>>>That is ridiculous. Lots of people do not or will not understand vaccination. They taking the position it's their right to risk infecting others is illogical.
>
>Is that their only stated reason? FWIW I know quite a few medical doctors reluctant to take one or other of the vaccine options after researching carefully.

I worked for years with the Head of Microbiology. He heard my daughter cough while he and I spoke on the phone. He asked if we took her to the doctor. I said yes and a specialist and they did not know. He asked for their names and said they were both terrible. He told me to tell them he said it was x. I told them. They ran a test and found he was correct. You place too much faith in the equality of doctors and programmers at your peril.

>
>>> The risks from the vaccine are miniscule compared to the risks of damage to organs from the live virus.
>
>That's exactly what they said about Thalidomide... at first. Starting in the late '50s it was sold as a panacea in pregnancy throughout the world, including Canada, until it was shown to cause birth defects. It was not sold in the USA because a skeptic in the FDA blocked it, demanding more evidence. Clearly there's good reason why FDA and equivalents all over the world usually require years of testing before public use. In the case of the current C19 inoculations, most of that testing is due to conclude in 2023, fwiw. I wonder who the control group is?
>
>Not staking a position one way or the other wrt mRNA actions (yes, outside the nucleus so not rewriting DNA), just observing that there's no "settled science" in science which should be an exercise in skepticism, and it's the skeptics who make the breakthroughs, not the go-with-the-flows.
>
>>>Where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise.
>
>And sometimes the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. ;-)