3 ms·

Exactly, it's not 'desperate to link them to vaccines,' but that it is 'desperate to find any reason at all before even looking at vaccines.' Considering the d

Exactly, it's not 'desperate to link them to vaccines,' but that it is 'desperate to find any reason at all before even looking at vaccines.' Considering the distrust of both Pharma and government (both sides) that preceded the vaccines and the 'heart attack' issue, it is quite astonishing the level of support seen for dismissal of them possibly causing anything. And especially as they're a novel vaccine. I don't mean to accept it's the cause here, I mean even the thought of genuinely investigating it.

newsclues 4y ago
It seems as though if people were desperate to prove the vaccines were safe and effective, there would be more open and exhaustive research into any and all potential harms from the vaccines. If something is safe and I am confident in the safety, I will do any and all testing to prove so and request others do the same.
- absentmoon 4y ago
  "any and all testing?". Are you aware of the flat earth movement? For some of their members, no amount of evidence is enough. The goal posts always move. I suspect the same applies here.
  - atdixon 4y ago
    Bad analogy. The flat earth theory isn’t novel.
roundandround 4y ago
It seems to me like a lot of people want to start with a positive intervention being to blame. I can sort of see the logic with vaccines for diseases not everyone would catch without the intervention but in general there's a disregard for what mistakes you are making when your choice is a bad one instead of a vaccine. Obviously the timing is wrong here for a vaccine to cause things before roll out. Novel virus causing a subject heart damage is a known thing. Other interventions were bad for heart health. The states with less vaccination had more exposure to vaccine alternatives and more heart events. The argument then becomes that pharma suspicious states just always have worse heart health. So the suspicion is overblown or heart health doesn't really matter? We just want vaccines to be better than moms cooking because we like mom more than big pharma?

newsclues 4y ago

It seems as though if people were desperate to prove the vaccines were safe and effective, there would be more open and exhaustive research into any and all potential harms from the vaccines. If something is safe and I am confident in the safety, I will do any and all testing to prove so and request others do the same.

absentmoon 4y ago
"any and all testing?". Are you aware of the flat earth movement? For some of their members, no amount of evidence is enough. The goal posts always move. I suspect the same applies here.
- atdixon 4y ago
  Bad analogy. The flat earth theory isn’t novel.

roundandround 4y ago

It seems to me like a lot of people want to start with a positive intervention being to blame. I can sort of see the logic with vaccines for diseases not everyone would catch without the intervention but in general there's a disregard for what mistakes you are making when your choice is a bad one instead of a vaccine. Obviously the timing is wrong here for a vaccine to cause things before roll out. Novel virus causing a subject heart damage is a known thing. Other interventions were bad for heart health. The states with less vaccination had more exposure to vaccine alternatives and more heart events. The argument then becomes that pharma suspicious states just always have worse heart health. So the suspicion is overblown or heart health doesn't really matter? We just want vaccines to be better than moms cooking because we like mom more than big pharma?