According to the forum expert being anti vax is actually predominantly a view held by those on the left.
The underlying issue is that some people inherently distrust all information coming from governments and government adjacent authority figures. They think the whole game is rigged, which is why you can never win them over with facts and data. They think it's all made up. It's the common pillar that all of the nonsense conspiracy theories are built on.
Perhaps we could see what the facts say! The US is one of the most politically polarized nations when it comes to vaccines... Well, fancy that! Looks like the Minister for Tinfoil Hats may have been mistaken.
Who said that? It is certainly a view that would have been very left wing thirty or forty years ago. But as I have explained before, the "left" has moved over to the right, becoming extremely conservative and establishmentarian, and anyone that disagrees with them, no matter to what degree, is an anti-vaxxer loon. I mean. Have a read of this thread, and tell me I am wrong. They, the vaxx fundamentalist, will all agree that there are risks, and describe clinical trials as essential, and then argue that they were completed, even though big pharma admitted openly, in the EU parliament, that they were not, and that risks were taken. Do people just not hear it, or do they shut it out? So, people can call me an anti-vaxxer loon, but, in the face of such contradictory and brainwashed twaddle, I feel entirely justified describing them as a neo-flat-earthers. Arguing against something they know is perfectly logical, and which not one of them would argue against, but they can't afford to concede an inch because it may puncture their zealot's faith, and start them down the road of having to think for themselves. This thread has, I believe, confirmed exactly what I said.
The bizarre thing is, like with the stolen election nonsense, this distrust is heavily promoted by a section of the ruling class. Why would they benefit from chaos, almost no one needs to ask.
Let me explain this in Hooterspeak. This is because the left is now the right. The left are the conservatives and the true conservatives are the ones with progressive views, but conservatives can’t back the left who are now conservatives because of the radical left who are really the radical right. This has meant that the radical right can be considered pretty mainstream and are just trying to keep the former conservatives, who are a bit leftist, like Trump, Ted Cruz etc in check. Have I got that right?
Yes, I am often amused that the same people who loudly rail on "wealthy coastal elites" voted for Trump with a straight face. You know, the guy who lives in New York in a building branded with his own name, has toilets literally made of gold, and is (according to him) a billionaire. Definitely not wealthy or coastal or "elite", then.
You are not making sense mate. I support many left wing positions, in some cases defending them against the you neo-tories on here. I am not an idealogue that reflects a tribal position. I am a human being with many varied views and considerations. For instance, I can see the positives of the vaccines, but not to the exclusion or gain saying of caution or counter arguments. It means I am less likely to do what someone else wants me to do until I am satisfied that it is appropriate. It is not anti vax. It is due caution based on our modern understanding of medicines. It appears, on here, that people will do what they are told, even by a tory government, provided it is officials telling you what to do. Read the thread, and let me know if I got that wrong. Because every one of you vax fundamentalists has toed the official line, and described any caution as "anti-vax loonery". Sheeples.
No complaints about ‘reasonable caution’ and a sensible discussion as to the nature of the risk-benefit balance involved in the rapid approval of the anti-COVID vaccines. That is not the same as mildly accepting apocalyptic claims as to myriad deaths caused by the vaccines which many of the ‘anti-vax loonies’ seem to peddle.
Reasonable caution includes discussion of the issues. And thankfully I have never made any apocalyptic claims, despite being called an anti vaxxer by some on here. You don't have to say anything stupid or apocalyptic to be attacked on this forum. You just have to disagree with the typical conservative opinions, of those who claim to be of the left, that comply with the proscribed message of the authorities, big pharma and their asorted experts. For instance, I may say it is reasonable to expect Pfizer to research the real world levels of viral transmission (the major selling point of the vaccine, stop the spread, save a granny, etc.) expected from the vaccine. We were relying on that factor as a mitigation of the risks we may be facing through the uncertainty of incomplete clinical trials. The fact that the pharma giants had no confirmation or direct data on that deal making factor is perhaps something we should have been aware of at the time? Basically, we were being subjected to an unknown, and therefore low confidence, risk, rather than the high confidence given by scientifically observed outcomes it was assumed had taken place. And the 0% risk from COVID to people under the age of 24, something like 2 COVID deaths per 2,000,000 in the UK, whilst adverse potentially life threatening effects of the vaccine are something like 1 per 10,000, with damage to heart tissue being permanant. There is a clear risk to the young posed by the vaccine. Yet vaccines have been developed for children as young as 6 months. Certainly it is well intended, but whether or not it is wise, efficatious or risky, is unquestionably a matter for discussion and serious decision making, you would hope, some rigorous research into the effects of the vaccine on healthy young people.
