health

Diverse doubts: How vaccine skepticism takes root

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

There's nothing wrong with my body the way it is.

I neither need nor want a corporation's product in my body.

My decisions regarding my body are not subject to your approval.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

Diverse doubts: How vaccine skepticism takes root

In any logical thinking person, when the government can review a vaxx in 128 days for use on its citizens, yet the Pfizer company says it needs 75 years to completely release all the data for the public.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

This article does nothing to address why people are skeptical or flat out do not want to get these vaccines. There are plenty of valid reasons to avoid them. Their adverse reactions (including deaths) are off the charts.

People do not like being flooded by a controlled narrative, where we are told on a daily basis to get the vaccine and that it is safe and effective, while silencing experts that say otherwise or who recommend other measures that can safely and effectively decrease your chances of suffering from the effects of Covid.

Until we have an free, open, and honest discussion of this pandemic, many people will resist.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

This article does nothing to address why people are skeptical or flat out do not want to get these vaccines. There are plenty of valid reasons to avoid them. Their adverse reactions (including deaths) are off the charts.

Yes it does, it gives even examples of reasons why people take the irrational decision to be skeptical about vaccines.

People do not like being flooded by a controlled narrative

Which have absolutely nothing to do with the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Pretending that all the scientific consensus is being controlled is invalid unless you can provide proof of it, or at least some actually realistic way it can actually being done. Just saying "doctors and nurses poison their families so some CEO can make lots of money" is obviously not even believable.

Silencing "experts" that talk without data or that contradict what is being proved by science is nothing negative, imaginary "facts" and proven lies contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion so eliminating them is actually something positive that should be done. This is what actually makes a discussion honest. saying that false information should be included does precisely the opposite.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Until all the data is released, informed consent cannot be given. Therefore, these mandates and vaccine passes are coercion.

That is completely different from what the original comment said, do you have a link where "Pfizer company says it needs 75 years to completely release all the data for the public" ? Pfizer realease all the data to the government as part of the requirements for the vaccine full approval, if people are just trying to cherry pick things and went on a hunting expedition without making an actual requirement for the information that took a legion of professionals months to evaluate then there is no practical way to deal with the FOI but to make some poor people read and evaluate the whole thing again with the very different purpose of doing things according to the own goverment's rules for the release. This is all on the part of the people that submitted an impossibly vague FOI for no valid reason.

And no, informed consent is a well defined protocol where the patient only need relevant information, nobody needs over 300,000 pages of information mostly completely unrelated with the cost/benefit of the health intervention they are considering. Therefore your imaginary argument is irrelevant.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Here are a few more reasons:

Vaccine injury or death

Human right to choose

Unknown long term side effects

Trust in one's own immune system and solid health and hygiene practices

Unique personal health considerations

Dishonest big pharma/govt/media

Suppression of expression of legitimate concern

Demonization and ridicule of those with legitimate concerns

Exclusion from society and job loss based on personal medical choice

Etc.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Until we have an free, open, and honest discussion of this pandemic, many people will resist.

And many have died because they resisted. Wrong choices.

And many have died or become disabled because they went along with it.

It's important to understand who really would most benefit from the vaccines, and who would not benefit much or at all. But some want to vaccinate everyone multiple times, no questions asked....

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Who benefit the most from vaccines? the vaccinated people. Who don't? antivaxxers and people selling useless supplements that would flop if not for people that think they can protect themselves with them.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

To think about.

If those who have not been vaccinated find that they are wrong, they have a plan B available: They get vaccinated. However, it gets a little complicated in vaccinated people.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

These 'off the charts' deaths and reactions you constantly refer to @Raw Beer - PLEASE give us some credible links, especially the deaths. Apart from stuff on BitChute I just can't find them. But please, its the 'off the charts' stuff I'm interested in. Not the odd death which of course I accept.

I had a sore arm and fever after my second Moderna Jab - but I was pre-warned and signed the disclaimer - so I don't count that.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

@virusrex

Alright, last time you posted me aa question of providing links of where I get my information. Now, I am not going to that. I will explain and please read me out.

I will not do that, because although I do read online and try to have relevant vital information, I only ever read it once, hardly ever reach out to the actual source of the scientific studies to read the actual studies. I do so while on the bus in my daily commute sometimes, for my own personal information. I never have in mind sharing them or keeping them for reference nor remembering where I read what from who or where. So to provide them is actually impossible for me, unless I retraced all my online activity the last year, which I am not doing just to appease you. Now, don't go our dismissing my conclusions just because of it. In the end it my personal responsibility with myself to make an informed decision.

