I have read them, and my comment was substantive. A person’s bias is important to call out, as was pointing out the obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk.

> obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk.

If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished)

You can plainly see that both of these are variable between different people, even within similar schools of thoughts.

So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar.

If that is the case any one saying the new vaccines are "safe and effective", should also be an obvious lie, because the long term safety studies are not done, which objectively makes it a lie.

> If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished)

That's the nice thing about science though. It's based on (readily available, well recorded) evidence. Deciding that an individual is smarter and/or doesn't believe in science (aka the entire anti vax movement) may be a matter of opinion, but the actual data and risks are not.

> So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar.

No, the lying part does.