Vaccination after infection? Help me understand.

No, because Fauci is not just one single person striking out on his own. He is an expert who has spent his life in the public policy domain, and is compiling as much evidence as he can into whatever information he is trying to communicate. If his advice significantly deviated from all other experts, he wouldn't be so respected. Individuals who deviate wildly from consensus are only right in movies.

 

He hasn't worked in the field for 30 years and is now part of the DC cocktail circuit and a media whore. I know that many will ignore Nobel Prize winners in favor of flip flop Fauci.

 

Why exactly do you think a single nobel prize winner matters at all?

 

Well, nothing compared to a media whore. Right? BTW, a single Nobel Prize winner is not the only virologist that is sounding the alarm along with numerous papers.

 

Certainly not if he is just giving a random opinion of his own, and not basing it on anything. But, if that 'media whore' is simply communicating the consensus, then it's all the difference in the world.

 

The flip flopping media whore is communicating conflicting messages. Meanwhile eminent virologists, not just this one, and numerous papers are sounding an alarm but hey, as long as you have a media whore you don't need to listen to the actual science about the possible disastrous effects of a rushed to market novel treatment with no animal trials and where you are phase three of human clinical trials. Maybe you like being a guinea pig in an experiment but some of us are a little more sophisticated in decision making. For instance, at 68 I have a 98.5% survival rate from the virus. People 10 years younger have a 99.5% survival rate and below that a 99.97% survival rate. If I were in my 80's (about a 91% survival rate) I might chance taking the treatment as its possible downside would not show for a number years and who knows how many years I would have left in my 80s but the possible side effect could kill many more than the virus ever did.

The issue is informed consent. If you are not informed then you can never give informed consent. Nothing in this push for taking this treatment gives any information other than 'its safe'. Ask Eric Clapton about that. The government does not have a great history with these things. The drug companies will make billions and have no legal liability given by politicians and politicians will never have any legal liability.

 

So, there is always always someone who will say anything. But you know that. Imagine there is a youtube celebrity who worked in an auto shop. They also have a physics degree. They tell you that sugar has a very high energy density and so you should put it in your gas tank. Of course, it's true that sugar has high energy density, it's how animals run. Now, of course the overwhelming majority of auto experts will tell you not to do this. But, this guy aligns with your politics. I guess you just go with this guy?

 

Yes, I understand you have to resort to logical fallacies to defend Fauci and side with the drug companies over Nobel Prize winners and other eminent virologists.

 

Lol, are you asking me if I resort to the consensus of almost the entire community of doctors, epidemiologists, virologists, and scientists over one single guy who happens to have won a nobel?

 

Silly you. You think all eminent virologists and scientists are employed by drug companies pushing the treatment.

Of course I have provided testimony from eminent virologists while you repeat media and political talking points but hey, that's on you.

 

Lol, you have provided one. But hey, you want to murder innocent Americans, I guess that seems to be the primary objective of the American right these days. Death. Killing innocents. I suppose that is a good reason to support open borders, half of our people want to murder innocent Americans, much more than any jihadist. I guess technically it is jihad though isn't it?

 

That you wish to keep ignorant of the science is not my problem. That you dismiss Nobel Prize winners over a political media whore is not my problem. That you may be the actual supporter of murdering innocent Americans is not my problem. That you resort to absurd logical fallacies is not my problem. That is all on you.

 

lol, I dismiss ONE nobel prize winner (and the prize is completely meaningless by the way, in fact there is even a term 'nobel disease' for these kinds of people) But you know, keep murdering murderer.

 

You dismiss all science in favor of drug companies and a pollical media whore. Says much about you.

 

Lol, you just say that so you can be a murderer. But, I understand, you are a part of isis. You hate America and want to kill us. But, understand, you are a bad person just like the rest of your terrorist brethren.

 

LOL, thanks for proving my point. Your hysterical and irrational response is no reflection on me.

 

Oh really? Did I assault the capitol? Did I try to end the United States? Or did I just ignore the ONE person who thinks it was ok to murder 600,000 innocent Americans? Traitor?

 

Do we want to look at the ******* who were scared of a caravan until the nanosecond the election was over, then still tries to minimize a disease that killed 6000,000 Americans?

 

LOL, when losing an argument, move the goal posts.

 

6 million? Really? LOL Ignore the fact, appeal to emotion.

 

The goal posts of 600,000 dead Americans?

 

That never moved.

 

Yes, when losing the argument, appeal to emotion. You must be a liberal.

 

You couldn't argue how you are better than isis could you?

 

600,000 dead Americans is an appeal to emotion?????