Discussion about this post

User's avatar
JB's avatar

What's crazy is that medical schools are still requiring younger men like myself (at proven risk for myocarditis) to get the vaccine... I plan on matriculating in 2024, maybe a religious exemption will be possible, but that seems incredibly risky in many aspects.

Why can't we, as scientists/future doctors, present published peer-reviewed research to explain why the risk/benefit analysis reasons to not get the vaccine? Crazy world...

Coercion always reflects a failure of public health, and ethical science.

Expand full comment
Almost Home's avatar

Sad that instead of pointing out what the Florida study could have missed or what could have been done better, the critics are resorting to attacking the character of those with dissenting opinion. That’s become common in our country. When you can’t argue your case with facts and critical thought, just attack the other person. We saw it with Francis Collins and his “fringe doctors” email. What’s even sadder is millions of Americans will buy this garbage. Instead of asking Science Magazine why the Florida Study should be questioned (like this article did) many Americans will say “yes, DeSantis is bad so the science in Florida must be bad too...”

Is Science Magazine critical of the FDA providing Emergency Use Authorization for the booster after it was tested on only 8 mice? Is Science Magazine critical of the fact that the FDA won’t release all the original Pfizer data? Probably not. After all, Science Magazine is likely funded by Big Pharma but won’t disclose its bias as quickly as it was to suggest race played a part in a seemingly smart black doctor being hired to be a Surgeon General. Corporatism at its best.

Expand full comment
53 more comments...

No posts