Recognizing the reality of immunity after COVID-recovery is a pro-vax position.
Acknowledging this fact builds credibility so people believe it when you correctly say the vax protects vs. severe disease.
Pushing cruel vax mandates, on the other hand, undermines that trust.
David Henderson and Charley Hooper ably defend their July 28th, 2021, Wall Street Journal piece on ivermectin . Here’s their conclusion:
While we can all be happy that Merck has developed a new therapeutic that can keep us safe from the ravages of Covid-19, we should realize that the FDA’s rules give companies an incentive to focus on newer drugs while ignoring older ones. Ivermectin may or may not be a miracle drug for Covid-19. The FDA doesn’t want us to learn the truth.
The FDA spreads lies and alarms Americans while preventing drug companies from providing us with scientific explorations of existing, promising, generic drugs.
Robby Soave reports on yet another high-profile Covid hypocrite . Here’s his conclusion:
And that’s what should really irritate people about Biden failing to mask up while making a quick exit. He isn’t worried about his health during those few seconds; he probably knows that it’s pointless to require masking under some circumstances while groups of unmasked people are eating, drinking, and talking for hours. The government’s strict mask policies are so stupid that everyone who can get away with ignoring them already does so, yet they remain in place. Not for safety, or because of the science, but because our elected leaders can’t be bothered to tweak the rules.
Dr Byram Bridle, associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph in Canada pointed out the lunacy of the vaccine mandates that reign across most of the Western world. He is banned from his campus even though he can demonstrate with a pathology test that he has robust antibodies whereas others with no effective antibodies and a vaccine pass enter. He offered to set up an antibody test for the university which was ignored. Instead, he has been subjected to vicious workplace harassment.
Noah Carl investigates the origins of the ‘science’ of lockdowns . Two slices:
As many  lockdown  sceptics  (including myself ) have noted, lockdowns represent a radical departure from conventional forms of pandemic management. There is no evidence that, before 2020, they were considered an effective way to deal with influenza pandemics.
In a 2006 paper , four leading scientists (including Donald Henderson, who led the effort to eradicate smallpox) examined measures for controlling pandemic influenza. Regarding “large-scale quarantine”, they wrote, “The negative consequences… are so extreme” that this measure “should be eliminated from serious consideration”.
Likewise, a WHO report  published mere months before the COVID-19 pandemic classified “quarantine of exposed individuals” as “not recommended under any circumstances”. The report noted that “there is no obvious rationale for this measure”.
And we all know what the U.K.’s own ‘Pandemic Preparedness Strategy’ said , namely: “It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so.”
As an additional exercise, I searched the pandemic preparedness plans of all the English-speaking Western countries (U.K. , Ireland , U.S. , Canada , Australia  and New Zealand ) for mentions of ‘lockdown’, ‘lock-down’ ‘lock down’ or ‘curfew’.
Only ‘curfew’ was mentioned, and only once – in Ireland’s plan. The relevant sentence was: “Mandatory quarantine and curfews are not considered necessary.” None of the lockdown strings were mentioned in any of the countries’ plans.
As to whether one should trust ‘The Science’ on lockdowns, a reasonable answer would be, ‘Do you mean the pre or the post-Covid science?’