"Do the research!"

The problem is the "noise" (or muddying the waters) to the actual research/truth. There are lot's of paid shills, even on here, that will post "false truth" nonsense against the "falsely so called truth" narrative. This is just standard "propaganda", it is not a new technique.

Please see the "prepackaged news" where they package up the news for all the newspapers/tv/media: Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News (Published 2005)

Again, prepackaged news is also not a new thing, it has been here for the last couple of thousand years. It's as old as the trojan horse but people get fooled each time.

The mRNA vaccine is a new type of vaccine and I believe it is altering DNA. It doesn't even contain a live virus (because the virus has never been isolated regardless of the amount of tabloid magazine "science journalist" articles) and it has a 99.7% survival rate (CDC stat).

ThatRobGuy said:

Yet, are some of the first to buy into quackery like homeopathy, chiropractic, essential oils, GMOs are evil, etc... without question. (even though those things are easily debunk-able with a 5-minute search on the premise and how each of those ideas were founded)

If it were merely a matter of pure skepticism, I would expect more consistency on the subject, so it's clearly not that.

Click to expand...

There are no doubt many elements to it, but I don't think it's proper skepticism. This part I quoted gets into a lot of things that people would characterize as pure, natural, organic. Certainly a vaccine is a foreign substance -- it's chemicals and some viral particles. Any "wellness" fad tied to body purity/cleanliness is bound to have some resistance to vaccines, especially given the chemical preservatives and adjuvacants (sp?). The whole MMR/"mercury"/autism scare is built around that.

This I suspect explains at least one branch of the fear mongering. Then we can add in those concerned about floridation, commie mind control, and government mandated vaccines and we can tap into an entirely new paranoia pool.

morse86 said:

The problem is the "noise" (or muddying the waters) to the actual research/truth. There are lot's of paid shills, even on here, that will post "false truth" nonsense against the "falsely so called truth" narrative. This is just standard "propaganda", it is not a new technique.

Click to expand...

"morse" not only claims there is false propaganda on the subject of vaccines, but then proceeds to present some. [Mods: when you wipe his post from existence, please leave the bit I quoted. THanks.]

ThatRobGuy said:

Where exactly does the sentiment come from?

Click to expand...

Anti-Vax ideology along with "take fluoride out of the water supply" messaging originates from nations that want to weaken other nations by making and keeping them sick.

I'm sorry Rob, it looks like your thread is going to attract the actual anti-vaxxers and covid deniers. It just might get nuked, and I thought it was a good topic.

Anti-vaxxer is a smear term, used to try and silence debate. There are plenty of people who have nothing against fully tested vaccines, but do not want to be used a test subject for novel, experimental vaccine technology. The answer is for governments not to push novel, experimental vaccines on their citizens, while exempting the vaccine manufacturers from liability.

Name a single mRNA vaccine that has previously been used in humans. There aren't any, because the COVID vaccine is the first of that type, and as such, the medium to long term effects are a complete unknown.

anti-vaxxer means is against all vaccines including those ones you get as a child. Apparently.

JustSomeBloke said:

There aren't any, because the COVID vaccine is the first of that type, and as such, the medium to long term effects are a complete unknown.

Click to expand...

I suspect the issue is more complicated than this. I know nothing about vaccines, but you appear to assume that just because the mRNA is new, that this means we know nothing about what to expect in the medium and long terms. That might the case, but I highly doubt it. It beggars credulity to think that the medical establishment, with what I would suggest is a well-earned reputation for erring on the side of safety, would hide such uncertainty from us. There may be - and I suspect there in fact are - complex technical reasons why researchers can be confident about the safety of the vaccine even absent any medium or long term evidence from the field. I could, of course, be wrong about this - it depends on complex medical stuff beyond my pay grade.

Michael Collum said:

Anti-Vax ideology along with "take fluoride out of the water supply" messaging originates from nations that want to weaken other nations by making and keeping them sick.

Click to expand...

