chgoflyer, Your snappy response says a lot about you. Throwing that Anti-V label around without the slightest effort to get even a hint of actual information about the target of that label -- that knee-jerk reaction completely undermines the value and credibility of the label thrower. If you bothered to ask, you'd find out that I myself received all the standard vaccines during childhood, as well as the occasional extra, including a tetanus booster (after getting bit by a squirrel when I was in college) and a pertussis shot (which my whole family also got) during the outbreak in 2010 when my son was born. And then, starting that year, I had my son receive all the vaccines that are on the conventional vaccination schedule for children. So to label me "Antivaxxer" (to quote you to the letter) is absurd. There are HUGE differences between the new CV19 'vaccines' and the well-known vaccines that were invented and have been in global use for many decades. In substantive terms, both qualitatively and quantitatively, using the term 'vaccine' to refer to the new CV19 injectable liquid is misleading. It suggests that these new therapeutics have the same neutralizing effect on the offending pathogen as the pre-21st-century vaccines have on their respective targeted pathogens. After nearly a year and many millions of injections globally, the new CV19 therapeutics have been shown to have nowhere near the neutralizing effect suggested by the 'vaccine' terminology. It's a sad state of affairs when the Anti-V label is thrown carelessly at anyone who dares to point out the many gaps in the narrative pushed by the US government and its lazy lackeys in the media. Like many people I know who share my concerns, I'm not opposed to taking the vaccine; rather, I believe that much more testing and empirical data are required in order to make informed decisions about the risk-benefit assessment of the novel CV19 'vaccine'-wannabe therapeutics. In addition, I believe that it's dangerously misleading to suggest to the public that these new therapeutics work better than they actually do. Any and all lack of transparency regarding these new therapeutics on the part of the manufacturers, the government, and the media -- all such lack of transparency is morally and ethically wrong. It's playing with fire, and sooner or later it will manifest with dire consequences, some of which cannot be even imagined at this time. Maybe you're too young to know much about such things, or care much about them, but you'd be wise to look into the history of Thalidomide, AZT, and Vioxx. That is all.
... View more
NicoleAshely, I just wanted to share here, in a public forum, the message that I just sent via email to Southwest (via the link on the Contact Us page). In case anyone in this community does end up reading this, let me preface by saying that I have a degree from MIT in chemical engineering and have worked for several decades in the biotech sector; I adore both the hard sciences and social science and psychology; and I have a fine-tuned radar for deception and manipulation. I question EVERYTHING, I think things through very deeply and thoroughly before drawing conclusions, and my communication and active-listening skills are top-notch (not by random chance or genetics, but from intentional focus, practice, and formal education over the past few decades -- yes, as a side gig in parallel with my engineering career). With that said, here's the message that I just sent by email via Southwest's Contact Us page: ___ email start ___ I'm a long-time Southwest customer. I've always had a special appreciation for the way this airline has challenged old norms, broken paradigms, and created innovation in the air-travel experience. I was dismayed, however, to learn about the ethically-questionable tactics being used by Southwest's corporate decision makers to coerce the airline's employees into getting vaccinated for the CV19 virus. Such coercion is unjustifiable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the growing volume of empirical data that shows that (a) even in fully-vaccinated communities (such as many U.S. college campuses, as well as Israel and other countries) the virus still spreads in quantitatively equivalent fashion to that of low-vaccination communities; and (b) air travel has been shown to be a very low risk for CV19 transmission, a finding attributed to the technologically advanced filtration systems used on board modern airplanes. Aside from the empirical findings listed above, the very notion of coercing U.S. citizens in particular (and humans in general) to subject themselves to any medical treatment that they choose to forego is morally, ethically, and legally WRONG. Arguing that it's merely a business decision justified by the costs incurred if an employee contracts the CV19 virus -- that argument is absurd when considered alongside all the other factors involved. Among those factors is the extremely low incidence of mortality or severe illness from CV19 in the age range that includes the vast majority of Southwest employees. To sum up, as long as Southwest continues to impose coercive CV19-vaccine measures on its employees, I will refrain from choosing Southwest in my travel plans. You can do better than this, Southwest corporate decision makers. You can remain true to your iconoclastic roots and have the courage to push back against the CV19 hysteria being perpetuated by the current US presidential administration and all the corporate-media talking heads that parrot the fear-based alarmist messages that have become increasingly divorced from empirical data about the actual science and mechanisms behind the virus and the vaccines. Please, Southwest, please snap out of the collective trance! Dare to question the narrative pushed by the government and its lackeys in the powerful elite. Go back to operating based on solid science and rational critical thinking. Sincerely and with hope for sanity to return, RS ___ email end ___
... View more