But lets all trust them about vaccinations. There is no way these hierarchical government systems ripe for abuse and misinformation, usually lead by CEOs from the medical industry that have paid out billions due to previous lies, could ever mislead us again.
This has nothing to do with hierarchical government systems (whatever that is and in contrast to what else), but all about corruption and fraud by corporations.
Most corporations just as most humans are driven by their ethics and internal processes to act inside the law. And it isn't easy to abuse/subvert the FDA's approval and monitoring processes as anyone can attest that ever received a FDA warning letter.
The ability of a government agency to withstand attempts of corruption in mind hinges more on the societies attitude towards corruption than the structure of the government organization.
But there are facts on the ground. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been vaccinated.
And there are no widespread health concerns apart from a rare bloodclotting issue with Johnson & Johnson/AstraZeneca. None of which come close to the the complications and deaths that COVID has caused.
So clearly the government has been successful in this case.
> So clearly the government has been successful in this case.
It's hard to tell when side-effect reporting is suppressed.
Currently OSHA is banned from reporting on vaccine side-effects. That means the government wants no accountability, despite promoting employer mandates.
OSHA is also advising employers not to record side-effect data:
There have been numerous concerns, it is just the people sharing their reactions are not taken seriously and demonized and lumped into an anti-vaccine group for even speaking up.
This is part of the systemic issues I'm referring to. Also, they usually only look at reactions for about 15 minutes after receiving the vaccine. Any reaction after that is assumed to be unrelated.
I'd also like to point out that numerous deaths that have been attributed to COVID-19 which apparently were not due to COVID. This is just one of many similar stories:
> Previously a COVID-19 death was counted if the coronavirus test came back positive.
> Four of those deaths were in King County and three were from Yakima. They included two suicides, three homicides and two overdose deaths, according to DOH.
Weird pivot to an unrelated point, but I find it kind of funny that this article is essentially saying the opposite of what you're implying. They noticed these deaths weren't actually from the virus, so they fixed the data. All 7 data points out of however many thousand.
Wow, no where did I mention Ivermectin but your knee-jerk reaction was that I somehow believed that was the answer. What is worse, suggesting that we should be leary of government agencies that are ripe for abuse or having a scripted NPC-lke response to people that question anything?
Ivermectin is a noble prize winning drug for humans. Joe Rogan took a human dose prescribed by a human for a human. How are you outsourcing your thinking to this degree, yet so confidently responding condescendingly?
I'm a big believer that ivermectin probably helps (especially after the gigantic astroturfed media freakout about it), but Rogan took so many things it's impossible to credit any one part of his cocktail. Always funny when liberals get their hopes up as soon as someone tests positive and then they're fine a day or two later though.
> Rogan took so many things it's impossible to credit any one part of his cocktail.
Of course. I'm not saying that's what fixed him, mostly just that mocking someone for their stupidity in trying early treatment whom also recovered in above average time...
Rogan was sick for 3 days and said that one of those days was really rough. Is that better than average for somebody who was vaccinated (as Rogan was) and took a giant cocktail of things, including monoclonal antibodies, which are proven to combat COVID?
It's not the subject of the sentence, but "who" is a pronoun in nominative case because it is the subject of the appositive phrase. You wouldn't say "him also recovered", but "he also recovered" in any case. You use "whom" where "him" would make more sense and "who" where "he" would make more sense.
It's very pedantic, because it's the subject of a pronounal phrase which is itself an object in the sentence. Personally, I'm not a fan of "whom" in general. It's not technically necessary, can always be replaced with "who" in modern English, and I see it used incorrectly almost as often as correctly.
This sort of thing is easier for German speakers, who have to inflect all pronouns correctly for every part of speech. English speakers largely get who wrong because there are very few words in the language that make you have to keep track of more than primary subject and object. It's not their fault, really, it's just an archaic construct of English from when the language was more modal.
> I think people should outsource their thinking to those tasked with the job ... Summary: Don't take ivermectine, no evidence it helps against Covid-19.
New Microbes and New Infections: Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383101/