I'm less concerned about the fluoride than I am about the other stuff in the water (I drink only distilled water).

expos4ever said:

I suspect the issue is more complicated than this. I know nothing about vaccines, but you appear to assume that just because the mRNA is new, that this means we know nothing about what to expect in the medium and long terms. That might the case, but I highly doubt it. It beggars credulity to think that the medical establishment, with what I would suggest is a well-earned reputation for erring on the side of safety, would hide such uncertainty from us. There may be - and I suspect there in fact are - complex technical reasons why researchers can be confident about the safety of the vaccine even absent any medium or long term evidence from the field. I could, of course, be wrong about this - it depends on complex medical stuff beyond my pay grade.

Click to expand...

How do you get data on 5 and 10 year effects when there's not a single person alive who has even had the vaccine one year? It's not even as if long term data for other mRNA vaccines is available, because this is the first vaccine that is of the mRNA type, so there is absolutely nothing to go on. And if I recall correctly, recipients are being asked to keep a log of side effects, which hardly inspires confidence. There's a reason why new vaccines, drugs, and treatments take years or decades to be approved for widespread use, and all of that rigour is now being bypassed for political expediency.

And it's probably inaccurate to call it a 'pandemic'. The average age of a COVID fatality in the UK is 82.4 years, which is slightly greater than average life expectancy. Fatalities in young people who do not have underlying health issues are extremely rare. And deaths from seasonal flu, which normally kills tens of thousands of elderly people every winter are mysteriously absent.

Isn't it rather ironic that the thread title is 'Do the research', and yet some people here seem to know so little about what is being foisted on people, like they are expendable lab rats.

OldWiseGuy said:

I'm less concerned about the fluoride than I am about the other stuff in the water (I drink only distilled water).

Click to expand...

I used only to drink stuff that came out of a still too.
[Sanity prevailed]

JustSomeBloke said:

How do you get data on 5 and 10 year effects when there's not a single person alive who has even had the vaccine one year? It's not even as if long term data for other mRNA vaccines is available,

Click to expand...

This is a valid point but it’s a forest/trees thing.
Yes, ten years down the line it might be shown that this sort of vaccine plays heck with, oh, the renal glands, (say)...but at least you’re there, ten years into the future because COVID didn’t kill you in 2021.

Pommer said:

This is a valid point but it’s a forest/trees thing.
Yes, ten years down the line it might be shown that this sort of vaccine plays heck with, oh, the renal glands, (say)...but at least you’re there, ten years into the future because COVID didn’t kill you in 2021.

Click to expand...

In that case, the logical course of action is to only give the vaccine to those at high risk, due to old age or underlying health conditions. It would be madness to vaccinate every single person, but I suspect that is what is coming, along with vaccination passports to allow travel, shopping, and everything else.

JustSomeBloke said:

Anti-vaxxer is a smear term, used to try and silence debate. There are plenty of people who have nothing against fully tested vaccines, but do not want to be used a test subject for novel, experimental vaccine technology. The answer is for governments not to push novel, experimental vaccines on their citizens, while exempting the vaccine manufacturers from liability.

Name a single mRNA vaccine that has previously been used in humans. There aren't any, because the COVID vaccine is the first of that type, and as such, the medium to long term effects are a complete unknown.

Click to expand...

Calling vaccination science a debate is like saying sexual reproduction vs the stork is a debate.

ThatRobGuy said:

If it were merely a matter of pure skepticism, I would expect more consistency on the subject, so it's clearly not that.

Click to expand...

I think part of the issue is that governments, scientists, etc. see the value in vaccination, and want to convince people. But those tasked with information campaigns tend to resort to slogans and pressure.

Those who are skeptical usually either know someone who had a serious reaction, or come across information on adverse reactions and vaccine harm settlements. As a result when they hear "safe and effective" they may wonder why the relative risks of the vaccine are not much discussed.

