Red 'o Cedar, you seem to misinterpret what the majority of those you oppose are on about. Allow me to provide you with some ammunition for which I await you firing back at me
...
You call people antivaxxers, and muppets. I am not the former, as I have had vaccinations such as rabies shot (x3), and yellow fever etc.
I may be the latter, as I have always considered myself the Cookie Monster incarnate, and chocolate chip cookie discovery is a lifelong voyage/endeavour I take very seriously!
Now, these previous vaccinations I have taken, have had a history of data supplied with them, and I was willing to take them as I felt I had all the information I needed at the time to make a conscious (and comfortable) decision.
Roll along to the past 2.5 years, and for the first time in history, I am being told I HAVE to take this 'medication', despite the government providing legal immunity to the manufacturers, and no legal recourse for the general public which the government IS PAID TO REPRESENT.
I then am told that I am not allowed to be a part of society, because despite me leading a quiet life and not interacting with general society that much, I am a 'bad boy' because I didn't do what I was 'told'. As an adult, they (government) failed in their due diligence to inform me of the possible consequences, or the alternative treatments at the time. They also failed to tell the general public about keeping fit, healthy, what vitamins are important for this etc. regardless of what you decide to do regarding taking the 'medication'.
The distrust stems from, there NEVER being an open scientific debate between the two camps of those 'for' and 'against' the 'medication'. The aforementioned legal immunity for manufacturers despite there being no long term data or any information of what these things contain. The question still remains why did one manufacturer try to hide their data for 75 years???
Another point of distrust stems from the fact that any alternative point of view, was hounded down and swiftly removed from public view on public platforms. If alternative points of view are not allowed, what does that say about the presiding 'authority' on such matters, if they cannot back up their stance by defending themselves logically against alternative points of view, instead of bringing down the 'censored' gavel on them?
I appreciate you complimenting me on my philosophical outlook. I must be having cookie withdrawals!
