The article was written in the context of why the author is not getting the vaccine, not why readers shouldn’t - which disqualifies the rest of your article.
A number of your rebuttals are heavily biased and link back to your own articles rather than any substantiated report or source.
I came across that blog today and then to yours as a response. Thanks for writing it.
Possibly you've mentioned it elsewhere later on, but for this one, you could have clarified and acknowledged some points of concern a bit more. In some cases, I find it that you are addressing a straw man instead. More objectivity in acknowledging that there are valid reasons for doubt would be more helpful to alleviate those concerns that many people still have.
In particular, it would be helpful if you clarify further on these points:
3. You haven't addressed the history of failures and the question of antibody-dependent enhancement.
5. You contend that the raw data is rarely available for any study. Shouldn't you instead acknowledge that this is a major issue and that you and other scientists should have access to that?
7. You addressed something else. The claim was about all the regular people taking the shots, while those that aren't are claimed to be the control. But the main point to address here is how reliable is VAERS.
8. Again, this one casts doubt whether VAERS is reliable, along with listing some concerning numbers. Are those true?
9. There were some recent data from CDC which suggest that the vaccinated also spread the Delta to a large extent. Are there any updates on that?
10. You haven't acknowledged that the vaccinated can get COVID even after two weeks. This is now more prominent with the Delta and some updated numbers matter.
13. Fauci is a prominent public figure advocating vaccines while he has patents in the Moderna vaccine. This creates a trust issue in the eye of the public and raises questions about the potential conflict of private and public interest. Perhaps there should be some policy changes, to gain the trust? The original article is all about trust and the lack of confidence, and that's the key point to address to have more vaccinations.
14. Again, this is the most important thing to address: trust and confidence in public officials, rather than any other technical data. This one, in particular, matters quite a lot because of the underlying implicit acquisition: Fauci supported gain of function research that created the new virus in the lab, that one got away, and then he profits from his patents. Yes, a conspiracy theory, but saying that such questions don't matter doesn't gain the trust.
15. Some people, mostly younger, tend to pick natural immunity in favor of vaccines. Some because of the belief that this will give them better protection against new strains that are not here yet. Again, something to address.
16. The claim was about the scientific debate as presented to the public. The main question to address here is to what extent are political measures justified in the current scientific knowledge. For example, how much benefit is there from simple masks that most use against something that spreads through aerosol as efficiently as chickenpox? Will lockdowns in Australia only slow down the inevitable: spreading the Delta to all? What's the point of health passports when vaccinated will spread to a large extent as well, with the virus slowly reaching the entire population anyway? The basis in science justifying politics is rarely openly and objectively discussed in the media. This is again a matter of trust to address, and one of the main reasons that people are not taking the vaccines.
18. Do we know better for the vaccines about long-term protection? The antibody response in the vaccine was stronger, but does it mean better protection against new variants? Also, what about T-cells? The question here to address is what is the extra benefit from the vaccine, and is it necessary. You also haven't addressed the author's claim that vaccinations after COVID even might be harmful.
P.S. I took my two shots. Still, I've heard many stories and reasons why people are not taking the vaccines. It is key to openly address all the trust issues in an emphatic way, as it is quite understandable that many people still feel doubt and skepticism.
One of my friends is on social media saying that the vaccination is effecting non-vaccinated people due to "shedding". She heard reports that women are getting heavier periods after vaccination and she think others having the vaccination will cause this problem non vaxers. Please could you address the reports of heavy periods? And/or this thing about shedding?
Again, thank you. I do have this mental image of you with a cape flowing in the wind . . .
The article was written in the context of why the author is not getting the vaccine, not why readers shouldn’t - which disqualifies the rest of your article.
A number of your rebuttals are heavily biased and link back to your own articles rather than any substantiated report or source.
I came across that blog today and then to yours as a response. Thanks for writing it.
Possibly you've mentioned it elsewhere later on, but for this one, you could have clarified and acknowledged some points of concern a bit more. In some cases, I find it that you are addressing a straw man instead. More objectivity in acknowledging that there are valid reasons for doubt would be more helpful to alleviate those concerns that many people still have.
In particular, it would be helpful if you clarify further on these points:
3. You haven't addressed the history of failures and the question of antibody-dependent enhancement.
5. You contend that the raw data is rarely available for any study. Shouldn't you instead acknowledge that this is a major issue and that you and other scientists should have access to that?
7. You addressed something else. The claim was about all the regular people taking the shots, while those that aren't are claimed to be the control. But the main point to address here is how reliable is VAERS.
8. Again, this one casts doubt whether VAERS is reliable, along with listing some concerning numbers. Are those true?
9. There were some recent data from CDC which suggest that the vaccinated also spread the Delta to a large extent. Are there any updates on that?
10. You haven't acknowledged that the vaccinated can get COVID even after two weeks. This is now more prominent with the Delta and some updated numbers matter.
13. Fauci is a prominent public figure advocating vaccines while he has patents in the Moderna vaccine. This creates a trust issue in the eye of the public and raises questions about the potential conflict of private and public interest. Perhaps there should be some policy changes, to gain the trust? The original article is all about trust and the lack of confidence, and that's the key point to address to have more vaccinations.
14. Again, this is the most important thing to address: trust and confidence in public officials, rather than any other technical data. This one, in particular, matters quite a lot because of the underlying implicit acquisition: Fauci supported gain of function research that created the new virus in the lab, that one got away, and then he profits from his patents. Yes, a conspiracy theory, but saying that such questions don't matter doesn't gain the trust.
15. Some people, mostly younger, tend to pick natural immunity in favor of vaccines. Some because of the belief that this will give them better protection against new strains that are not here yet. Again, something to address.
16. The claim was about the scientific debate as presented to the public. The main question to address here is to what extent are political measures justified in the current scientific knowledge. For example, how much benefit is there from simple masks that most use against something that spreads through aerosol as efficiently as chickenpox? Will lockdowns in Australia only slow down the inevitable: spreading the Delta to all? What's the point of health passports when vaccinated will spread to a large extent as well, with the virus slowly reaching the entire population anyway? The basis in science justifying politics is rarely openly and objectively discussed in the media. This is again a matter of trust to address, and one of the main reasons that people are not taking the vaccines.
18. Do we know better for the vaccines about long-term protection? The antibody response in the vaccine was stronger, but does it mean better protection against new variants? Also, what about T-cells? The question here to address is what is the extra benefit from the vaccine, and is it necessary. You also haven't addressed the author's claim that vaccinations after COVID even might be harmful.
P.S. I took my two shots. Still, I've heard many stories and reasons why people are not taking the vaccines. It is key to openly address all the trust issues in an emphatic way, as it is quite understandable that many people still feel doubt and skepticism.
One of my friends is on social media saying that the vaccination is effecting non-vaccinated people due to "shedding". She heard reports that women are getting heavier periods after vaccination and she think others having the vaccination will cause this problem non vaxers. Please could you address the reports of heavy periods? And/or this thing about shedding?