5 ms·
> there's a solid contingent of people who get their "news" from Facebook conspiracy groups and use social media to reinforce bad information in their bubbles.
by justwanttolearn 5y ago
> there's a solid contingent of people who get their "news" from Facebook conspiracy groups and use social media to reinforce bad information in their bubbles. Getting to them is proving damn near impossible...
I think it's a bit unfair that the ones that are cautious towards the vaccines are default labeled as "news" from Facebook conspiracy groups. I've joined a couple side effect groups myself to read what other people have been experiencing (and these people CHOSE to get vaccinated, one or both doses!) so they're looking to join support groups. I join support groups for other reasons all the time and I don't consider my own experiences "conspiracy".
For sure there are the fringe groups but just because it's not documented in a clinical trial ran by a giant corporation doesn't mean they aren't true. This goes the same for the metoo movement, it's as if saying what these women are scared of or what they're experiencing aren't real because there isn't "evidence" that it happened (and of course you have the real ones that make up fake stories too).
I personally know 3 people that have and are still experiencing side effects from their shots in Jan through March. 1 went deaf in one year (she's still running through a lot of tests with the doctors to find out why), one continues to have swollen ankles, lymph nodes, brain fog (again, running a lot of tests as well to find alternative cause, nothing so far), and one (local doctor at the emergency hospital)'s alopecia came back.
The first two are now seriously questioning now (months later) why the doctors aren't looking at the possibility that the vaccine may have triggered it. They've instantly ruled it out right away.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago> I think it's a bit unfair that the ones that are cautious towards the vaccines are default labeled as "news" from Facebook conspiracy groups. You seem to have missed the part where they made specific claims about dangerous side effects or major adverse events, but when pushed for sources or evidence, demurred. It's clear they formed an opinion based on very bad information. Where did that information come from? I think the answer is obvious. As for the rest, honestly, you have three pieces of anecdata, none of which align with any other reported adverse events from the vaccines. I'd be a little surprised if the doctors did explore that theory before ruling out more traditional avenues of investigation first.