"Safe and effective" makes sense in regards to relative risk vs. reward. But it is like looking at a math problem without showing the work. And if the actual risk of vaccines is not quantified and shown, then those who are aware of worst case scenarios may not properly calculate the relative risk.

In my opinion it would would be better to present it as a risk vs reward proposition from the beginning, showing data on both sides, and be up front about the small, but real risks of vaccination. The rewards to the person and society could then be shown to outweigh the risks.

It is important to address questions with data, rather than try to shame or ridicule people as backwards, etc. They are trying to make a risk calculation. So give them more data to calculate. And if they don't agree, respect bodily autonomy which was a hard earned lesson based on historical violations of people's rights. When people feel forced, or manipulated, or patronized they are not as likely to get on board.

We vaccinated our children after looking at the risks of various diseases and comparing it to the risks of vaccination. The various doctors we visited often encouraged vaccination, reminded us of schedules, inquired about our plans etc. But when we would attempt to discuss particular vaccines with physicians, and the relative risks involved, they were reluctant to engage. They would just repeat that it is safe, and brush off any questions about known side effects. If those administering the vaccines are eager to do so, but not eager to discuss the risk vs reward data, that doesn't inspire confidence. If it is a rational, logical, science-based decision, then we should treat it like that, and not resort to slogans, pressure, etc.

Given the nature of this current pandemic the risk vs. reward conversation is more up front. The question of how harmful the virus can be has been in the news frequently. The more we have learned about COVID the more we see that there are risks to various bodily systems. Yet, we are still finding new wrinkles all the time. So we have to acknowledge that we do not have full information. We are making a risk calculation on partial data.

At the same time we are being introduced to new vaccination technologies with less solid data on long-term risks. So again, on that side of the equation we have only partial data.

Convincing people should focus on why it is believed that vaccine risks are small in relation to the risks involved with exposure to the virus, while acknowledging those real limitations.

Even the order in which people become eligible to receive doses point out the risk vs. reward calculation this time around. There are not enough vaccine doses for everyone initially. So those highest at risk need to receive it first. Front line health workers, care center residents, etc. have different risks than younger people who have few conditions. Because every aspect of COVID makes headline news you can no longer hide the debate about risk vs. reward behind slogans. It is no wonder there is more debate regarding this vaccine. The risks are less known on both sides, but the discussion of risk is published far more widely than usual.

expos4ever said:

I suspect the issue is more complicated than this. I know nothing about vaccines, but you appear to assume that just because the mRNA is new, that this means we know nothing about what to expect in the medium and long terms. That might the case, but I highly doubt it. It beggars credulity to think that the medical establishment, with what I would suggest is a well-earned reputation for erring on the side of safety, would hide such uncertainty from us. There may be - and I suspect there in fact are - complex technical reasons why researchers can be confident about the safety of the vaccine even absent any medium or long term evidence from the field. I could, of course, be wrong about this - it depends on complex medical stuff beyond my pay grade.

Click to expand...

Medical establishment erring on the side of safety???????

Would you like to go over the medical blunders of the last century????? Example: Pellagra or how about SMON (https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...tragedy/69e1c239-834a-4559-8659-b36c26443798/)

morse86 said:

Medical establishment erring on the side of safety???????

Would you like to go over the medical blunders of the last century????? Example: Pellagra or how about SMON (https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...tragedy/69e1c239-834a-4559-8659-b36c26443798/)

Click to expand...

Anecdotal. If you want to make the case that medical technology is risky, you are going to have to look at the broad spectrum of treatments and technologies.

Pommer said:

This is a valid point but it’s a forest/trees thing.
Yes, ten years down the line it might be shown that this sort of vaccine plays heck with, oh, the renal glands, (say)...but at least you’re there, ten years into the future because COVID didn’t kill you in 2021.

Click to expand...

Hi. Please consider reading post 10 if you have not. There I argue that just because there is no field data on the long term effects does not necessarily mean we cannot be confident that risks are low. It all depends on the details.