MIT Study Shows Those With Vaxx Hesitancy are on solid footing

They are Highly Intelligent, Sophisticated, Sensible, literate, and Scientifically informed

What does this imply about the vaxx’d who are trying to portray the unvaxx’d as the perpetrators of the problem with the fake plandemic and vaxx narrative?

They are easily paralyzed with fabricated fears of non-existent medical threats, believe everything the talking-head-idiots on TV tell them, make no efforts to overcome their overwhelming ignorance, have no ability to understand deductive logic, impulsively rush to commit suicide and have no resistance to stupid suggestions and peer pressures.  They are quick to entitle simpletons to ‘celebrity status’ and will unthinkingly do everything they are told by the celebrities they worship, consequences be damned.

According to Biden and his toadies, Vaxxine hesitancy is a big problem. Less than half the public is fully vaccinated while about 50 percent have received at least one jab, at least according to ‘not too honest’ statistics makers.  I do not have access to the data, but from my own reading, I would say these figures are overstated.

The goal of fully vaccinating the American public appears to have stalled. This should not surprise us. When the vaxxines were first approved for emergency use back in December 2020, 40 percent of Americans expressed skepticism about them.

Trying to shame the holdouts has failed spectacularly. Insulting and degrading them as “morons” or “ignorant” has resulted in a vicious pushback and a hardening of positions on getting vaxxinated.

The administration’s plan of sending people door to door to vaxxinate them only feeds anti-vaxxine skepticism. Trust in authority is at an all-time low, which makes a government-sponsored vaxxine program highly suspect.

Still, most experts agree that some people who eligible to get vaxxinated aren’t doing so. But the root cause isn’t ignorance or a belief in conspiracy theories. An MIT study on the problem revealed some surprising results.


“Proponents of the vaccine are unwilling or unable to understand the thinking of vaccine skeptics — or even admit that skeptics may be thinking at all. Their attempts to answer skepticism or understand it end up poisoned by condescension, and end up reinforcing it. Condescension is always the chief weapon of the ignorant who know they are standing on shaky ground.

The condescension is political in nature and crosses party lines. Because arguments against vaccination are not understood by the irrational uninformed, they  simply think that opponents to their own rash non-thinking are mean-spirited and lacking in human empathy.  They believe opponents are simply against them for no good reason.  They are paranoid.

“Sometimes the perception of irrationality is almost accidental, because arguments are usually social interactions, not logical exercises.

A vaccine skeptic may brush off a proponent by saying:

“It’s approved for emergency use only; it’s not FDA-approved. I don’t think we should require it.” The skeptic is beginning with a fact that’s easily established and shareable.

But when pressed, they might reveal that their line of thinking is elsewhere:

“There are no long-term studies, and I’m worried about possible long-term effects.”

Because the two objections aren’t exactly logically connected, the proponent concludes it is irrationalism all the way down.

The proponents assume an air of religiosity.  Because they have not done their homework, they have no scientific basis to base their arguments upon.  Like with religion, there are no facts available to them upon which to base any rational or logical stance.  Now, we see the elements of heresy begin to surface.  Religious beliefs are the most lacking in foundation, which is what breeds heresy.  It is necessary to eliminate the opponent before there is time to destroy the very weak basis for the “pro” argument.

But a study done at MIT showed that a substantial portion of public-health skepticism was highly informed, scientifically literate, and sophisticated in the use of data. Skeptics used the same data sets as those with the orthodox views on public health.”

The study’s lead author, Crystal Lee, says those same exact data sets can be used by either side to marshal arguments.

MIT News:

“The researchers combed through hundreds of thousands of social media posts and found that coronavirus skeptics often deploy counter-visualizations alongside the same “follow-the-data” rhetoric as public health experts, yet the skeptics argue for radically different policies. The researchers conclude that data visualizations aren’t sufficient to convey the urgency of the Covid-19 pandemic, because even the clearest graphs can be interpreted through a variety of belief systems.”

“A lot of people think of metrics like infection rates as objective,” says Crystal Lee. “But they’re clearly not, based on how much debate there is on how to think about the plandemic. That’s why we say data visualizations have become a battleground.”

In fact, because of the data sets being used interchangeably, vaccine skepticism becomes logical and rational.

“But most vaccine skepticism, if by that we mean reluctance, is not based on conspiracy theorizing — it’s based on risk-benefit calculations. You may think it’s an innumerate calculation.

“But when you look at patterns of uptake in the United States, two factors stand out, factors that are larger in their effect than partisanship: age and density. The older you are and the denser your community, the more likely you are to be vaccinated. The younger you are, and the more rural your community, the less likely you are to have gotten it.

“This reflects the real facts about the risk of death from COVID. People may be wildly overestimating their risk from the vaccine and underestimating their risks from COVID — but they have the directional thinking correct. Those who are in less danger, act like it.”

This is why vaccine choice is so important. Why have the same mandate for someone who lives in New York City and someone who lives in rural South Dakota?

A more holistic approach to vaccine skepticism is needed if we are to get more blind obedience.  People who have been studying the must bigger picture behind this with an objective mind, see no need to go to such extremes as we witness on the part of government to require full obedience to an issue that is definitely not resolved and full of non-facts and holes.  Desperation to rush the matter of making injections mandatory should never be based on rushed incomplete studies that are obviously extremely pre-mature.  The statistics being made public are definitely non-factual.  The death counts are grossly understated at figures around 6,000 – 7,000 when it is known that deaths are over 47,000.  Extremely dangerous adverse side-effects are in the millions.  Information about the serum are coming to light every day, which show that the serums are dangerous to the max.

There is no light of truth around the claimed dangers posed by the disease.  In fact, the most logical conclusion is that there is no new disease.  We are simply calling the common flu by another name for some reason.  What could be the reason behind this deceit, the desperation to hugely overstate the cases, and create a background of fear and hysteria.  The mortality statistics do not hold up to scrutiny when the consideration of the word ‘pandemic’ is trotted out without and factual basis at all.  Mortality is not any different this year as compared to all prior years going back as far as you want.

Allowances must be made for the legitimate concerns of citizens who, for their own reasons, don’t want to get jabbed. But if indeed, individuals are doing their own risk-benefit calculations, it would help enormously if the Left would refrain from their sickening condescension toward those with serious, legitimate questions.  There is just too little evidence of disease danger and too much evidence of vaxx danger with no perceived benefits at all.

Leave a Reply