An interesting difference in approach.
“Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, argues the newness of the vaccine leaves a lot of unknowns. He says the medical community needs to acknowledge it.
‘If we can agree that we don't know, then the public health officials shouldn't say that “it's not likely to be due to...” The answer is, if we don't know we don't know. This study [Pfizer and Moderna] has to roll out for two years. We don't have any biomarkers about who should get a vaccine and who shouldn't. That would be a wonderful change to vaccine safety science and we can look at risk factors,’ he said.”
Compare that approach with this one:
“The Ohio Department of Health's chief medical officer, Dr. Bruce Vanderhoff, says while side-effects do happen, they are rare and doctors know how to treat them.
‘That's why we watch patients for 15 to 30 minutes after they get their shot because it's completely treatable. We know exactly what to do if they get an allergic reaction.”
[Except the patient in the article didn’t have an allergic reaction, she had a neurological, PARALYTIC reaction. And they did NOT know what to do.]
Which approach do you prefer?