I see it as a sign of health that people working with vaccines only use them when they are beneficial, and don’t use them when there are reasons not to.
I don’t know the reasons he has in this case. Would be interesting to know more.
I think I can understand your reasoning but I disagree with it.
A few years back, a vaccine was removed from our national vaccination plan. It was deemed as unnecessary, as the disease was considered erradicated. The decision was mostly political, with our National Healthcare Council keeping a very terse silence on the matter.
Precisely two years after the alteration, a sudden, unpredictable, with no known vector of origin, series of cases surged. Luckily, no child died, as the our NHS is robust enough to handle this kind of situation but there was a swift public backlash from the National Healthcare Council, on why the withdrawal of the vaccine had opened doors to a ressurgence of the disease. The vaccine was quickly reintroduced.
Smallpox was erradicated because of vaccination efforts. Many more could have been, if wasn’t for stupidity and religious fanaticis. Having an openly admitted vaccine denier take office is a sad joke, made at the expense of who knows how many lifes.
If you want to know more, go read the lawsuit he is associated with to remove FDA approval of the polo vaccine. Essentially, he believes fraudulent research that indicates that vaccines cause autism.
Then, before you take what he says at face value, go read a history of polio.
If you give the materials an honest read, you’ll find that polio is horrific, that the vaccine was one of the greatest medical achievements of the 20th century, and that the evidence indicating that the vaccine causes autism is all junk.
Ooooh no. No, fuck off. This disingenuous “just asking questions” shtick can fuck right off. This is about polio you fucking lunatic, get a fucking grip.
I see it as a sign of health that people working with vaccines only use them when they are beneficial, and don’t use them when there are reasons not to.
I don’t know the reasons he has in this case. Would be interesting to know more.
I think I can understand your reasoning but I disagree with it.
A few years back, a vaccine was removed from our national vaccination plan. It was deemed as unnecessary, as the disease was considered erradicated. The decision was mostly political, with our National Healthcare Council keeping a very terse silence on the matter.
Precisely two years after the alteration, a sudden, unpredictable, with no known vector of origin, series of cases surged. Luckily, no child died, as the our NHS is robust enough to handle this kind of situation but there was a swift public backlash from the National Healthcare Council, on why the withdrawal of the vaccine had opened doors to a ressurgence of the disease. The vaccine was quickly reintroduced.
Smallpox was erradicated because of vaccination efforts. Many more could have been, if wasn’t for stupidity and religious fanaticis. Having an openly admitted vaccine denier take office is a sad joke, made at the expense of who knows how many lifes.
If you want to know more, go read the lawsuit he is associated with to remove FDA approval of the polo vaccine. Essentially, he believes fraudulent research that indicates that vaccines cause autism.
Then, before you take what he says at face value, go read a history of polio.
If you give the materials an honest read, you’ll find that polio is horrific, that the vaccine was one of the greatest medical achievements of the 20th century, and that the evidence indicating that the vaccine causes autism is all junk.
Ooooh no. No, fuck off. This disingenuous “just asking questions” shtick can fuck right off. This is about polio you fucking lunatic, get a fucking grip.