It's not redundant enough if you are positing that not getting the vaccine negatively affects you or the people around you. Not taking the concoction doesn't hurt you. If you can quote the CDC saying this, that would be welcomed.
According to your medical agency of choice maybe.
People should do as they best believe that they can.
This is a canned response that blatantly ignores the content to which it was supposedly a response to.
Prescribing your choice of agency and medicine does not equal my advocacy for (potential) patient rights. They are free to follow their advice OR not. "The majority" = "The most represented by your media of choice".
Not only are you parroting the CDC and injecting your own personal beliefs in between statements (as facts no less), but you also omit relevant details when you want to emphasize the sales pitch (marketing).
Oh cool, a survey that supports what I want you to believe.
You are going to take a survey of 300 physicians and say it represents all physicians.
Whether or not a person should be able to make the decision themselves about getting vaccinated is an entirely different question from whether or not a person should get vaccinated. I am not arguing that a person should not be able to make that decision.
I haven't said anything about COVID-19 or the vaccines that isn't factually correct and supported by the CDC and every reputable medical group out there. With regard to you asking where the CDC says not getting the vaccine makes you more likely to contract COVID-19 and spread it to other people, here:
The American Medical Association is a professional medical group with 240,359 members as of 2016, making up a significant portion of the doctors in this country. They are a representative body of doctors in this country, and their purpose is medical and professional. The poll I cited is also representative of doctors in this country.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a right-wing political advocacy group, not a professional or medical association. They advocate for pseudoscientific political positions and pretend they're medical positions.
Examples include "HIV/AIDS denialism, the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, vaccine and autism connections, and homosexuality reducing life expectancy." The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has approximately 5,000 members, which is about 2% the number of American Medical Association members, and is selectively skewed towards a particular political ideology that works against medicine and scientific thinking. In other words, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is far from a representative body. It would be like conducting a poll on GBATemp asking if you play video games and using that as representative of the population in general. If you have to cite the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, you've already lost your argument.
https://www.news.com.au/world/coron...com.au&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=Social Bakers
Oh dear. Another death linked to the vaccine in Australia. So far the vaccine has killed more people this year than the "deadly" virus itself in Australia.
More people have not died from COVID-19 vaccines than from the disease itself.
910 people have died from COVID-19 in Australia, and I can't find more than one example of anyone potentially dying as the result of the vaccine. Your own link acknowledges that the benefits of the vaccines far outweigh the risks associated with the vaccines and the risks associated with COVID-19. It should also be noted that the the specific risks associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine have since been mitigated, and it is possible the woman's recent viral illness had a part to play in her death.
Worldwide, there have only been a handful of cases where someone has probably died as a direct result of a COVID-19 vaccine, and these specific risks (e.g. blood clots) have since been mitigated. However, over 4 million people have died worldwide from the COVID-19 disease itself. The science and the numbers are clear: If you can medically get vaccinated, you should get vaccinated.
Yeah, not like J&J knew about the asbestos in talc and warnings about it since the 1970s yet continued to market it until recently. Oh wait, they did? Sure, these corporations may have been involved with greedy, murderous cover-ups just a few short years ago, but by god, they're only interested in saving lives with untested experimental gene therapy now because science! Over 40 years for J&J's scandal to come to light and yet the long-term results of these injections are already presumed to be known and "relatively safe" even though it's not even looking very good for the short-term ones.
You're citing an example of a company refusing to listen to science, which does nothing to support an anti-vaxxer's decision to refuse to listen to science.
The COVID-19 vaccines are not "experimental gene therapy." The big two COVID-19 vaccines are mRNA vaccines. They do not make any alterations to one's DNA, and the vaccines is completely gone from one's body a few days/weeks after the last dose.
All of the evidence shows the vaccines are generally safe and effective, particularly when contrasted with the risks associated with COVID-19. The studies that demonstrate this were independent and double-blind. The pharmaceutical companies couldn't have affected the results of the studies even if they had wanted to. The same goes for the studies that showed a possible link between talc powder and ovarian cancer, which is why J&J lost the case.
But they DO show you that big pharma lies and they are not trustworthy. I'm still on the fence about you being a sarcastic troll or if you truly believe everything the lügenpresse throws your way.
Here's another example of your CDC lying:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
I also loved how the CDC lowered the Ct for PCR tests because they knew it was too high and inflated the numbers.
https://washingtonwatch.org/caught-...holds-to-virtually-eliminate-new-covid-cases/
Say, can you provide me with a SINGLE (and scientifically/medically verifiable) example of somebody not dropping dead from covid-1984 because they got the "vaccine"?
...... you know, the more I think about it the more I think you're a sarcastic troll because nobody in their right mind could look at how the CDC and Fauci the fraudster flip flop and not have a light go off in their head and start to question things.
Something else weird.... red states that dropped their mask mandates and opened back up saw falling/zero cases of new covid-1984 infections and when Fauci the fraudster was questioned about this, he couldn't explain the drop. (Note; red states have lower instances of people getting vaccinated.)
Any thoughts on the gain of function research around covid-1984 and who funded it?
What the CDC was involved with back in 1932 is irrelevant to the current conversation about COVID-19 vaccines.
Numerous studies and reports show that the vast majority of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (95-98%), and the vast majority of patients who die from COVID-19 (95-100%), are unvaccinated. These numbers are from the last couple of months.
Every study I'm aware of from before the vaccine showed that mask mandates and other COVID-19 mitigation policies were effective in dropping the infection rate. The apples-to-apples comparisons in Kansas were particularly irrefutable.