Anyway, the main issue of my post is not that. Allow me to continue.

I'll level here with you. I have had vaccines before, as a child I got them and it was pretty simple, you get them, you don't get such and such deceases, straightforward and clear. As an adult the only vaccines I have had were when I travelled to China I had to get one, can't remember which, but likewise get it and you prevent getting sick. Then coming to Japan I learned about the flu vaccine, which to my surprise doesn't prevent getting sick for life or 100% but provides a boost for the immune system to fight the newer strands of flu. Or something like that, and honestly that was shaky enough for me, and I didn't wanna get it because it was not worth the effort, time, money and even the pain of the injection in my estimation for such an infection as the flu.

Fast forward and only a year after a new infection arises a vaccine is developed, and WITHOUT any long term results everyone HAS to get it is plenty of suspicious for me. Surely, you can dismiss it as conspirationalism, but given all the issues, if YOU virusex still fully trust it you come as a coincidentionalist and naive as well. Let's delve a little here. So you defend the pharmaceuticals as "not just a CEO wanting to get richer" since even doctors and nurses get the vaccine. First of all, you assign to much validity to the judgement of doctors and nurses in this regard. For one, the several nurses I one personally have the slightest scientifically proficient mind, and just do what doctors say. As for doctors, I remember my family doctor back in my home country having impeccable white doctor robes engraved with his name, and below his name a likewise huge engraving of a pharmaceutical company... if h were to have recommended me a vaccine for Covid from that company I would have seriously being unamused. Next some doctors respect patient consent, my doctor here in Japan, laid it very clearly to me "it's your choice, I don't see valid to recommend it to you or not, it may help you but it is not 100% safe just as Covid is not 100% deadly".

And finally, we are talking big pharma here, you do realize just a couple of years ago the main Covid vaccine company was embroiled in a huge liability lawsuit for damages and malpractice and paid billions of dollars? And yet you put your trust at their feet.

Also, have you seen the sponsorship of TV newsrooms and stations and media all over the US and world, how many big pharma names are there? No wonder counter arguments against the vaccines no matter how sound are never shown any time.

As I said above, you can dismiss any of this as crazy conspiracy theories, but is doing so I say you are just taking these blatant conflicts of interests as "non issues" or "mere coincidences" which shows quite a lack of sagacity, prudence and caution.

Of course, I am not saying I can proof a large scale conspiracy to cull mankind or something. Nor I am saying I believe n such thing. What I am saying is the product in the street out there comes from this places where rarely the ultimate good is the objective and where being first is more important that being correct or good or safe. Surely you realize pharmaceuticals are BUSINESSES that make money from TREATING decease NIT curing it. As no decease means no business or a dwindling one. And surely you should recognize the are corrupt people everywhere. I am sure there institutions, countries, parties you don't trust for their corruption alone (irrelevant of what they say or stand for). And no place is completely out of it. You know what conditions big pharma has put on countries to provide the vaccines, right? No liability clauses, really?? The government has to take the liability, not the company! WOW.

So in the end it's a matter of trust. And no, for the situation as it now, with vaccine mandates for a vaccine that doesn't even guarantee free of infection, and that was speedily developed, and for which the very definition of what a vaccine is was changed (it's true, check it out, the US Senate panel on the safety of the vaccine had this issue brought up to them, the briefing is online) to include the MRN (or something like that) protein precursors which was never used before for vaccines. And the long term consequences of including a full chain spike protein are unknown yet of course, but could possibly include DNA mutations?? You seriously wanna put this in everybody's body??

When not even regular vaccines that DO prevent the contagion of viral deceases are not even mandatory in countries like Japan and others. The Croatian president said it very clearly: "what is the objective of a mass mandate of Covid vaccines? is not getting rid of the virus, and is not getting contagions to zero. It's reducing risks of contagion and death to yet realistically unknown levels" So, why the urge, and zeal to push forward with them mandates while stomping every over civil right and liberty?? Again, you have to think if the objective matches the means (for reference the objective they claim is the same as for the flu vaccines, which have NO mandate whatsoever anywhere in the world) and follow the pockets of those promoting it, be it political parties or media outlets. I fear more the error of men in a rush to create a most profitable item than my chances of surviving a 0.0003 deadly virus on my own. And I also don't fear you having it giving it to me, more that your zeal to ruin my life for not getting a vaccine riddled with risk all over it.

