5 ms·

Wouldn’t a reasonable hypothesis try to rule out the vaccine? I’m not anti vaccine, I received the vaccine. But if excess death is creeping and it’s not Covid

Wouldn’t a reasonable hypothesis try to rule out the vaccine? I’m not anti vaccine, I received the vaccine. But if excess death is creeping and it’s not Covid, would t that be one of the first things to rule out? They don’t even indicate that was ruled out, just completely ignored.

lolbutwhatno 4y ago
[dead]
julianlam 4y ago
Why jump to it when simpler explanations exist? Delays in diagnosis or no diagnosis at all is likely a more fitting explanation.
- zbdngkhab 4y ago
  Mass inoculation with a new type of vaccine that behaved very differently than the science hypothesized is also a very simple explanation. I don't really think anyone here has the ability or expertise to judge which is more fitting. For what it's worth, the fact circulatory issues is mentioned in the article should ring alarm bells for COVID vaccines being a potential cause. We just found out recently the prevalence of myocarditis among teenage boys that get the vaccine is extremely high compared to what was expected.
  - tchalla 4y ago
    It’s not a “simple” explanation if you take some time to understand how vaccine works. Just because there’s a side effect form vaccine doesn’t mean that the vaccine isn’t the best option. Your thought process is classic example of zero risk bias.
    - zbdngkhab 4y ago
      If it's not a simple explanation why did vaccine companies need absolving of any liability by govts? So safe they need to avoid liability? So safe many of the vaccines had complication rates far higher than any flu vaccine in history? Look I'm glad we had the vaccines so quickly. Trump pushing them through regulation was extremely good for man kind and we have all benefited. But stop acting like there is no risk.
      - DanBC 4y ago
        > why did vaccine companies need absolving of any liability by govts? We know some people will be harmed by vaccination. Despite that, we need to vaccinate as many people as possible. Because of that, we make it easy for people who've been harmed to claim compensation from a government and industry backed fund, rather than force those harmed people to go through the courts against multi-billion dollar companies with very expensive lawyers.
        realreality 4y ago
        Congress actually made it more difficult to receive compensation for a COVID vaccine injury. Despite thousands of reports of injuries, including death, I don’t think anybody has been compensated. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10584 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10584
    - itsthemmrvax 4y ago
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    > that behaved very differently than the science hypothesized Can you give more details about that part? IIRC it worked as intended.
    - uwagar 4y ago
      if they did countries wouldnt ban vaccines being used for < 18 or < 40 etc.
- youngtaff 4y ago
  Plus the pandemic has probably burnt out healthcare staff
- uwagar 4y ago
  [flagged]
throwaway499195 4y ago
Here's my thoughts as someone who's trying to get a paper published that shows that _potentially_ the vaccine is implicated in injuries and we'd like to do more research. We can't say that! It's getting thrown back at us. We're not saying that it's causal, we're not even trying to propose mechanisms. All we're saying is that using government reported data, we see a signal that suggests that certain adverse events are time and location correlated with vaccine roll outs. Could there be other explanations, sure! Our successful tack has been to take all mention of the vaccine out of it and just report our organized data (organizing government data is always fun) and just publish a paper of data without even suggesting hypotheses to follow up on (doesn't feel like real science to us). Once that paper gets in the literature, then we can write a second paper referencing that, and go on from there. It's all a political game...that's delaying good science that can save people's lives! So my guess with this paper is that they have data, they've thought of the vaccine as an issue. But they have to go with a more politically correct reason to get the data out in the open and then they can follow up later once their data is in the literature. Edit: why the down votes! I'm not saying that it IS the vaccine, I'm saying that it might be and we should study it. But this does show that once you bring up that idea, the censors come out of the woodwork. So frustrating! When politics stop the questions you can ask, we have serious problems.
- tchalla 4y ago
  I understand your issue but to say your research saves lives is an overstatement. Your implying that the lack of vaccination will save more lives than Covid infection. The fact that you aren’t trying to propose mechanisms is exactly the issue. You’re stoking more public fear by your “simple observation”. So either provide an alternative, or your potential implication is not important enough to merit a publication at this stage.
  - throwaway499195 4y ago
    On our first draft, we tried to tease out some of your concerns about relative risk of the vaccine to covid itself, and even had some _potential_ mechanisms to study. But peer review didn't like that. So we've been cutting and rearranging the paper and finally have a draft that looks like it will go through. We're not trying to stoke fear, we're trying to see what's really happening.

