5 ms·

The 'vaccine deniers' have been calling the 'studies' and 'trials' trash for a long time. The evidence comes out that they're trash, and somehow the 'vaccine d

The 'vaccine deniers' have been calling the 'studies' and 'trials' trash for a long time. The evidence comes out that they're trash, and somehow the 'vaccine deniers' are still wrong? They removed liability from manufacturers, and suddenly the CDC schedule exploded with new products. I mean, chicken pox has a vaccine now?

nocoolnametom 3y ago
That which was asserted without evidence could correctly be dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax crowd was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, rumor, and often badly misread prepublication research and stats. Their methodology was inherently flawed. Even if the conclusions they came to have been "validated" their position was still built upon this same flimsy scaffolding. It's not like the "do your own research" blogs and videos somehow gathered the same evidence used by this paper. This also does not indicate that other positions held by the same crowd, which are similarly based upon "anecdata" and rumor, are somehow made more evident by this paper in Nature.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  I agree, the assertion that 'vaccines' are safe can be dismissed without evidence. There's no evidence concluding they're actually safe. In fact, we have given the manufacturers immunity because they're 'unavoidably unsafe.' Just look at how the COVID trials were conducted. They didn't even test each patient. Only some patients that presented symptoms, and then not even all of those patients. How long did they follow the health outcomes for approved vaccines in the test groups? 3 months at most, and many trials, not even that long. So if someone suffers a neurological condition, well, we just won't know about it.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >That which was asserted without evidence could correctly be dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax crowd was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, rumor, and often badly misread prepublication research and stats. The was an abundance of evidence that the covid vaccines had a reasonable likelihood of being unsafe. Every single previous attempt at a coronavirus vaccine had failed, sometimes catastrophically (killing all the test animals), that's why there wasn't an existing coronavirus vaccine on the market. Every single previous attempt to bring a mRNA treatment to the mass-market had failed due to safety issues. Even in the Pfizer vaccine trial there were overall more deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group, due to cardiac deaths (although it wasn't a statistically significant enough amount to draw a conclusion, it does demonstrate that the trial had no power to identify if the vaccine was net-harmful, as it didn't have enough participants to make a meaningful conclusion about the effect of the vaccine on excess deaths).
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    >Every single previous attempt to bring a mRNA treatment to the mass-market had failed due to safety issues. Not a single prototype mRNA-based drug passed phase3 trials at any point - right up until the multiple ones within a month of each other were deployed globally. The massive and remarkable coincidence of that, is truly a special moment in history.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    Don't forget, the Pfizer phase 3 trial was ended early because they claimed that it was 90% effective. So, any mid/longer term issues were missed. The pregnancy trials were outright abandoned. They didn't even conduct clinical trials for the bivalent boosters. Zero efficacy in children, yet still strongly recommended by the media and the state.
Dig1t 3y ago
I agree that the economic incentives changed, and it does seem somewhat suspicious. I have a lot of work to do ahead of me, researching all of these vaccines for my kids. Makes my head hurt just thinking about it.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  If you look at the individualized risk for childhood vaccines and flu vaccines, there's effectively zero benefit if you live in a 1st world country, and possibly a great risk of neurological or immunological side effects.

nocoolnametom 3y ago

That which was asserted without evidence could correctly be dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax crowd was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, rumor, and often badly misread prepublication research and stats. Their methodology was inherently flawed. Even if the conclusions they came to have been "validated" their position was still built upon this same flimsy scaffolding. It's not like the "do your own research" blogs and videos somehow gathered the same evidence used by this paper. This also does not indicate that other positions held by the same crowd, which are similarly based upon "anecdata" and rumor, are somehow made more evident by this paper in Nature.

linuxftw 3y ago
I agree, the assertion that 'vaccines' are safe can be dismissed without evidence. There's no evidence concluding they're actually safe. In fact, we have given the manufacturers immunity because they're 'unavoidably unsafe.' Just look at how the COVID trials were conducted. They didn't even test each patient. Only some patients that presented symptoms, and then not even all of those patients. How long did they follow the health outcomes for approved vaccines in the test groups? 3 months at most, and many trials, not even that long. So if someone suffers a neurological condition, well, we just won't know about it.
logicchains 3y ago
>That which was asserted without evidence could correctly be dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax crowd was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, rumor, and often badly misread prepublication research and stats. The was an abundance of evidence that the covid vaccines had a reasonable likelihood of being unsafe. Every single previous attempt at a coronavirus vaccine had failed, sometimes catastrophically (killing all the test animals), that's why there wasn't an existing coronavirus vaccine on the market. Every single previous attempt to bring a mRNA treatment to the mass-market had failed due to safety issues. Even in the Pfizer vaccine trial there were overall more deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group, due to cardiac deaths (although it wasn't a statistically significant enough amount to draw a conclusion, it does demonstrate that the trial had no power to identify if the vaccine was net-harmful, as it didn't have enough participants to make a meaningful conclusion about the effect of the vaccine on excess deaths).
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  >Every single previous attempt to bring a mRNA treatment to the mass-market had failed due to safety issues. Not a single prototype mRNA-based drug passed phase3 trials at any point - right up until the multiple ones within a month of each other were deployed globally. The massive and remarkable coincidence of that, is truly a special moment in history.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  Don't forget, the Pfizer phase 3 trial was ended early because they claimed that it was 90% effective. So, any mid/longer term issues were missed. The pregnancy trials were outright abandoned. They didn't even conduct clinical trials for the bivalent boosters. Zero efficacy in children, yet still strongly recommended by the media and the state.

Dig1t 3y ago

I agree that the economic incentives changed, and it does seem somewhat suspicious. I have a lot of work to do ahead of me, researching all of these vaccines for my kids. Makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

linuxftw 3y ago
If you look at the individualized risk for childhood vaccines and flu vaccines, there's effectively zero benefit if you live in a 1st world country, and possibly a great risk of neurological or immunological side effects.