. They are usually taking a pay cut when they leave the service and enter the workforce or go to school.
Compared to rates of those diseases by socio-economic class, they have no higher incidence. You all have friends that are depressed, have anxiety, have many issues that never served a day.
I wouldn't make a blanket statement either way, as I've actually had a serious illness and I certainly wouldn't tell a vet he isn't sick, I'd try to find out why.
Add in all those diagnoses were made by doctors, which we now can't trust according to many here, and what do you have ? Doctors who tell you what you want to hear are good, ones that don't are government lackeys ?
When the FDA takes forever to approve a drug we think is good they are morons. When they rush something because the situation dictates a fast reaction we bitch about the gov't trying to take over, or trying to kill us, trying to give us diseases.
As I stated, I agree that Tom should have the choice to not take the vaccine. Someone here stated they'd rather take the risk of being 1 of the 50,000 dead, than 1 of the 10,000 with side effects. Once again, I agree that should be a choice, but to get the union involved, the ACLU, and other organizations I don't understand. The gov't isn't forcing you to take vaccine, your employer is.
Principled stands cost something, in his case he should take a leave, quit, etc., rather than risk the lives of those he cares for. Why does he get to make the decision for a captive audience of patients who don't share his ideas on vaccines and there dangers ? Maybe they'd prefer to have their HC workers not give them a potentially serious ailment. If he would win, that means his decision outweighs what a panel of educated doctors consider the greater good. If he has proof, lay it on the table, it better be better sourced than his last laundry list of mental patients, semi-quacks, and people whose statements were taken out of context.
Most would take a .002% chance of having a future issue over a .005% chance of dying. Neither is likely enough to lose any sleep over, but if he doesn't want to take it, leave the profession as it has always been an understood risk that you may be forced to protect the patients in your charge over your own health. That's why we respect our health care workers. They risk their own safety to help us regain ours.
It's a selfish move to try and stay employed and not take it, not a pricipled one. Better educated doctors than him will have signed off on it as being a net benefit if it's administered. Foolproof, nothing is, but better than the alternative.