4 ms·

No, there's actually plenty of data. Huge numbers of women have reported disrupted periods immediately after taking the vaccines. They were all ignored, of cour

No, there's actually plenty of data. Huge numbers of women have reported disrupted periods immediately after taking the vaccines. They were all ignored, of course because of dumb "correlation is not causation" arguments like yours. Correlation does not imply causation but causation always implies correlation, so when something fundamentally changes in a biological process as basic as reproduction and the only change of similar scale that matches temporally is an experimental new medical technology, you have to be willfully blind to not want an immediate, thorough and unconflicted investigation into that, because if it isn't the vaccines then that is one hell of a coincidence. We aren't going to get such an investigation of course, because the public health community doesn't want to admit the possibility that their policies have negative side effects. So correlations will be the best we'll get.

skyde 4y ago
“ public health community doesn't want to admit the possibility that their policies have negative side effects” Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous. I think you just anthropomorphism big organizations and give them feeling and motivation. This is something conspirationnist like to do because it give the impression that a big group of people aware of the “secret” are knowingly against them
- sazz 4y ago
  > Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous. Absolutely wrong. If a medical student publishes such a paper, the following will happen: 1. Lancet & co. will reject publication. Peer review will be rejected because no one can be found to mess with the pharma industry. 2. student decides to upload it to an open access server. A link is posted to various interest groups. 3. FB, YT and Google will add a warning to each posting with this link that it's contradicts current CDC findings. 4. a fact checker will quickly write an article pointing out that experienced medical professionals do not see any correlation and the student should rather continue studying 5. the university will distance itself from the paper 6. Anthony Fauci & Christian Drosten will publish a joint statement calling the data insufficient and the analysis flawed. Then they will point out something about correlation and causality and simply deny a connection between birth rate and vaccinations 7. the medical student's career is over before it has even begun P.S.: this has happened already several times. But fair enough - not everytime Fauci & Drosten had to intervene to keep people silenced.
  - skyde 4y ago
    so basically, your theory is that "Lancet & co" is magically under the control of the illuminati and that all science is broken :)
    - origin_path 4y ago
      There's no Illuminati, just incentives. Why would scientists and people who depend on science being respected publish papers showing that science created problems instead of solved them? Every incentive they have is the opposite.
      - skyde 4y ago
        The incentive for researcher working for an university is simply to publish as many paper as possible and get as many citations as possible on those papers. They don’t care if “science“ solve a problem or not they get paid either way.
        origin_path 4y ago
        And guess what, if you publish papers showing that your colleagues and funding sources have no clue and may actually be hurting people, you won't get paid in future.
    - sazz 4y ago
      Straw man argument. Of course, you can deny that the phama industry in particular has a massive influence on publications like the Lancet. After all, such publications are essential for the approval of a drug. And with multi-billion dollar projects, managers will naturally refuse to have any influence on these publications. After all, it's all about science, and the pharmaceutical industry works exclusively for the benefit of mankind. That corresponding agencies exist, which flood the community with secondary papers to make a publication appear "credible" is of course just a nasty fairy tale. The fact that scientists defame each other as conspiracy theorists - as happened with the lab-leak theory - is of course also only in the best interests of science. But of course you are right - in science everyone works completely selflessly and honorably hand in hand for the exclusive good of mankind.
- origin_path 4y ago
  This is a really common but really naive take. People who have actually tried to publish papers that make vaccines look bad, don't get famous or praised. Their work is sunk immediately because it never gets published at all. This has led to the strange phenomenon in which all vaccine papers praise vaccines and say everyone should take them in the abstract, even if the data the paper reports shows clearly that there is a big problem. You just can't get published without a statement of ideological loyalty at the start.
  - awill88 4y ago
    Vaccines are a modern miracle of science. They save lives effectively. Yes, we have a system that is so privatized and powerful and feeding off public spending getting ridiculously rich and the formalization of scientific literature sounds like a huge PITA and a privileged one at that—-it’s fucked up. But, vaccines work when you need them to, wouldn’t you say? Presuming you had a choice, it’s a reliable technology and we’re on a technology forum.. so, come on, no boogeymen talk here, please.

skyde 4y ago

“ public health community doesn't want to admit the possibility that their policies have negative side effects” Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous. I think you just anthropomorphism big organizations and give them feeling and motivation. This is something conspirationnist like to do because it give the impression that a big group of people aware of the “secret” are knowingly against them

sazz 4y ago
> Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous. Absolutely wrong. If a medical student publishes such a paper, the following will happen: 1. Lancet & co. will reject publication. Peer review will be rejected because no one can be found to mess with the pharma industry. 2. student decides to upload it to an open access server. A link is posted to various interest groups. 3. FB, YT and Google will add a warning to each posting with this link that it's contradicts current CDC findings. 4. a fact checker will quickly write an article pointing out that experienced medical professionals do not see any correlation and the student should rather continue studying 5. the university will distance itself from the paper 6. Anthony Fauci & Christian Drosten will publish a joint statement calling the data insufficient and the analysis flawed. Then they will point out something about correlation and causality and simply deny a connection between birth rate and vaccinations 7. the medical student's career is over before it has even begun P.S.: this has happened already several times. But fair enough - not everytime Fauci & Drosten had to intervene to keep people silenced.
- skyde 4y ago
  so basically, your theory is that "Lancet & co" is magically under the control of the illuminati and that all science is broken :)
  - origin_path 4y ago
    There's no Illuminati, just incentives. Why would scientists and people who depend on science being respected publish papers showing that science created problems instead of solved them? Every incentive they have is the opposite.
    - skyde 4y ago
      The incentive for researcher working for an university is simply to publish as many paper as possible and get as many citations as possible on those papers. They don’t care if “science“ solve a problem or not they get paid either way.
      - origin_path 4y ago
        And guess what, if you publish papers showing that your colleagues and funding sources have no clue and may actually be hurting people, you won't get paid in future.
  - sazz 4y ago
    Straw man argument. Of course, you can deny that the phama industry in particular has a massive influence on publications like the Lancet. After all, such publications are essential for the approval of a drug. And with multi-billion dollar projects, managers will naturally refuse to have any influence on these publications. After all, it's all about science, and the pharmaceutical industry works exclusively for the benefit of mankind. That corresponding agencies exist, which flood the community with secondary papers to make a publication appear "credible" is of course just a nasty fairy tale. The fact that scientists defame each other as conspiracy theorists - as happened with the lab-leak theory - is of course also only in the best interests of science. But of course you are right - in science everyone works completely selflessly and honorably hand in hand for the exclusive good of mankind.
origin_path 4y ago
This is a really common but really naive take. People who have actually tried to publish papers that make vaccines look bad, don't get famous or praised. Their work is sunk immediately because it never gets published at all. This has led to the strange phenomenon in which all vaccine papers praise vaccines and say everyone should take them in the abstract, even if the data the paper reports shows clearly that there is a big problem. You just can't get published without a statement of ideological loyalty at the start.
- awill88 4y ago
  Vaccines are a modern miracle of science. They save lives effectively. Yes, we have a system that is so privatized and powerful and feeding off public spending getting ridiculously rich and the formalization of scientific literature sounds like a huge PITA and a privileged one at that—-it’s fucked up. But, vaccines work when you need them to, wouldn’t you say? Presuming you had a choice, it’s a reliable technology and we’re on a technology forum.. so, come on, no boogeymen talk here, please.