FiveByFive
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 281
Well, obviously they are relevant to the cadet as you say because she mentioned them. And of course, since we are discussing her article these points will come up for discussion. When i say relevant, I mean in terms of we can debate the merits of natural immunity ( i believe in it up to point) and all of the other points she made, but in the end, the government/military has decided this is what they want.
I understood what you meant.
So, you are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association to discredit the author and the analysis? There is a great deal to learn from what has been written by this individual. You can fact check his analysis.
This very conclusion is part of the nature of the discussion of SARS-COV-2 in our nation at this time. We (general) choose our experts, choose our opinions, and discredit what another is saying because of association, politics or other tribe option.
This situation of natural immunity versus vaccination is much bigger than the black-and-white presentation that is often made on this site. The military and USCIS has consistently and for a significant period of time taken serology (natural immunity verification) in lieu of a vaccination.
Pfizer has said that there is NO FDA approved product in the US for the COVID vaccine - ALL of the available vaccine in the USA is EUA, meaning experimental, therefore the order is not able to be executed legally by the military according to its own regulations and the Nuremberg Code. If you want to talk about legally distinct, that is a very important topic.
If you choose to take the vaccine, that is entirely acceptable provided you have been provided all the information that you need to make an informed decision, that may be more or less depending on the person. If you determine that you are not going to take the vaccine, you cannot be coerced, retaliated against, or otherwise diminished due to that choice. Even/especially in the military.
Going back to the attack on the writer of the article...read the article. It is very clear.
It is not "guilt by association," but instead alleged "associative bias" for your author, his organization and his analysis.
Either way, the "analysis" was read and I stand by my statement.