I had seen attempts to engage with these arguments in good faith. It was wasted effort.
in your fish analogy, you eat mecury directly, but wont eat fish that might have mercury.
the communicable disease is itself quite dangerous
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048286
The docket shows us that pharmaceutical companies are serial felons who have paid some of the largest fines in history for lying about their products. It is prudent to be skeptical until proven otherwise.
Edit: To all the pro-Pfizer downvoters, feel free to take some Zantac. You have learned nothing.
> “anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss [dissent]
No, it’s a term used to dismiss people who keep bringing up the same arguments that have been refuted over and over.
I don't have any issue with what you're describing. The J&J COVID vaccine would be an example of caution being advisable, since you never know what unusual interactions (e.g. with blood clotting) might occur in a larger population than the safety studies looked at.
But that's not the usual definition of an anti-vaxxer.
Anti-vaxxers carry on about things like thimerasol which (1) were removed from most vaccines 25 years ago and (2) give you an exposure to mercury equivalent to eating something like a single can of tuna.
A slur.