lolbutwhatno 4y ago

[dead]

julianlam 4y ago

Why jump to it when simpler explanations exist? Delays in diagnosis or no diagnosis at all is likely a more fitting explanation.

zbdngkhab 4y ago
Mass inoculation with a new type of vaccine that behaved very differently than the science hypothesized is also a very simple explanation. I don't really think anyone here has the ability or expertise to judge which is more fitting. For what it's worth, the fact circulatory issues is mentioned in the article should ring alarm bells for COVID vaccines being a potential cause. We just found out recently the prevalence of myocarditis among teenage boys that get the vaccine is extremely high compared to what was expected.
- tchalla 4y ago
  It’s not a “simple” explanation if you take some time to understand how vaccine works. Just because there’s a side effect form vaccine doesn’t mean that the vaccine isn’t the best option. Your thought process is classic example of zero risk bias.
  - zbdngkhab 4y ago
    If it's not a simple explanation why did vaccine companies need absolving of any liability by govts? So safe they need to avoid liability? So safe many of the vaccines had complication rates far higher than any flu vaccine in history? Look I'm glad we had the vaccines so quickly. Trump pushing them through regulation was extremely good for man kind and we have all benefited. But stop acting like there is no risk.
    - DanBC 4y ago
      > why did vaccine companies need absolving of any liability by govts? We know some people will be harmed by vaccination. Despite that, we need to vaccinate as many people as possible. Because of that, we make it easy for people who've been harmed to claim compensation from a government and industry backed fund, rather than force those harmed people to go through the courts against multi-billion dollar companies with very expensive lawyers.
      - realreality 4y ago
        Congress actually made it more difficult to receive compensation for a COVID vaccine injury. Despite thousands of reports of injuries, including death, I don’t think anybody has been compensated. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10584 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10584
  - itsthemmrvax 4y ago
- gus_massa 4y ago
  > that behaved very differently than the science hypothesized Can you give more details about that part? IIRC it worked as intended.
  - uwagar 4y ago
    if they did countries wouldnt ban vaccines being used for < 18 or < 40 etc.
youngtaff 4y ago
Plus the pandemic has probably burnt out healthcare staff
uwagar 4y ago
[flagged]

throwaway499195 4y ago

Here's my thoughts as someone who's trying to get a paper published that shows that _potentially_ the vaccine is implicated in injuries and we'd like to do more research. We can't say that! It's getting thrown back at us. We're not saying that it's causal, we're not even trying to propose mechanisms. All we're saying is that using government reported data, we see a signal that suggests that certain adverse events are time and location correlated with vaccine roll outs. Could there be other explanations, sure! Our successful tack has been to take all mention of the vaccine out of it and just report our organized data (organizing government data is always fun) and just publish a paper of data without even suggesting hypotheses to follow up on (doesn't feel like real science to us). Once that paper gets in the literature, then we can write a second paper referencing that, and go on from there. It's all a political game...that's delaying good science that can save people's lives! So my guess with this paper is that they have data, they've thought of the vaccine as an issue. But they have to go with a more politically correct reason to get the data out in the open and then they can follow up later once their data is in the literature. Edit: why the down votes! I'm not saying that it IS the vaccine, I'm saying that it might be and we should study it. But this does show that once you bring up that idea, the censors come out of the woodwork. So frustrating! When politics stop the questions you can ask, we have serious problems.

tchalla 4y ago
I understand your issue but to say your research saves lives is an overstatement. Your implying that the lack of vaccination will save more lives than Covid infection. The fact that you aren’t trying to propose mechanisms is exactly the issue. You’re stoking more public fear by your “simple observation”. So either provide an alternative, or your potential implication is not important enough to merit a publication at this stage.
- throwaway499195 4y ago
  On our first draft, we tried to tease out some of your concerns about relative risk of the vaccine to covid itself, and even had some _potential_ mechanisms to study. But peer review didn't like that. So we've been cutting and rearranging the paper and finally have a draft that looks like it will go through. We're not trying to stoke fear, we're trying to see what's really happening.