You didn’t need to look any further than the UK, where for the last four decades the working class have seen elitist academics and activists high jack left wing politics. As with a dithering posh boy, educated at Eaton, who has more in common with the working class of England than the Labour party, many Americans feel that Trump’s sympathies are closer to their own than are Nancy Pelosi’s. He isn’t interested in race, he wants to charge them less tax, he has (to the disgust of the self revealing elitists) a preference for ketchup on his steak mignon, drinks Diet Coke and eats MacDonalds. And like most of them, he can be a bit of a nob, because he is human. When the alternative is Biden (Trump, basically, without a brain), Pelosi, Harris, the Obamas, Hilary Clinton, etc., I find it very difficult to believe that you can’t understand why so many found/find Trump less detestable. People rail against the wealthy coastal elites, and others of their kin, because they are a thing, they are virtually all Democrat, and they have no affinity with anyone in America that isn’t as or more powerful than they are. The little elites have their big elites.
Who to believe? Conspiracy nutter Neil Oliver barking at the moon or an actual Doctor quoting peer reviewed research in The Lancet and BMJ? https://twitter.com/g_gosden/status/1614699117757845505?t=2fRUyp5hdY7qYieyUWgcDA&s=19
Very interesting how you interpret that. You could have asked. Who to believe? The company who testified in a European Court, less than a year ago, that they did not test for viral transmission, or a doctor, who thought Neil Oliver believed the vaccine had micro-chips in it, that said they published the data of their research two years ago? Given that is the most testable element of any comment in that interview (the video of Pfizer’s testimony is posted above), I would have thought you would be a little more cautious in your blind faith. The other very testable comment is its efficacy regarding cancer treatment. That is what these drugs were intended for; very unique, personally tailored and targeted cancer treatment. But how that is supposed to reassure people of its use as a one size fits all experimental vaccine being used to treat Corona virus I am unsure. Indeed, his comment is absolutely irrelevant with regard to the discussion, other than to pour virtue onto the vaccine. The treatments he was talking about are for individuals based on their own specific genetics. It is bordering on unethical (I am being generous) for him to cite a very particular use of a very individualised treatment, which, by definition, is only appropriate for use on the person it is designed for, as proof that un-targeted use as a vaccine is safe for literally billions of people. Now. I am not saying that there are not good arguments to be made for the vaccine, but when a doctor is demonstrably citing evidence that contradicts the sworn testimony of the vaccine’s manufacturer, and saying that apples are oranges with regards to the vaccines use, I, unless I believed the earth was flat, would not automatically assume that this doctor was speaking from an unbiased or well informed position. There are much better arguments to be made for the vaccine, I am sure. But the arguments being made by this guy are both false and potentially damaging to his cause. But you are entitled to believe that, because he is a doctor, we should all trust what he says without question, despite proveable issues with his argument. If that is how you make health decisions, good luck to you. I hope you never fall off the edge of your world, to bring the thread back on subject.
