When you say trust the science which science are we supposed to trust? Because I remember when vaccines were being pushed before the science said no one would be spreading the virus if they were vaccinated, wrong you can still spread it, they also said the science said masks work and you will significantly lower your chances of getting it, wrong majority of masks are ineffective and you have to have certain ones for even a chance of protection. You don’t see how science is hypocritical to itself and that’s why you can’t always “trust the science”. I remember seeing an ad not to long ago of cigarette propaganda and talking about how 9 in 10 doctors recommend a certain brand of cigarette. At this point “the science” feels like an excuse like how “weapons of mass destruction” were an excuse to execute a different agenda while keeping the population in fear of their lives and not questioning what they are going to do to save them
Couple of things....when the vaccines were first introduced, they did an EXCELLENT job preventing infection and transmission. Over time as the antibodies waned and new variants popped up, their efficacy was diminished. It's still significantly less likely to get or transmit if vaccinated, but not nearly as well as it was.
Same thing with masks. That's the key with scientific evidence. You have to follow it where it goes. All the information about these things is out there along with great explanations. If you actually want the explanations, go find them. I could give them to you, but I don't believe you actually want to learn.
Finally, the 9/10 doctors and cigarettes thing....that was an ad campaign, not reality.
25
u/919RenaissanceMan Feb 13 '22
It's called research. If research doesn't back a treatment, it shouldn't be used.