Finally, honestly your zeal is dumbfoundingly blind. You want the vaccine, sure go get it. You don't have any doubts and dismiss all coincidences above as just such and trust all the players in this issue, fine, be my guest. But that is you. ONLY you. And as so, all other individuals are entitled to their OWN judgement. So back off you zealot.

-6 ( +10 / -16 )

These 'off the charts' deaths and reactions you constantly refer to @Raw Beer - PLEASE give us some credible links, especially the deaths.

You mean the CDC's VAERS is not good enough for you?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

None of the information provided by VAERS is 'off the charts'. In fact quite the opposite.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

lol, if an antivaxxer feel the need to write up 5 pages of excuses, conspiracies and personal attacks it must be because it is feeling threatened. Now people realize the disinformation they repeat endlessly is wrong, their numbers shrinking.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

@thaonephil: I think the antivaxxers honestly think that the rest of us don't do any research or look at the same websites. The number of deaths that can be 100% attributed to vaccines are tiny - and as sad as those deaths are, that number is nowhere close to lives saved! 460 million jabs given. That should put it in perspective.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

..that's 460 million jabs just in the USA to be clear.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@Chikatilo

You brought up many very good points. Well said.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

@ thaonephil, theResident

I am not anti-vaccine. Whatever that means. Yes, I wrote a lot. Be kind and read it. And then comment. If you read you would see I am not anti-vaccine. If anything I would say I am anti-mandates, which stems from being anti-fascist, which in turn means not liking the imposition of someone else's will upon others who disagree with it, and which tramples otherwise established liberties or rights.

To be even clearer, I have gone ahead and got the Covid vaccine a while ago. I am not anti-vaccine.

I am anti-people trying to bully others to take the vaccine. That's all. I understand the doubts and fears against it. I went ahead and get it because of family and work reasons. That doesn't mean I agree with how this is handled by governments and how people like you treat those who don't want the vaccine.

Read to understand not to destroy. What are you so afraid of?

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Not the odd death which of course I accept

Maybe YOU can accept this but the dead person cannot, neither can their loved ones, dependants, friends etc. That's why vaccines must be voluntary.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@Raw Beer: Are you aware that 60,000 people in the US alone this year have been hospitalised with 'life threatening' conditions due to Hypervitaminosis? A huge surge in numbers due to people being fed rubbish by people like yourselves?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

@Gaijinjland

It's the other way around. If you actually heard what they say, they are trying to show the hypocrisy on the other side who claims abortion is a matter of "my body, my choice" but don't take the same stance with regards to vaccines, so they take their slogan and show it to them so show the hypocrisy of them.

On the other side, as with abortion, surely "your body your choice", but the point there is your baby is NOT your body, It's ANOTHER body.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

None of the information provided by VAERS is 'off the charts'. In fact quite the opposite.

VAERS Summary for COVID-19 Vaccines through 11/26/2021. Not sure what your definition of 'off the charts' is, but it is definitely in a league of its own when compared to other jabs. Second chart down..

https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/12/03/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-11-26-2021/

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

But this is not the VAERS Website.

This is an analysis designed for the anti vaxxer crowd. Try again GreenPeas.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@rainman1

Well, at the top of the page it says ..

"All charts and tables below reflect the data release on 12/3/2021 from the VAERS website"

Anyway, I'm not out to change your mind.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@Raw Beer: Are you aware that 60,000 people in the US alone this year have been hospitalised with 'life threatening' conditions due to Hypervitaminosis? A huge surge in numbers due to people being fed rubbish by people like yourselves?

Assuming that is true, one thing that would contribute to this is having complete silence on the MSM about vitamins relevant to Covid.

But having said that, I very much doubt it is related to Covid. As far as I know, few people have had problems overdosing on Vitamin D, and they had to take massive doses daily for several months or years.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

None of the information provided by VAERS is 'off the charts'. In fact quite the opposite.

What do you mean by quite the opposite?

Greenpeas' link does show the deaths are off the charts, not surprising people don't want the vax.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I wish we could remotely switch off the "mandated" vaccines people got for polio, smallpox, etc. Y'all need some smallpox and polio to get your motors running.

Mandate; schmandate. Don't take the vaccine, but don't go to the hospital either when you get sick.

Just stay home and let it run its course.

You can be yet another in the long line of people sobbing on facebook through an oxygen mask, "I wish I'd gotten the vaccine, sob, sob," followed by a gasp and an obituary a few days later.

I salute your bravery and your medical, my body, smarty smartness in the face of "tyranny."

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Only 1,300 people in the US died yesterday. 99.9% were unvaccinated.

Not much else to say.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Perhaps the biggest reason for vaccine skepticism: Big Pharma can't be sued for death or injury. In other words, they can't vouch for vaccine safety.

Refusing the vax is an easy choice if you're healthy.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Refusing the vax is an easy choice if you're healthy.

I'm healthier than 99% of the population, and getting the vaccine was an easy choice for me.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Alright, last time you posted me aa question of providing links of where I get my information. Now, I am not going to that. I will explain and please read me out.

Reasons why you can't bring a reference are not important, the important thing is that you can't do it, which means you accept you have no source and therefore it can't be used as an argument. If someone said "I read somewhere what you think was proved wrong" it would have the same problem, unless the source is provided it can just be ignored. You are free to not remember where you read something, but that also means you can't use it as an argument.

Having vaccines before do not make it impossible to reject other vaccines for irrational reasons. Vaccine skepticism based on not trusting the science is an irrational reason.

No vaccine prevents 100% of the infections nor the disease or even deaths, COVID vaccines are not different from previous vaccines, the difference come from having an ongoing outbreak and populations not being above herd immunity levels, the same problems with the vaccine are seen in other vaccines when an outbreak happen in unvaccinated populations (for example measles or polio).

Long term studies are unavailable also for COVID, so expecting only the vaccine to possibly have further problems is also irrationa. The science proves risks is lower at all terms for vaccinated people. Thinking every single institute of science and medicine is hiding information beause of money is by definition believing a conspiracy theory, and an impossible one. It is not believable that all of them in the whole world would be filled only with people hat would like better to get money even if that means poisoning their own family and friends. "big pharma" is not the one that proved the vaccines effective and safe in millions of patients, health services all over the world did.

Vaccine mandates are justified because of the increase of risk produced by personal choices, this is the same as cases like smoking in public places or drinking and driving. If you can understand why people are mandated to behave in certain ways in those cases then you are justififying also not letting people do certain things witout a vaccine. See how many people died from influenza last year and you will clearly understand why flu shots are not mandatory for the general population (they are for some occupations).

Everybody is free to reject the vaccines, and deal with the justified consequences, what is not ok is to try to disguise their irrational position as if it were rationa, because this mislead people that actually want to take a rational decision. It is also invalid to try to use false or misleading information to justify that decision.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

VAERS Summary for COVID-19 Vaccines through 11/26/2021. Not sure what your definition of 'off the charts' is, but it is definitely in a league of its own when compared to other jabs. Second chart down..

So are the death rates on adult diapers when compared with infant diapers, and the explanation is exactly the same, expecting vaccines used mainly on people of advanced age and several health problems (and in millions over millions of them) to have the same rate of reported problems as those used on small children is obviously mistaken.

The rates are the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people, that is enough to prove the problems are not related to the vaccines but to the population they are being used in.

Greenpeas' link does show the deaths are off the charts, not surprising people don't want the vax.

The site makes a well know invalid analysis of the data clearly ignoring the obvious explanation. That would be the problem, actual scientific sources that make epidemiological studies of the data have demonstrated the deaths are as expected from that population without any vaccine being used.

Perhaps the biggest reason for vaccine skepticism: Big Pharma can't be sued for death or injury. In other words, they can't vouch for vaccine safety.

Pharmacological companies are not the ones that vouch for safety but the governments of the countries that take that responsibility, why do you think every lot is being tested and checked? companies can be held liable for any and all problems their vaccines produce and they would have to defend not against a particular without resources but against a whole government. That is a much stronger incentive than being sued, and the best thing is that particulars do not have to lose in a trial all the time.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Greenpeas' link does show the deaths are off the charts, not surprising people don't want the vax.

The site makes a well know invalid analysis of the data clearly ignoring the obvious explanation. That would be the problem, actual scientific sources that make epidemiological studies of the data have demonstrated the deaths are as expected from that population without any vaccine being used.

Riiight...

But the CDC's VAERS shows that within a few months more people died soon after SARS-CoV2 vaccination than have died from all other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. Where did all the deaths in the general population from the past 30 years go?

The deaths, and adverse effects, from the SARSCoV2 vaccines are off the charts and people are right to be concerned....

0 ( +4 / -4 )

But the CDC's VAERS shows that within a few months more people died soon after SARS-CoV2 vaccination than have died from all other vaccines combined over the past 30 years.

And again this is easily explainable because of the fact that all other vaccines combined have never been used in old people with special vulnerabilities over the past 30 years, expecting the vaccine to protect this specially vulnerable population from death of any and all causes is irrational.

The deaths and adverse effects of the COVID vaccines are not off the charts but perfectly inside of what would be expected from following the same number of people of that specific population.

This is extremely clear and the reason why this false argument is not supported by any insitutue of science or medicine in the world. This is only a false argument being repeated by hiding pertinent information that explains why there is nothing special or unexpected about it.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

And again this is easily explainable because of the fact that all other vaccines combined have never been used in old people with special vulnerabilities over the past 30 years, expecting the vaccine to protect this specially vulnerable population from death of any and all causes is irrational.

Are you suggesting old people haven't been given flu shots? Most of them have probably been given more flu shots than SARSCOV2 shots.

And many of those vaccine deaths are not from old people with special vulnerabilities.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Are you suggesting old people haven't been given flu shots? Most of them have probably been given more flu shots than SARSCOV2 shots.

On the scale that were given COVID shots? no, not even close, specially on such a short time.

And many of those vaccine deaths are not from old people with special vulnerabilities.

How many? and how they compare with the deaths on the same poeple without any vaccine? Again, if they are in the same rates that means the vaccines are not the cause, else how can the vaccines produce deaths and problems at the same rates in unvaccinated people?

Again, not a single recognized institution of science or medicine of the world think you are right, you have not been able to bring even one to support this mistaken conclusion, how likely do you think they all to be wrong even when that is precisely the world they do, while nameless people on the internet right?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Raw Beer. You're hilarious mate. All your 'off the charts' chat etc. Every day you are sliding into a minority of people who could possibly get shunned from society for the next few years. Everything, from your therapeutics to your VAERS misinterpretation is just frankly nuts.

Your repeat posting of the first doctor to give an interview about the new variant over a number of days bordered on obsessive. Most of your anti vaxxer buddies I notice have now crawled under a rock. Give it up mate. Go and get jabbed.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Again, not a single recognized institution of science or medicine of the world think you are right, you have not been able to bring even one to support this mistaken conclusion, how likely do you think they all to be wrong even when that is precisely the world they do, while nameless people on the internet right?

As usual, al you're doing is appealing to authority. Just because the heads of those institutions - who invariably have strong links to the pharmaceutical companies through financial/funding links, institutional membership links and lobbyists - favour the vaccine push at the cost of all else, that doesn't automatically mean the institutions' individual members unanimously support their heads' decisions.

The tens of thousands of medical scientists, doctors and nurses worldwide who oppose the vaccine mandates due to safety and philosophical concerns, based solidly on scientific evidence, are proof that this isn't the realm of crackpots, as you so frequently smear them as.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

But @prionking, when we ask you who these 'tens of thousands' of doctors and nurses are you invariably send us to the right wing / religious site FLCCC or one the same five or six doctors who have been pushing 'therapies' since early 2020. The Nurses union in the UK, and Doctors in general are expressing disgust that 90% of those now requiring ICU treatment for COVID are unvaccinated and taking up valuable bed space for cancer patients etc. But I guess.. Thats an acceptable loss of life to you.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Albert Einstein said it best.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and i’m not sure about the former.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Raw Beer. You're hilarious mate. All your 'off the charts' chat etc.

Did you see the charts? They are based on data from the CDC's VAERS. Strange that you find me hilarious for being concerned about it.

In case you missed the link:

https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/12/03/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-11-26-2021/

Seeing the data, how can anyone not be skeptical of these vaccines...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@virusrex

Reasons why you can't bring a reference are not important, the important thing is that you can't do it, which means you accept you have no source and therefore it can't be used as an argument. If someone said "I read somewhere what you think was proved wrong" it would have the same problem, unless the source is provided it can just be ignored. You are free to not remember where you read something, but that also means you can't use it as an argument.

