-

-

Thank you, I really appreciate that. I hope so, too.

What grade is he in? Only child? it’s tough. I’d have made different choices, too.

I’m sorry your one year homeschool experiment didn’t work out. 😞

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Interesting. I absolutely can. I absolutely can believe that a vaccine is a fantastic idea for an overweight and unhealthy 75 year old and I can also believe that a 25 year old healthy person can look at the risk/reward ratio and come to a totally different decision. I believe that a devout Christian who is adamantly against abortion in all forms can look at how the vaccines were developed and come to a different decision than someone who is fully in favor of “the greater good” argument and that socially we are all obligated to get the vaccine. I believe that someone who has been burned by big pharma in the past (maybe taken a drug that harmed them, maybe harmed by another vaccine in the past and then realized the drug companies weren’t liable for the damages) can look at the drug company’s history and what they stand to gain with this Covid vaccine, as well as other ties to industry Fauci, WHO, etc., have and decide “not for me!”, whereas someone else can come to an opposite conclusion. I believe that two people can sit down with the science on both sides and read through it carefully and give it a lot of thought, yet come to different opinions. I made the choice I made based on the evidence out there, but that doesn’t mean that I’m right. I don’t think we KNOW yet who’s right. If, in ten years, we can evaluate all the data and say, “the widespread implementation of the vaccine is what led to the end of the pandemic, and it has not shown to have serious or lasting side effects in 99.7% of people who took it, and it provided 95% effectiveness against both transmission and virulence,” then yeah, it was right. If in ten years, we say, “wow, it really didn’t stop transmission the way we thought, and we now think it is linked to y and z health issues, and now we all need to get boosters 3x a year forever,” then, no, I’m not going to say I was right. Back decades and decades ago, it was discovered that smallpox vaccine could lead to post vaccinal encephalitis YEARS after the vaccine, and it had a terrible survival rate. Yes, we expect most reactions to show up shortly after, but that doesn’t mean they can’t later down the road. I actually think it’s pretty cool that there can be such nuanced opinions, with so many factors coming into play.

I’m saying that people who look at both sides and decide NOT to get the vaccine are overwhelmingly seen as “wrong.” what I think should be happening is that we should respect other people’s decisions and not assume that they are stupid, misinformed, and wrong if they choose to believe a different “side” than us.

Right, so why can’t people be doing that? Looking at the evidence on both sides, and figuring out what you believe, even if it is the dissenting view? That’s exactly what I’m saying—people can be looking at research from the other side to make their opinion.

But what I’m saying is that there IS evidence on the other side of the argument. Yet somehow that research and those researchers are seen as definitely in the wrong, simply because it’s a dissenting view. I don’t think that’s okay. I mean, there are scientists who believe in creationism. It doesn’t mean that they’re right, but do they have their reasons and their evidence? Yes. Could I be wrong? Yes. The study of immunity is really in its infancy. I am old enough to remember when we really had no knowledge of the role the gut plays in our immunity, and when “leaky gut” was a phrase that loony people used. Look how much we’ve learned in the last 10-15 years. I can’t imagine how much we still have to learn about how our immune system really works. I just feel like I have studied enough of history and science to realize that many mistakes were made, what was popular thought of the day turned out to be wrong, and that often the best intentions came with terrible consequences. and then the other thing I’m saying is that some reasons and positions don’t really need evidence. If someone doesn’t want it, they don’t want it. I know people not getting it for religious reasons, such as that they feel “convicted” not to get it, or because they put their faith in their god given immune system. (These people tend not to get any vaccines at all). I mean...okay. How can you argue with that? It’s their belief and their truth. To each their own.

-

-

Well yes, absolutely. There are TONS of things that we thought were safe for years and years and ended up not being. It doesn’t seem like a huge stretch to believe this could also be one of those things. In fact, Johnson and Johnson has multiple other products on that list of “things we thought were safe but actually can kill you.” 😝

-

-

Even within science.😬 I’ve heard scientists lament the death of the scientific method...that now they are basically supposed to prove their theory (often at the cost of shoddy science), rather than disprove it.

-