4 ms·

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? I don't believe that anyone has completely ruled out vaccines.

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? I don't believe that anyone has completely ruled out vaccines. I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". It's attractive to conspiracy minded people to have secret suppressed information that "they" don't want you know about, but it just isn't real. Wild speculation without evidence intended to spread fear and vaccine hesitancy is what gets suppressed, and for good reason. Meanwhile researchers are carefully keeping an eye on emerging evidence even when it's only preliminary (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051) and the mass media, even the left leaning media, has zero problems reporting on what the research we have shows (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-shot-may-cause-double-to-triple-as-many-heart-problems-as-pfizer-new-study-finds/ar-AA13VZw4 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-shot-may-ca...). What we know is that covid infection itself increases the risk of heart problems and blood clots in everyone and that not taking the vaccine increases the odds of death, severe illness, and overwhelmed hospitals, along with disruptions in society and the economy. Right now, all the evidence we have says getting a covid vaccine is the smart choice, but nobody actually thinks that there's zero chance of unexpected side effects from these vaccines and nobody is ignoring that possibility or forbidding people from "asking questions". Spreading lies and FUD on the other hand isn't and shouldn't be well received.

briantakita 4y ago
[flagged]
nyrulez 4y ago
I think my biggest issue with the whole thing is lack of data collection at the national level about adults who face cardiovascular issues and their vaccination/covid status. If I was rolling out a new vaccine at the national level, this is the first thing I could collect to be able to make conclusions either way. And it's not a complicated thing to collect too. Blood clots have gone up significantly for younger people in last two years. Is that due to covid or due to vaccination? We can't answer this simple enough question because we refuse to collect data. This is directly from my hematologist btw who is an expert in blood clots at a famous hospital. That itself suggests either bias or complacency to me. Would you be against data collection? It's not implying anything.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > I think my biggest issue with the whole thing is lack of data collection at the national level about adults who face cardiovascular issues and their vaccination/covid status. What is your evidence that there is zero data being collected on this? What is your evidence that we refuse to collect this data? I can prove that the issue is being considered along with every other side effect experienced by people taking these vaccines. Research on the subject already exists, how is that possible if no one is collecting data? VAERS continues to collect data on the side effects experienced by people who have taken the vaccine, which is then being evaluated by researchers. What evidence you do you have that this isn't happening?
  - nyrulez 4y ago
    1. My doctor(s) (in USA) told me so. They were not aware of any data collection around this and my condition. I did explicitly ask them. 2. Where is this data? If it's being collected, we should be able to see it or clear conclusions from it? It's a very simple data set too. I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media. In research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ In media: https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vaccine-due-to-blood-clot-risk/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vac... I'll be generous and suggest that your doctor misunderstood your question. VAERS is a nationwide data collection program being used to collect evidence for the adverse effects of these vaccines, including heart problems and blood clots. Your doctor is certainly aware of this program and if they are dealing with covid patients they are most likely involved in collecting and sharing their own observations and data as well. > blood clots became a concern starting in April 2021, when the government put a pause on the J&J shot after six women who received it developed rare blood clots—and one died. All of these cases were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a national early reporting warning system to detect safety problems with U.S.-licensed vaccines. (https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-clots https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-...) Data on the problems the vaccines might be causing is continuously being collected and evaluated. Researchers all over the globe are exchanging data on every facet of this novel virus and the new vaccines we've developed. The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored and research is not forbidden. If people are telling you otherwise, you might want to ask them to clarity their position or you may want to reevaluate where you've been getting your information.
annyeonghada 4y ago
[flagged]
- autoexec 4y ago
  It's just my opinion, so dismissing it fair enough, but people should take care not to ignore facts because an unrelated opinion is stated in way that makes them uncomfortable. That seems like a recipe for willful ignorance. It's sensible to argue against or ignore an opinion you disagree with. It's not sensible to dismiss facts presented because the person presenting them holds an opinion you disagree with, or even to ignore them because of indications of bias. Suspected bias is a reason for caution, not for the outright rejection or avoidance of facts. If someone can't argue against the evidence presented, I suppose it may make them feel more comfortable to simply dismiss it by using any excuse they can find, but I encourage people to embrace any cognitive dissonance they might be feeling. That feeling of discomfort is often our brain trying tell us that something is wrong with our worldview or at the very least that our currently held position is worth reexamining.
ekianjo 4y ago
> I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". I Funny that Youtube systematically removes any video that suggests that, even when backed by actual publications. When the action is widely visible in front of you, is that still a conspiracy or are you just blind?
- autoexec 4y ago
  > Funny that Youtube systematically removes any video that suggests that, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB80U-FSieI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB80U-FSieI Why would you even make a claim that like? This took literally seconds to disprove. That video has been up for over a year! Youtube does not "remove any video" that talks about possible health risks being caused by vaccines. It probably does remove videos that are spreading lies and FUD though, even if those videos also happen to mention things that are also backed by "actual publications" Not that what youtube removes is any indication of some big conspiracy anyway. Youtube removes a lot of things it shouldn't. Frankly, google isn't very good at moderation on their platform and there is plenty of evidence for that.
- Avshalom 4y ago
  >> backed by actual publications. Where are these actual publications coming from if it's forbidden to consider or talk about?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
headsoup 4y ago
What world have you been living in to miss all the documented reality of the government and co censoring, deplatforming and manipulating social/traditional media to reduce that. You're painting a very rosy picture of reality here. Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data?
- autoexec 4y ago
  > Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data? It'd be impossible to make that claim. I couldn't possibly be aware of all of the people who have been censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed for talking about the risks of vaccinations, but I do suspect that the vast majority of them likely were (intentionally or otherwise) spreading FUD and disinformation, making claims not supposed by evidence, and misrepresenting facts. Why would I think that? Here's my reasoning: Is it possible that in some situations social media platforms have been too heavy handed? I'm sure of it. Does the likely existence of inappropriate actions taken by social media companies mean that the "government and co" (whatever that's supposed to be) is involved in a conspiracy to silence everyone who dares to mention that there are or could be risks? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that researchers aren't allowed to look into the risks of the vaccines and that no data about those risks has been being collected and studied? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that mass media refuses to inform the public about any possible risks? No, it doesn't. Are there many many examples of people talking about the health risks of the vaccines on social media, in mass media, and in the literature without being censored and is that information easily found and accessible? Yes, there are and yes it is. That tells me that if there is some global conspiracy to silence such talk, that it isn't doing a very good job. When countless people are talking about those risks, researching those risks, collecting data on those risks, and reporting those risks to the public, and they've been doing it in plain sight for years without being censored, it's then pretty unlikely that there's some hidden conspiracy to make sure those risks are never expressed or explored. If talking about the risks of the vaccines doesn't get you censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed (as evidenced by all the people who do exactly that and aren't censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed) then there must be a different reason that some people who have been making claims about the risks of vaccines are censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed.
throw0101c 4y ago
> Right now, all the evidence we have says getting a covid vaccine is the smart choice, but nobody actually thinks that there's zero chance of unexpected side effects from these vaccines […] Or any vaccine in general. The question is always do the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. There are folks who are allergic to the ingredients of some vaccines, so one of the side effects for them in particular is death. So they absolutely should not / cannot take one. But that doesn't necessarily me you shouldn't.
victor106 4y ago
This is an excellent reply