I never suggested you had made apocalyptic claims, but you cannot deny that such claims are out there & are often spread in a totally uncritical form and are subsequently taken as 'true' by certain non-inquiring people. I agree all relevant data should be transparently published. Of course, the crux of the debate surrounding the risk-benefit balance will be in the applied interpretation of those data. I was always of the opinion that the main benefit of the vaccines was couched in terms of 'reducing the risk of serious illness' rather than 'prevention of viral transmission.' I accept it was stated that the hope was that such transmission would also be reduced as the vaccines would help lower the levels of viral load which, as a consequence, would reduce the propensity for transmission. So even the concept of 'viral transmission' is not an absolute, but would need to be assessed across a spectrum of levels of severity of infection. What are the reports showing the Covid death/heart damage data on the under 24s? Again, the lower level of death amongst the younger age groups cannot be assessed in isolation from the impact of the vaccines upon those figures. There is still a lot to be learned before any sort of meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
The vaccine was always about reducing the risk of serious illness, especially in the vulnerable, not necessarily about reducing viral transmission (although clinical trials did show it does reduce your likelihood of getting Covid). I know some talking heads said it would definitely prevent you getting Covid and prevent viral transmission but these were not medical experts or the manufacturers themselves. In fact I believe Pfizer confirmed that this was not part of their clinical trials. Of course this has been interpreted by the conspiracy loons as a smoking gun. The facts are very different (as always!): https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-vaccine-pfizer-transmission-test/
Getting back to the point a little bit, i find dealing with pseudoscientific views one of the most treacherous and frustrating parts of my job. Veterinary surgeons at the end of the day are scientists, we are taught to analyse cases and treat according to evidence based medicine. However, over recent years there are certain 'specialties' that have come more to the fore, and been pushed by certain members of the veterinary community with very little supporting evidence. Now they have found their little niche and are hanging onto it grimly, all the while 'educating' members of the public about why they are right and the rest of us are wrong. My biggest gripe at the moment is with the homeopaths. Homeopathy for those not in the know, is the belief that 'like cures like.' For example arsenic at high concentrations is lethal. However, homeopathy would dilute arsenic to such a degree that there is no detectable arsenic remaining and use that as a remedy. These remedies are often presented as either a sugar pill, with a droplet of the highly diluted chemical on them or in vials of distilled water. When challenged most homeopaths will point you to a slew of papers, that seemingly provide evidence that homeopathy does in fact work. However if you read beyond the abstract and actually study the methods and results of the papers in question it is easy to see that they are about as sturdy as a house made from tissue paper. The issue is that the general public don't read these papers and will trust anecdotal evidence presented by their homeopathic vet. It is at this point that I should point out that homeopathy has been used effectively in human medicine. One paper demonstrated that if you give a glass of water and a sugar pill to a patient with a headache, that in 80% of cases the headache resolves. This is called the placebo effect. The patient has taken a medication that we have told them will make them feel better, they then begin to feel better all by themselves. So the placebo benefit of homeopathy is possibly undeniable in the human field, or is it? If you look at the study you will see that all patients were given a pint of water to drink with their little sugar pill. The vast majority were probably just dehydrated. Even if we accept the premise of the placebo effect, its benefit in the animal field would be extremely debatable. Animals don't know what is in the pill, or the syringe, or the water. How are they supposed to benefit? What actually happens is the owner giving the treatment experiences a secondary placebo effect. This is what convinces them the treatment works and becomes anecdotal evidence. A few years ago one of my good friends Danny Chambers helped the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to change the rules about complementary treatments in animals such as homeopathy. They are no longer able to be used as the sole treatment. He has since been the subject of abuse from these charlatans who call themselves homeopaths and their followers. I spoke on the radio about pseudoscience in the veterinary industry and have also received some quite nasty correspondence and facebook messages. It doesn't really bother me, my typical response is along the lines of 'you show me a double blinded trial that supports your findings and i'll shut up,' but i'm yet to be sent such evidence. I'm currently no.7 on the CAM4ANIMALS group of vets to avoid in the UK on the basis of my belief that homeopaths are charlatans. I'm hoping to get to no.5 by the end of the year!
I think it would have been good if the doctor had taken on the issue of the alleged 1/800 adverse effects. Oliver, in his doom-laden tones, implies these are serious, but the vast majority are not. The alleged deaths and clots are in most cases correlation, not caused by the vaccine. There is also no doubt that the official narrative about the vaccine changed, losing the early emphasis on prevention (and therefore, mandates). This changed because early studies, that suggested the vaccine prevented many becoming ill, were eroded by Omicron, as was the overall potency of the virus. A predicted pattern, as the virus evolves to kill fewer and spread more quickly. It was never suggested that vaccinated individuals who became ill couldn’t transmit. We have a mass campaign of disinformation from anti-vaxxers, ignoring huge studies on safety and replacing this with individual stories about fit individuals who suddenly died. But sadly, this has always happened, as we have occasionally seen on the football field.
