https://www.aier.org/article/14-months-later-a-pathway-forward/
Their "path forward" opposes vaccines for healthy people under 70 and is unequivocally opposed to vaccinating anyone under age 19. They continue to want to achieve herd immunity through "natural infection."
They bemoan the lack of safety data and testing for the vaccines. Do they want an even more powerful FDA doing that? Isn't letting individuals decide these trade-offs what libertarians have long argued for? Who exactly will have the power to make sure that "no" vaccines are given to those under 19 or under 70 ("Not to be given")? Who is in charge of the "not" part of that argument?
And this piece was not from Tucker or Wolf or any other individual. The authorship was the whole institution. There's no wiggling out by trying to separate particular authors and employees from the organization as a whole, or trying to create space between them and the Great Barrington Declaration (and this piece is certainly worse than the GBD).
Notice too how the language of "not be given to" takes away the agency of individual recipients. They are not saying "you should not get vaccinated." They are saying that someone else should not "give you" an injection, as if they are being forced upon us. Are we not able to choose? Are people not capable of making a reasoned choice? Are medical personnel just shooting us up without are consent? What's the picture of human agency here?
Both unbelievable but yet not surprising at the same time.