7 ms·

"they are smart enough to look at the real (not anti vax) statistics and realize that the risks are far outweighed by the benefits" What are "anti vax statisti

"they are smart enough to look at the real (not anti vax) statistics and realize that the risks are far outweighed by the benefits" What are "anti vax statistics"? Do you think people who refused to take the COVID vaccines were making up their own data from whole cloth? I never saw that. What we do see is that the stats presented by health authorities are often mangled by inappropriate methodologies that appear to be picked in order to arrive at pre-chosen outcomes. When the raw data is obtained and re-analyzed correctly, we get papers like this one: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239 "The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively)." In case you're the sort of person who evaluates arguments based on credentials not merit, the authors of this paper are all from universities or health services. One is an editor of the BMJ. One is a professional statistician and epidemiologist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sander_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sander_Greenland) You assert that the modern COVID anti-vax movement is "conspiracy driven". But there are two problems with this argument: 1. It's not really true. Refusal arises because public health officials have repeatedly lied about the vaccines, saying things like they are 95% effective against infection, or that they'll turn people into "dead ends" for the virus. That second one was the rationale for mandates and it was known to be false from the start - the trials never showed any such thing and they had no reason to believe this given that non-sterilizing vaccines are common. As for the first, the governments that publish actual case rates by vaccine status show that they have effectiveness in the minus 300-400% range i.e. vaccinated people get COVID at a much higher rate than unvaccinated people. So that wasn't true either. 2. Even if it was the case that it was all driven by conspiracy thinking, so what? It's already been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that public health leaders engaged in multiple conspiracies throughout COVID, e.g. virologists writing in private emails that they thought the virus looked like it'd been modified in a lab, and then days later signing an open letter saying the opposite. Or public health flipping from "masks are useless" to "masks are essential" overnight without any new science to drive it. Given this history the argument that anyone proposing the existence of a conspiracy is illegitimate is, well, extremely naive. "The risk of course is when the vaccines are defective such as with The Cutter Incident in the 1955. This was probably the root of the modern anti-vax movement" The anti-vax movement existed from the very start. Research the history of the smallpox vaccine. Parents were choosing to go to prison for violating mandate laws rather than let their children be vaccinated because they'd seen that vaccinated children came down with actual smallpox at much higher rates than expected. Just like today, public health refused to countenance the possibility that there were any possible problems in the vaccination process. They never change. It's a psychological issue.

wonderwonder 4y ago
If you read through my post you would see that I was specifically talking about polio. Indeed in another post I say I understand why people decided against the covid vaccine. "You assert that the modern COVID anti-vax movement is "conspiracy driven" Where? You pretty much just made up everything you say I said. I get it you had something you wanted to get off your chest so you dropped it on me. No worries.
- native_samples 4y ago
  Unfortunately that wasn't clear. You talk about vaccines (in general), the modern anti-vax movement (in general) and so on, each time without qualification. If your points were restricted to one type, it'd make sense to prefix the word vaccine with that type. Especially because there really isn't a modern anti-polio vaccine movement is there? Pre-COVID it was really restricted to MMR. Still, there's a secondary question here: how do we know polio vaccines are genuinely so different? COVID vaccines are one of the first mandatory vaccines to be developed and forced on people in the internet era. Thanks to that and the lawsuit that's forcing documents out of the FDA, the world has far more insight into the development and marketing of these vaccines than any previous public health campaign in history. What we see from this evidence is disturbing, and it seems to be a pattern, which raises the question of whether this is really the first time public health people have been misleading people about vaccine effectiveness and safety. If it's not, then it becomes hard to say much with any certainty on the topic, as those sources control all the data.
linuxftw 4y ago
Information is more freely accessible than it has ever been. If the CDC et al are willing to lie in this modern era with facts right in front of people, who knows what shenanigans they were up to in the 1950's, or really any decade other than the last 2. Some guy in a lab coat wrote down he did a clinical trial somewhere in the 3rd world, and the government just takes his word for it. Then when you have a whistle blower like on the Pfizer trials, who claims patients were unblinded and side effects weren't accurately recorded, people just slap the old 'conspiracy' label on it. Before 2021, most people didn't even know VAERS and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program even existed. Now the CDC is telling us the reporting system they manage is inaccurate. Okay, so what have they been doing for the last 40 years? They finally admitted that the vaccines are affecting some women's cycles, but downplayed it by saying 'on average it's about 1 day shorter between cycles.' That doesn't sound like much, but many women have a very short window of time from conception to implantation before their period starts, and that would be more than enough time to render those women unable to carry a baby. It's lunacy.

wonderwonder 4y ago

If you read through my post you would see that I was specifically talking about polio. Indeed in another post I say I understand why people decided against the covid vaccine. "You assert that the modern COVID anti-vax movement is "conspiracy driven" Where? You pretty much just made up everything you say I said. I get it you had something you wanted to get off your chest so you dropped it on me. No worries.

native_samples 4y ago
Unfortunately that wasn't clear. You talk about vaccines (in general), the modern anti-vax movement (in general) and so on, each time without qualification. If your points were restricted to one type, it'd make sense to prefix the word vaccine with that type. Especially because there really isn't a modern anti-polio vaccine movement is there? Pre-COVID it was really restricted to MMR. Still, there's a secondary question here: how do we know polio vaccines are genuinely so different? COVID vaccines are one of the first mandatory vaccines to be developed and forced on people in the internet era. Thanks to that and the lawsuit that's forcing documents out of the FDA, the world has far more insight into the development and marketing of these vaccines than any previous public health campaign in history. What we see from this evidence is disturbing, and it seems to be a pattern, which raises the question of whether this is really the first time public health people have been misleading people about vaccine effectiveness and safety. If it's not, then it becomes hard to say much with any certainty on the topic, as those sources control all the data.

linuxftw 4y ago

Information is more freely accessible than it has ever been. If the CDC et al are willing to lie in this modern era with facts right in front of people, who knows what shenanigans they were up to in the 1950's, or really any decade other than the last 2. Some guy in a lab coat wrote down he did a clinical trial somewhere in the 3rd world, and the government just takes his word for it. Then when you have a whistle blower like on the Pfizer trials, who claims patients were unblinded and side effects weren't accurately recorded, people just slap the old 'conspiracy' label on it. Before 2021, most people didn't even know VAERS and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program even existed. Now the CDC is telling us the reporting system they manage is inaccurate. Okay, so what have they been doing for the last 40 years? They finally admitted that the vaccines are affecting some women's cycles, but downplayed it by saying 'on average it's about 1 day shorter between cycles.' That doesn't sound like much, but many women have a very short window of time from conception to implantation before their period starts, and that would be more than enough time to render those women unable to carry a baby. It's lunacy.