Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
chocolatemalteser
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:36 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by chocolatemalteser »

The zealousness with which the vaccine is being pushed, with equal zealotry from big tech, pharma and govt to quell healthy debate about this particular vaccine has made me suspicious.

Also it is too early to say what issues may transpire from taking it. After all it's experimental.

I'm healthy, I'm not at risk, I don't need it.

I resent being labelled anti vax, because I'm not.

Having looked into it further I was "astounded" (sarcasm) to discover how many vested interests there are in this particular vaccine (google, media oligarchs, various politicians for example) and how many people who are involved in eugenics have been involved in its development cf The Corbett Report interview with Whitney Webb

Furthermore - coercing people into taking it, blackmailing them with freedom, jobs, etc etc only serves to deepen my suspicion that those in power do not have our best interests at heart.

So it's a big no from me. My husband is probably going to lose his job over it. That just isn't right is it?

User avatar
JockCovidiot
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:20 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by JockCovidiot »

jmc wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:40 am
thinksaboutit wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:51 pm Looking at recent posts, it seems most here are anti-vax to some extent. Typical views are.

Ranging from enthusiastic anti-vaxxers seeking to put other people off, through the "vaccine-shy" and the "shouldn't be coerced" to the "don't want vaccine passports"

There seems to be 2 or 3 posters only that seem strongly in favour of vaccines.

Am I wrong?
The term "anti-vax" for the last thirty plus years has meant something very specific. It is a small group of mostly affluent middle class people who dont want their kids vaccinated for various reasons. Almost all reasons to a greater or lesser degrees completely spurious. Either the "big pharma" conspiracy people. People who believe everything "man-made" is automatically "poison". Or people grasping at straws for why their kids are autistic or have other serious birth defects.. It must be the vaccines, not the fact that once women go over the age of 25 the probability of having a kid with serious birth defects etc starts going up exponentially. So a lot of career women starting having kids in the 30's and 40's will have a lot of kids with serious problems. The wont accept this fact of basic biology so they must rationalize the cause as vaccines or something similar.

So almost all cranks, no matter how sincere in their beliefs.

Not one single poster I have read here over the months is an Anti-Vaxer as traditionally understood. Although some have been suitable suspicious of Big Pharma for often very legitimate reasons. They have form, as an industry.

All I read here are people who are trying to inform themselves on the subject and when presented with the information that is currently available and the literature on modern vaccines and vaccine development over the last 100 plus years have decided that this purely experimental vaccine is not something they would willingly take. At this moment in time.

This is called informed consent. We have informed ourselves with the best information available at the moment and we do not consent.

So what I see in the MSM legacy media at the moment is people being smeared with term "Anti-Vaxer" who have very legitimate concerts about the safety and actual health risk benefits of an untested experimental vaccine.

All other vaccines I have taken willing or given to my kids had gone through a very rigorous testing and approval process like 501(b)(1). A process that takes at least 4 to 6 years minimum for vaccines candidates.

All previous human corona-virus vaccine candidates in the last three decades failed early in the FDA approval process and were never released for general use.

The current SARs CoV 2 vaccines have a documented averse reaction death rate already at least 70 times higher than the only other general population mass vaccine, the annual flu shot. At the current rate more people in the US will have died from averse reaction to the SARs CoV 2 vaccine in 3 month than in the previous 30 years of flu shots.

For the general population under 60 the actual probable risk of death or serious illness from SARs CoV 2 pneumonia at the moment is little different from Influenza (H1N1/H3N2). For those in the high risk groups there is absolutely no evidence given the manner in which SARs 2 vaccines works that they will have any impact on final mortality rates. Which is the situation with the Influenza vaccines. Any actual potential YLL gain in the high risk group is going to be so small as to be quite possible canceled out by the adverse reaction numbers.

By any traditional standards of health risk / benefits used for all other vaccines not only should this vaccine be purely voluntary but the actual groups where any real positive public health care benefit can be shown are actually very small. And even then the evidence from studies with mandatory Influenza vaccination of health care workers in contact with old people is not exactly overwhelming. Best outcomes was a reduction of mortality rates of 2%. Basically a margin of error result.

