I also agree that if its too formalized with registrations and such that it could be a negative pressure on small business. documenting what the labels mean could have separate rules and smaller business could operate on trust and face penalty if counterexamples are shown, for example. obv this would be the start of a much longer conversation about implementations but i think it's important
--
with respect to the covid vaccine, i want to be clear that i dont pick this fight lightly, I love science. The rare side effects of the mRNA therapy did actually kill people due to severe myocarditis. I believe it is unjust to change who is at risk without doing everything you can to inform people of exactly what it is they are getting. They treated the mRNA vaccine like we are Gods commanding the body to do whatever we want and not like we never have actually fucking know if something is going to kill someone or not. People can be allergic to things, for example, and its only okay because they themselves agreed.
>A vaccine is something which protects you from an infection
this is the new definition.
the old definition was accepted as: "a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease"
this aligns with informal understandings and how it was taught to people. you get 'infected' with a safe amount of the actual virus to trigger your body's natural defense mchanisms
the definition was changed in 2021 to mean: "a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the bodys immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases".
informally, and biologically, this is fundamentally different. i admit it's a grey area, in that the word vaccine was used to describe it in research phases.. but it was 50-50 and nearly always included 'mRNA' in the label.
But it was still deliberate misdirection that over-emphasized calling it something common and familiar and omitting whats different about it to push a new thing (new to the public, as it would be almost everyones first exposure to mrna therapy) and not only did they refuse to emphasize the differences and make an effort to educate people but they conflated anyone who asked questions about it to be the same as an "anti-vaxxer" and pushed the narrative such that the new 'vaccine' could not be viewed as its own thing. And then they changed the literal definition of the word vaccine to 'cover the tracks'.
it was backwards. everyone should have been informed, proper consent collected, and i think it would have been better received overall. whether people can articulate the problem as i am or not, they felt it. I felt it, and spent a lot of time and energy developing my understadning of teh situation as to be properly nuanced in my opinion of it and not actually go into conspiracy theory territory.
I still talk to people today who have no idea the covid vaccine is not dead covid virus being injected. They should have been informed that they were receiving something different.
again i never said mRNA didnt work or wasnt effective. but it was still fraud. they wanted to move fast, as if all other medical progress was somehow not operating with lives on the line already and that informed consent was just something we do for fun. Covid was serious and required a serious response with funding to scientific education and research, not lazy manipulation tactics. There should have been 24/7 news about mRNA therapies and their history, booths popping up everywhere to answer peoples questions, etc.
The response was lazy and fraudulent and sets an extremely dangerous precedent of allowing future reactions to scientific education problems to be handled through authority rather than education.
--
If you want to get me started on an actual political issue of the same form to understand why i havent let it go nad only become more emboldened with my opinion since covid, go research how the use of the term 'domestic terrorist' has changed over time. The laziness and use of authority to make things be defined however an authorty wants rather than through actual public consensus is only ramping up.
the danger is that the public is slowly being cut from the conversations completely. when a patient is too uneducated to understand any of the treatment you are giving them, is it still consent?