SkipCaptcha
906
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 293:
Line 293: + +
→Non-mRNAm, traditional viral vector covid vaccines: Hypocrisy?
While I can understand that some are fearful of all vaccines, and others of just suspicious of [[mRNA]] COVID-19 Vaccines, I do not understand why '''non-mRNAm, traditional viral vector covid vaccines''' are not covered here. It would seem that Conservapedia recognizes the value of non-controversial vaccines in saving lives. --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:37, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
While I can understand that some are fearful of all vaccines, and others of just suspicious of [[mRNA]] COVID-19 Vaccines, I do not understand why '''non-mRNAm, traditional viral vector covid vaccines''' are not covered here. It would seem that Conservapedia recognizes the value of non-controversial vaccines in saving lives. --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:37, April 12, 2022 (EDT)
::Further research suggests, interestingly, that mRNA vaccines are safer. Glad I didn't grow up a hundred years ago. There's much hypocrisy here about science and medicine, it seems – unless a person honestly reject all science and medicine, as some religious sects do. --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 13:47, May 2, 2022 (EDT).