briantakita 4y ago

[flagged]

nyrulez 4y ago

I think my biggest issue with the whole thing is lack of data collection at the national level about adults who face cardiovascular issues and their vaccination/covid status. If I was rolling out a new vaccine at the national level, this is the first thing I could collect to be able to make conclusions either way. And it's not a complicated thing to collect too. Blood clots have gone up significantly for younger people in last two years. Is that due to covid or due to vaccination? We can't answer this simple enough question because we refuse to collect data. This is directly from my hematologist btw who is an expert in blood clots at a famous hospital. That itself suggests either bias or complacency to me. Would you be against data collection? It's not implying anything.

autoexec 4y ago
> I think my biggest issue with the whole thing is lack of data collection at the national level about adults who face cardiovascular issues and their vaccination/covid status. What is your evidence that there is zero data being collected on this? What is your evidence that we refuse to collect this data? I can prove that the issue is being considered along with every other side effect experienced by people taking these vaccines. Research on the subject already exists, how is that possible if no one is collecting data? VAERS continues to collect data on the side effects experienced by people who have taken the vaccine, which is then being evaluated by researchers. What evidence you do you have that this isn't happening?
- nyrulez 4y ago
  1. My doctor(s) (in USA) told me so. They were not aware of any data collection around this and my condition. I did explicitly ask them. 2. Where is this data? If it's being collected, we should be able to see it or clear conclusions from it? It's a very simple data set too. I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media. In research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ In media: https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vaccine-due-to-blood-clot-risk/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vac... I'll be generous and suggest that your doctor misunderstood your question. VAERS is a nationwide data collection program being used to collect evidence for the adverse effects of these vaccines, including heart problems and blood clots. Your doctor is certainly aware of this program and if they are dealing with covid patients they are most likely involved in collecting and sharing their own observations and data as well. > blood clots became a concern starting in April 2021, when the government put a pause on the J&J shot after six women who received it developed rare blood clots—and one died. All of these cases were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a national early reporting warning system to detect safety problems with U.S.-licensed vaccines. (https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-clots https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-...) Data on the problems the vaccines might be causing is continuously being collected and evaluated. Researchers all over the globe are exchanging data on every facet of this novel virus and the new vaccines we've developed. The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored and research is not forbidden. If people are telling you otherwise, you might want to ask them to clarity their position or you may want to reevaluate where you've been getting your information.