So to answer your question, there are no Anti Vaxers here. Just a lot of very rational people who have looked at the evidence, looked at the science, and looked at the data, and said this is not for us. We'll pass on being what are little more than guinea-pigs for the early trials of an experimental vaccine.

All the evidence indicates that when the SARs CoV 2 vaccine story is written it will not be some great public health triumph like the story of the polio vaccine but a public health debacle like the story of Thalidomide. For those not old enough to remember the story of Thalidomide it was a prescription drug that caused many thousand of serious birth defects in the UK and Europe but not in the US. Because a senior FDA official asked a lots of awkward questions and did not get answers she was happy with. Thalidomide babies were pretty common when I was growing up. Kids without arms and legs.

That's why I am a SARs CoV 2 vaccine skeptic. The evidence I have seen so far.
Outstanding post jmc.

I don't understand the aggression and hatred shown towards people who having weighed up the pro's and con's just don't want to submit to experimental jabs. If you are vaxxed why should you care if someone else is? You are protected. Unless you admit the vaxx doesn't work at which point what is the point?

Fingal
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:11 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by Fingal »

I agree there is a strong anti-vax tendency on this site. Whether it amounts to an actual majority is another matter.

Similarly, there are lots of people who use terms like 'MSM' which usually means a weakness towards conspiracy theories in general.

There is a genuine debate that needs to be had around the value of lockdown v the costs of lockdown. And it isn't a one-off issue. The balance of pros and cons shifts all the time.

But as far as this site is concerned, that debate is in danger of being lost in the mists of generalised crank scepticism.

RichardTechnik
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:01 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by RichardTechnik »

Fingal wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:40 am I agree there is a strong anti-vax tendency on this site. Whether it amounts to an actual majority is another matter.

Similarly, there are lots of people who use terms like 'MSM' which usually means a weakness towards conspiracy theories in general.

There is a genuine debate that needs to be had around the value of lockdown v the costs of lockdown. And it isn't a one-off issue. The balance of pros and cons shifts all the time.

But as far as this site is concerned, that debate is in danger of being lost in the mists of generalised crank scepticism.
theres a few here who use terms like 'anti-vax' which usually means a weakness towards countering the disparate views and discrediting the concerns many people legitimately hold against rushed and emergency authorised vaccines.

Rudolph Rigger
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:04 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by Rudolph Rigger »

Fingal wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:40 am I agree there is a strong anti-vax tendency on this site. Whether it amounts to an actual majority is another matter.

Similarly, there are lots of people who use terms like 'MSM' which usually means a weakness towards conspiracy theories in general.

There is a genuine debate that needs to be had around the value of lockdown v the costs of lockdown. And it isn't a one-off issue. The balance of pros and cons shifts all the time.

But as far as this site is concerned, that debate is in danger of being lost in the mists of generalised crank scepticism.
Ah Fingal, you pop up like a silent fart leaving its malodorous trail with your slurs of "anti-vax", "conspiracy" and "crank".

There is no genuine "debate" to be had - lockdown has been disastrous. It has not saved lives and might have screwed things up for generations. The facts of the matter are that places which did not lockdown have not suffered from the exponential runaway catastrophe the modellers and the doom and gloom merchants predicted.

Now that the vaccine has been rolled out to most of the vulnerable - we're now in a position where the impact of this virus will be less than a typical flu. No further action is required. Job done.

We don't get our panties in a wad over flu so why get our panties in a wad over a virus that, with vaccination, is demonstrably less lethal?

Lockdowns have been an abhorrent and damaging response - and contrary to all previous medical advice on what to do in the event of a pandemic. There really isn't any "genuine" debate here at all - or even any debate. The facts speak for themselves.

User avatar
MikeAustin
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:27 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by MikeAustin »

I am pro vaccination. I am pro science.

When an unnecessary, experimental, marginally effective injection is promoted by vested interests as a vaccination, it brings other vaccinations into disrepute.

