Sam:
"I reference a lot of academic studies. Most of the times I recall referencing the CDC it was because someone else misrepresented their data. Y'all are always happy to claim their authority until it turns out they didn't say what you thought they said."Actually, from where I sit you cherry-pick data to find what seems to fit your argument, or use to attack a valid point someone made.
The funny thing is that there is a lot of room for factual agreement while differing on policy. It's clear that the COVID 'vaccines' are not even remotely comparable to standard vaccinations for diseases like Rubella or Chicken Pox, but that in itself is not surprising. The work on COVID 'vaccines' was rushed to get something available as soon as possible, and so a process which nominally takes 4 or 5 years was compacted into less than one year - certain adverse consequences were therefore inevitable and part of the trade-off in getting something available as soon as possible.
The lockdowns and employment penalties, now that is something very different. We know they did not work, if only by the way prominent lockdown advocates have back-pedaled what they said in 2021 versus now. But even there I expect most people would be reasonable and accept an apology because those people made honest errors in deciding a policy. The problem is that those people - instead - have pretended they did nothing wrong, ignored the harm done by their policies and somehow imagine they still have credibility.
I suspect a great many people have low or no confidence in the vaccine updates, precisely because the people demanding we take them have been heavy-handed and unaccountable. If someone dies because they do not get vaccinated against COVID, the blame belongs to a large degree on the piss-poor way the CDC and other government agencies protected the public trust.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier