4 ms·

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

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.
  - ehvatum 4y ago
    > We're not trying to stoke fear, we're trying to see what's really happening. Thanks for your hard work. Politics have entirely abducted reason on this topic. We all so clearly fear that the same certain thing may be true, so we are left doing nothing that matters.
- naasking 4y ago
  > 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. Irresponsible science journalism is stoking public fear, not actual researchers trying to do important work. Stop blocking the important work and go chastise the people really causing the problems.
tokinonagare 4y ago
Thanks for trying to do good science. It's a shame that asking questions (the basis of our job) has become forbidden on some topics. > 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. > [article] So what is going on? Experts believe decisions taken by the Government in the earliest stages of the pandemic may now be coming back to bite. If one reads between the lines, what is the largest "decision taken by the government" that could impact directly health? Vaccines. Of course, since media, big corporations and governments have close ties the truth will take time to get out, if it ever do.

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.
- ehvatum 4y ago
  > We're not trying to stoke fear, we're trying to see what's really happening. Thanks for your hard work. Politics have entirely abducted reason on this topic. We all so clearly fear that the same certain thing may be true, so we are left doing nothing that matters.
naasking 4y ago
> 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. Irresponsible science journalism is stoking public fear, not actual researchers trying to do important work. Stop blocking the important work and go chastise the people really causing the problems.

tokinonagare 4y ago

Thanks for trying to do good science. It's a shame that asking questions (the basis of our job) has become forbidden on some topics. > 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. > [article] So what is going on? Experts believe decisions taken by the Government in the earliest stages of the pandemic may now be coming back to bite. If one reads between the lines, what is the largest "decision taken by the government" that could impact directly health? Vaccines. Of course, since media, big corporations and governments have close ties the truth will take time to get out, if it ever do.