When disingenuous scientists refuse open debate, ignore prior experience, do not adjust their theories to match evidence, distort and misrepresent data and promote actions based on their scientifically bankrupt ideas, it brings other scientists and science in general into disrepute.

StPiosCafe
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:00 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by StPiosCafe »

jotheboat wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:42 am I think there is a chance that I am less likely to pass anything on to my elderly friends. If I knowingly did that I would be mortified.
If you were mortified, it would be added to to covid19 death count!

Splatt
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by Splatt »

"Anti-vaxx" does exist on here and there are some rabid lunatics who are (but easy enough to ignore).

However, not wanting everyone to have a vaccination even if they are incredibly unlikely to suffer from the disease is not anti-vax.. It's actually official public health policy for all diseases going back hundreds of years!

Not wanting everyone to have to show ID papers to go to a pub is not anti-vax.

Suggesting its a good idea to vaccinate all the people vulnerable to the disease is not anti-vax.

Being rabidly against all voluntary vaccination or making up things not borne out in fact (the Wakefields etc) is anti-vaxx. Those people are (i) stupid and (ii) dangerous.


As a general rule here, i find adding anyone that uses the words "Gates", "great reset", "WEF", "casedemic", "plandemic","MSM" or links to BitChute to the ignore list filters out 99% of all known crap.
You get a more sane spread of views with very few false positives or false negatives.

Fingal
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:11 pm

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by Fingal »

Rudolph Rigger wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:10 pm Ah Fingal, you pop up like a silent fart leaving its malodorous trail
Just to point out, this is a site that prides itself on reasoned, non-insulting debate.

jmc
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:01 am

Re: Vaccine opinion around here seems heavily biased against

Post by jmc »

Fingal wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:40 am I agree there is a strong anti-vax tendency on this site. Whether it amounts to an actual majority is another matter.

Similarly, there are lots of people who use terms like 'MSM' which usually means a weakness towards conspiracy theories in general.

There is a genuine debate that needs to be had around the value of lockdown v the costs of lockdown. And it isn't a one-off issue. The balance of pros and cons shifts all the time.

But as far as this site is concerned, that debate is in danger of being lost in the mists of generalised crank scepticism.
I think your hang up with the term MSM indicates more of a personal issue with the spread of information sources you are exposed to daily. In the US the term MSM is a catch all term for the legacy media. It just means the 3 networks, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. In the news media it means NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times etc. And all the big regionals. Plus Time and Newsweek.

In the UK there is still a wide political diversity of newspapers. The old Yes Minter joke of who reads what British paper still pretty much holds 40 years later. Forty years ago there was still a reasonably diversity of political views in the US media outlets. That is pretty much gone. In UK terms all the US networks are basically BBC/ Channel 4 all the time. For US newspapers its all Guardian all the time.

This utter lack of political diversity in the US media is reflected in international surveys by Pew etc. Only in the US is there such a huge dichotomy in satisfaction with the national media by different political supporters. In the US Democratic voters are happier with the national media than any equivalent group in any other country. And US Republican voters are more unhappy with the national media than any other equivalent group in other countries. Nothing to do with people surveyed, everything to do with the quality of the media. There was not this huge dichotomy thirty years ago when the US media still was very much middle of the road politically. Bu those generation of reporters and news editors are now dead and gone. Replaced totally by J-School drones.

To give you an idea of just how skewed the US media landscape is. How little it reflect the day to day world or the political views of ordinary people. Try reading the Guardian only and watching Channel 4 news only for six months. How close is the UK they portray to the one you actually live in? Or the people around you. Not very close. Even if you live in Islington.

Now imagine a whole national media like that. The degree of disjunction with day to day reality of daily life is just like, well, all the BBC coverage of COVID for the last year for example.

So using the term MSM has got nothing with "conspiracy theories" but got everything to do with a convenient label for the increasing divergence of the daily narratives pushed by the large media outlets and the verifiable facts on the ground. Or ones actual daily experiences.

Post Reply