A debate between pro-vaxx Unz and anti-vaxx Whitney. From unz.com:
MW Question 1– Thanks for taking time for this interview, but I want to be upfront with you: I’m going to challenge your views on the vaccine by pointing out what-I-think are the glaring flaws in your logic.
In your latest article Obesity and the End of the Vaxxing Debate, you disparage the group you call “anti-vaxxers” while—at the same time—you defend the very ideas that form the cornerstone of their beliefs. Let me explain. You openly admit that there is some basis to anti-vaxxer “fears of the Covid vaccines”. You also acknowledge that “The vaccines” use “an entirely new mRNA technology, in which the body’s own cellular machinery is actually hijacked to produce portions of the Covid spike-protein, and new medical innovations sometimes have negative consequences.” Following these admissions, you quickly move on to your own assumption “that the risks of the Covid vaccine were considerably lower than the risks of serious Covid illness.”
That’s fine; you made your own decision based on your grasp of the information available. But, here’s the thing: Your analysis actually supports the anti-vaxxer position. You have actually made our case for us.
When you admit that these injections are an entirely new and insufficiently tested technology that “hijacks” the “body’s own cellular machinery” forcing it to produce the spike protein”; you are, in fact, adopting the core position of the anti-vaxx movement. This is it. This is what we oppose. Do you see that?
