I anticipate this thread will earn me ire from all sides, and it addresses some private as well as more public conversations I've had. I am not anti-vaxx, and I am not anti the covid vaxx. As I have stated publicly, I decided not to get it 1) because I had covid, conferring 1/
natural immunity, and 2) because, especially in light of (1), I don't want to take on what is probably a small risk for no reason. Nevertheless, that aside, I feel ill-equipped to weigh what the risk actually is, because the pro-vaxx people (the ones who think you're bad if 2/
you don't get it) haven't been forthcoming. If I saw some honest discussion about what we can and can't know - including long term effects - and some valuation about the chance of negative long term or other effects based on our current scientific knowledge 3/
it's possible I could be persuaded. Because I don't feel I'm getting honest information that would allow me to consider my own interests along with society's, I don't feel I can make an informed decision. Since I know my risk of a negative outcome from covid is ~0 4/
I decided not to get the vaccine. I say all of this in hopes that vaccine proponents will reconsider their approach, if their ultimate goal is to persuade people to get it 5/5

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jenin Younes (former handle @leftylockdowns1)

Jenin Younes (former handle @leftylockdowns1) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JeninYounesEsq

Apr 7
One reason I'm a fierce defender of free speech is that I, the daughter of a Palestinian, grew up witnessing the silencing of criticism of Israel through false allegations of anti-semitism. 1/
I've remained silent for far too long b/c I, too, am terrified of being the recipient of such charges. I'm afraid of losing my job, harming my professional reputation, losing friends, and incurring wrath on this platform. But I have had enough. 2/
I know that when I'm breathing my last breath, I won't forgive myself for remaining silent out of cowardice. What job is worth having, & what friends are worth having, that require remaining silent in the face of crimes against humanity, including against one's own relatives? 3/
Read 5 tweets
Apr 1
In 2022, California passed AB 2098, which punished drs for giving patients advice about Covid that bucks "scientific consensus," whatever that means. We (@NCLAlegal) sued on behalf of 5 doctors, including @TracyBethHoeg, @AaronKheriatyMD, @PeterMazolewski & @AzadehKhatibi 1/
On Jan. 25, 2023, we obtained a preliminary injunction in the Eastern District of California. The judge found that the law violated Plaintiffs' due process rights b/c it was unconstitutionally vague. After defendants faced a skeptical panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2/
in a sister case (plaintiffs lost below, so they appealed), the state repealed AB 2098, obviously to avoid creating bad precedent. They've never admitted it's unconstitutional, and they've since tried to use another law to punish at least one doctor in the state 3/
Read 5 tweets
Mar 18
A few words about today's argument in the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri. Merely invoking the concept of "safety" does not justify government censorship. The last four years could not have illustrated that more clearly: eminent scientists were censored in the domains 1/
of their expertise, often at the behest of the government, resulting in public debate about covid policies being smothered. Just today, the New York Times admitted school closures were pointless and harmful. 2/
The scientists warning of this in 2020, including plaintiffs @DrJBhattacharya and @MartinKulldorff were censored, so the public was under the illusion that the scientific community concurred that lockdowns were necessary. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Sep 20, 2023

This article is so outrageous it warrants a 2nd thread. According to Politico, the Biden Admin claims that our lawsuit against the gov't for involvement in online censorship is a cause of rising anti-vaxx sentiment. This contention is specious at best 1/politico.com/news/2023/09/2…
First, the injunction against the Biden Admin was not issued until July 4, and it has mostly been stayed pending further proceedings since then. At arguments and in briefing, the government has admitted that it continues to engage in the conduct we're challenging-- 2/
Coercing, pressuring, and encouraging social media companies to censor disfavored viewpoints about Covid-19 (and other subjects). So, the claim the Administration is advancing in the article is simply inconsistent with the gov't's representations in legal proceedings. 3/
Read 6 tweets
Sep 20, 2023

This article is so outrageous it warrants a thread; apologies for the rant. Summary of article: Biden admin and various "public health" officials blame the rise of the anti-vaxx movement on online mis/disinfo. This almost willful ignorance is stunning 1/politico.com/news/2023/09/2…
I will speak only for myself here, though I know I'm not alone. Before early 2021, I had never considered NOT getting a vaccine. I certainly assumed if I had children, I would give them every vaccine recommended by their doctors. 2/
Watching the blatant lies, coercion, and shameless elevation of pharma profits over the well-being of Americans surrounding the Covid vaccines (and Covid public health measures more broadly) has changed me. I was reluctant at first to question vaccines in general. 3/
Read 8 tweets
Sep 2, 2023
The Fifth Circuit just issued an excellent decision saying that the FDA acted outside of its delegated authority when it tweeted that people shouldn't take ivermectin. The decision is available below, & is applicable in censorship & vaxx mandate cases 1/
drive.google.com/file/d/1vbZ_Qn…
The court recognized that government actors don't have unlimited free speech rights. This is the government's defense in Mo. v. Biden--that government officials/employees have a 1A right to express their opinions to social media companies. No. 2/
If you are acting in the course of government employment, you don't have the right to use your official position and commensurate influence to say anything, if that "anything" deprives Americans of their rights. In this case, it's instruct people not to use Ivermectin. 3/
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(