The facebook posts typically reference one of several organised groups of hundreds of working doctors, some of whom claim to have directly observed high levels of concerningly-serious adverse reaction, even among small sample groups (eg, small town doctors who vaccinated many in the town).

If a doctor is recommending you don't take it based on their experience and expertise, it carries a bit more weight than "something you read on facebook". And if you can't trust doctors now, who may even be your own doctor, why would you trust anyone else, or "some other doctor"?

This is not something that can be resolved by bullying or mandates. It can only be resolved by open dialogue and debate between the two sides, which thus far, has been prevented.

Censorship and stifling of debate only hardens the opinions of either side.

It also makes no sense - many areas have massive resistance, no matter what has been thrown at them - proving the fear of "if we let them talk freely they'll influence others and go off and do whatever they want!" isn't founded. Basic human psychology, along with experience, shows the reverse has proven true.

If you stop people who are suspicious of something from being able to talk about what they're suspicious of, they get even more suspicious of it.

Certainly, there is no other time in history widespread censorship has resulted in anything other than widespread division, suspicion and ultimately, violence.

If employers mandate based on this approval, it will likely just result in mass walk-outs.

Minds are not won by force.