Yes, I picked up on that too. I had a sore arm after my jabs. I assume that counts as an "adverse effect"? In which case 1/800 with adverse effects sounds extremely low to me!
It is, and if reported to a clinician/pharmacist it has to be recorded and reported on a yellow card.
Latest Yellow Card reports on c19 vax: Compared to the reports of adverse reactions from 1st Sept to 28th Dec: Please bear in mind that an ADR is anything adverse (eg. arm hurts, "I feel giddy", death etc.). For England that's not even a 0.02% adverse reported reaction rate.
This was absolutely hilarious to watch. Utterly dismantled by a doctor. I particularly liked the "1 in 800 people had an adverse reaction" bit, and then attempting to compare that with people getting hospitalized by Covid. Yes, let us please pretend that a slight fever or runny nose is on the same level as being hospitalized.
What flat earthers refer to as a talking head... The President of the United States addressing the people. "You will not catch the virus". Do you see what I mean by likening vax fundamentalists to flat earthers? I believe that what he was saying at the time is what people believed the intent to be, and information like this was used to justify risks. Did anyone, in the round world, think they were taking that first shot in the belief that it was merely a prophelactic therapy that was not intended to prevent them from catching COVID? The vaccine was seen as a preventative and only started being described as a therapeutic when it became clear that it did not prevent viral transmission. Here is the Guardian referring to the vaccine as an immunology programme, at the time of of the initial roll out... https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...staff-to-be-deployed-in-covid-vaccine-rollout It is your business if you now wish to say the understanding was always that the vaccine was primarily intended to be a profilactic treatment, but I do not think many will believe you. I am afraid it just seems like more grist to the flat earth mill. That fact check basically CONFIRMS that they didn't check for transmission. So flat earthers are using an affirming fact check to say that the claim was incorrect, despite the fact it explicitly confirms the claim to be true, and even explains why. The only caveat it adds is literally "so what?" Read it and tell me I am wrong. So now the flat earthers are telling us they had no expectation that a vaccine would either stop the spread or flatten the curve, but rather that it was always considered a therapeutic medicine. That, with regards to all vaccines, is a catch all backstop designed to mitigate for sub prime performance.
Anti-vaxxers wouldn’t have got that though. They just think walking, talking hedge Neil has an important point about the 1 in 800 that the doctor ignored. It’s important, in order to put idiots like Oliver back in their box, that the ‘adverse effects’ are clearly stated, as @Bwood_Horn states, they will cover a range of outcomes, but be mostly at the eff all squared, so what, end of the range. People in the UK, it’s fair to say, don’t always have great health and it may have declined over the last few years. Vaccines are not the reason why.
No. It's more the rise of 'The Triumph of Doubt' as the shytehawks need to justify their existence and paychecks.
Why is anyone who dares to express doubts about the Covid jab dismissed as a 'looney'? Piers Corbyn is a high profile 'anti vaxer' and I don't think many people consider him a 'looney'
Depends on exactly what they are saying, really. "I have no medical expertise and I don't understand the studies and I'm unsure because people are saying the opposite" is different to "The world government is covering up the harm of the vaccine, it's worse than Covid and reprograms your DNA and young people are falling over dead from it everywhere".
An adverse reaction to the jab tended to be heart palpitations or arrhythmia. The doctor disagreed with Pfizer’s own testimony, when it was quoted to him. He made an unethical comparison between two very different applications of the drug to persuade people that it was harmless. He didn’t destroy anyone, he merely shouted louder. If he had been discussing that lot with a competent doctor, and not just some TV presenter, he would have been taken to task and made to explain the context of the BS that he was spouting. But that is your flat Earth mentality. You consider yourself on the right side, because you agree with the doctor, and for no other reason. It doesn’t matter that he got his facts wrong, about Pfizer and used scientific evidence in an unethical manner. All you have to do now is stick your fingers in your ears, go “la la la” and hope the world doesn’t tip over so you fall off the edge.
Of course not he the living proof of how a double negative is in fact a positive: he spouts utter cobblers about covid and utter bollox about climate change, therefore he's not to be dismissed.