annyeonghada 4y ago

[flagged]

autoexec 4y ago
It's just my opinion, so dismissing it fair enough, but people should take care not to ignore facts because an unrelated opinion is stated in way that makes them uncomfortable. That seems like a recipe for willful ignorance. It's sensible to argue against or ignore an opinion you disagree with. It's not sensible to dismiss facts presented because the person presenting them holds an opinion you disagree with, or even to ignore them because of indications of bias. Suspected bias is a reason for caution, not for the outright rejection or avoidance of facts. If someone can't argue against the evidence presented, I suppose it may make them feel more comfortable to simply dismiss it by using any excuse they can find, but I encourage people to embrace any cognitive dissonance they might be feeling. That feeling of discomfort is often our brain trying tell us that something is wrong with our worldview or at the very least that our currently held position is worth reexamining.

ekianjo 4y ago

> I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". I Funny that Youtube systematically removes any video that suggests that, even when backed by actual publications. When the action is widely visible in front of you, is that still a conspiracy or are you just blind?

autoexec 4y ago
> Funny that Youtube systematically removes any video that suggests that, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB80U-FSieI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB80U-FSieI Why would you even make a claim that like? This took literally seconds to disprove. That video has been up for over a year! Youtube does not "remove any video" that talks about possible health risks being caused by vaccines. It probably does remove videos that are spreading lies and FUD though, even if those videos also happen to mention things that are also backed by "actual publications" Not that what youtube removes is any indication of some big conspiracy anyway. Youtube removes a lot of things it shouldn't. Frankly, google isn't very good at moderation on their platform and there is plenty of evidence for that.
Avshalom 4y ago
>> backed by actual publications. Where are these actual publications coming from if it's forbidden to consider or talk about?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

headsoup 4y ago

What world have you been living in to miss all the documented reality of the government and co censoring, deplatforming and manipulating social/traditional media to reduce that. You're painting a very rosy picture of reality here. Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data?

autoexec 4y ago
> Unless you believe that all those censored, shadow-banned and deplatformed people are just the conspiracy nuts with lies and fake data? It'd be impossible to make that claim. I couldn't possibly be aware of all of the people who have been censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed for talking about the risks of vaccinations, but I do suspect that the vast majority of them likely were (intentionally or otherwise) spreading FUD and disinformation, making claims not supposed by evidence, and misrepresenting facts. Why would I think that? Here's my reasoning: Is it possible that in some situations social media platforms have been too heavy handed? I'm sure of it. Does the likely existence of inappropriate actions taken by social media companies mean that the "government and co" (whatever that's supposed to be) is involved in a conspiracy to silence everyone who dares to mention that there are or could be risks? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that researchers aren't allowed to look into the risks of the vaccines and that no data about those risks has been being collected and studied? No, it doesn't. Does it mean that mass media refuses to inform the public about any possible risks? No, it doesn't. Are there many many examples of people talking about the health risks of the vaccines on social media, in mass media, and in the literature without being censored and is that information easily found and accessible? Yes, there are and yes it is. That tells me that if there is some global conspiracy to silence such talk, that it isn't doing a very good job. When countless people are talking about those risks, researching those risks, collecting data on those risks, and reporting those risks to the public, and they've been doing it in plain sight for years without being censored, it's then pretty unlikely that there's some hidden conspiracy to make sure those risks are never expressed or explored. If talking about the risks of the vaccines doesn't get you censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed (as evidenced by all the people who do exactly that and aren't censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed) then there must be a different reason that some people who have been making claims about the risks of vaccines are censored/shadow-banned/deplatformed.

throw0101c 4y ago

> Right now, all the evidence we have says getting a covid vaccine is the smart choice, but nobody actually thinks that there's zero chance of unexpected side effects from these vaccines […] Or any vaccine in general. The question is always do the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. There are folks who are allergic to the ingredients of some vaccines, so one of the side effects for them in particular is death. So they absolutely should not / cannot take one. But that doesn't necessarily me you shouldn't.

victor106 4y ago

This is an excellent reply