Hey, you are right, I am not going to win a debate having no sources to provide. But that is exactly my point, I am not trying to win ANY argument. Like I wrote, I am not trying to appease anybody about my decisions not seeking peer approval, nor reading our so I cam defend my decision on this matter. An certainly not out to convince anybody of doing what I do. Not even my family. I read and I inform myself for my own decision making that's all. So, no I don't mind or care not giving you any sources. The US Senate series of briefings on the issue are available online, it refers several dozen studies worthy of your analysis if you so choose. But I am not our to try to change you.

Finally, like I said to the other posters. I am not anti-vaccine. I just dislike people lambasting in blanket statements people who choose other that what you deem correct in this regard. Granted some are sheep and just follow without thinking, but can say the same thing for people on both sides of the divide. Most of my co workers and family juts got the vaccine cause of going with the flow, only 2 questioned themselves whether they should get it, the others just almost automatically accepted it. Aren't they fools too?

Also, you perch yourself and Science oh so high, as if science was infallible. You know science is only science if you are allowed to question it and break it down to small pieces and see if each of them holds ground.

You claim you have, and that the science supports your views at large. But your almost religious fervor towards it is very much off-putting and annoying. Science is after all just a human effort. Nothing divine or sacred about it.

Anyways, why you are so much pro-science and your scientific background would perhaps explain your attitude. In my case, as I have posted before, after college I spent a couple of years as an understudy at an actual scientific lab for psychophysiology in my alma mater. And my college formation was rooted in the scientific method. Decades ago, before the woke ideas pervaded science as well. So I in particular don't need no lecture about science.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Raw Beer: This is an anti vaxxer website that misinterprets VAERS data.

The whole website is devoted to discredit the vaccines and the manufacturers!

I look at the real VAERS website, and many more, probably 10x as many as you. I have found nothing to concern me. The websites you refer us to are just made by deceptive, conspiring forces trying to undermine society.

Even you had to slip in the comment ‘based on data’ - You know its a farce. So, yes, I continue to find you hilarious.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

As usual, al you're doing is appealing to authority. Just because the heads of those institutions - who invariably have strong links to the pharmaceutical companies through financial/funding links, institutional membership links and lobbyists - favour the vaccine push at the cost of all else, that doesn't automatically mean the institutions' individual members unanimously support their heads' decisions.

Pretending that 100% of the insitutions of science and medicine in the world are in a conspiracy is not believable, much less that the members of those institutions cooperate and mantain the conspiracy because they prefer their jobs instead of the lives of their own family members and friends. Provide proof of that supposed conspiracy or accept it is not an argument, just something you like to believe.

The tiny minority of people that reject the vaccines do it without any proof of their beliefs, this is comparable to the tiny minority that frequently make mistakes and are involved in malpractice problems or that routinely prescribe antibiotics to viral infections, that means people that are unable to do their jobs with the degree of professionalism that is required from them. Thinking their own personal bias is more important than well corroborated scientific results.

Did you see the charts? They are based on data from the CDC's VAERS. Strange that you find me hilarious for being concerned about it.

And the data proves the vaccines do not cause serious problems and deaths "off the charts" as you misrepresented it, it just shows that vaccines are not able to prevent all kinds of deaths unrelated to COVID, which is natual since that is not their prupose.

Seeing the data, how can anyone not be skeptical of these vaccines...

Precisely because the data proves that observed problems are the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated people is why there is no reason to be skeptical of the vaccines.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Like I wrote, I am not trying to appease anybody about my decisions not seeking peer approval

Replying in an attempt to justify those decision is precisely do what you are saying you are not doing. Someone that do not care what other people think about their decisions would not reply when those people call that vaccine skepticism wrong because of several reasons.

People tend to look negatively to those that choose irrationally and increase the risk for themselves and the public in general, that is part of the decision that has been made and there is no point in demanding to be treated as if you choose differently.

Finally, the argument is not that science is never wrong, just that is much less likely to be wrong when compared with beliefs based on things that can be proved wrong. What if someone used this argument to defend his right to smoke in a classroom full of children? would the possibility that doctors are wrong somehow justify his decision to subject the children to second hand smoke? or would it be justified to make that person choose between stop smoking there or losing their job as a school teacher? The false argument that "science is not perfect" is something that is usually said by people that do not understand what is science and its value in understanding reality, specially when they are trying to appease people about their decisions when they can be proved wrong by science.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites