This is amazing. It purports to be a video that shows how a good physician would answer vaxx -resistant patients. But instead, it is a showcase of weak arguments made by the doctor. It proves OUR point, not THEIR point, That a doctor has to be this illogical… It tells you they don’t have logic on their side.
I will address each rebuttal this doctor makes below.
1) The guy quotes the fatality statistics as being low, and the doctor says, but that does not include the chance of getting admitted to the hospital. That answer is a non sequitur. The patient has Is answering the doctor by pointing to the risk/reward ratio, and saying that the reward of the benefit of the vaccine is not worth The risk of taking the shot. The doctor notes that’s the fatality risk does not include the risk of being admitted to the hospital, But makes no attempt to address whether reducing that risk is worth the risk of being exposed to the vaccine.
2) The guy makes the point that there is evidence the vaccine doesn’t work and that some countries have higher rates among the vaccinated then the unvaccinated. The doctor reply is complete gibberish: he says that’s because some countries are as high as 80% vaccinated. That response does not begin to respond to the point made by the patient. The point that the patient is making is that if a country has 80% of its people fully vaccinated, but 85% of the people in the hospital have been vaccinated, then That is evidence that the vaccine is ineffective and perhaps pernicious. The physician’s response does not address that. When I am in a debate with someone and they make some statement that is off point and slick and clean but not only off point but completely upside down, as his “80%“ response was, I know I’m talking to someone who’s trying to bullshit me. Why is it that anyone I’d have to bullshit about this, if the science was on their side?
3) The position posits that may be that phenomenon is being driven by a waning in the effectiveness of the vaccine. Maybe. Or maybe it is because of antibody dependent enhancement (That is, precisely what doctors from Simone gold group “America’s front line doctors” have been predicting for 18 months). So maybe it’s one thing, or maybe it’s another. The doctors “maybe” tips you off that he is reaching for an argument that the data does not support. At least not uniquely. The data also supports the possibility of ADE. So the doctor has not tesponded to the patient at all.
4) “Sometimes natural immunity fades.” First, the research I have read on that shows that natural immunity is remarkably robust, much more robust than people were thinking at the beginning of the year. Also, natural immunity inherently provides A much better level of protection, because your body has learned to fight the virus in three or four ways, as opposed to the singular way it “learns” by having a spike protein factory implanted in your deltoid. In which case your body only “learns” one way to fight it.
5) The doctor finally says something remarkable. He accuses a patient of just having already made his decision and he’s just searching for arguments to support it. That is called “gaslighting“ because the physician is accusing the patient of doing what it is the physician that is doing. This physician is the guy making arguments about “maybe this“ and “it could be that“ And “sometimes this”. The physician is the one who is grasping four reasons to support A conclusion that HE, the physician, has already adopted. He is straight gaslighting this patient.
How remarkable is it that even in a scripted canned set piece like this, the physicians arguments are gossamer.
https://youtube.com/shorts/7MAlEYqWUTk?feature=share
