PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (2 Viewers)

[rockaction]

The percent of kids vaccinated so they could attend school was incredibly high for decades. This new resistance to vaccines seems to be something that's just come up over the last 10-15 years where they have gone from miracle to scapegoat for endless human problems.

There was always an anti-vaccination movement. See Willrich, Michael and his book called Pox. It was largely made up of evangelicals and uneducated immigrants who bore the brunt of the "imperfect" and often compulsory testing done to make the vaccines more efficacious and safe.

The modern resistance comes straight from the 1998 Lancet article by Andrew Wakefield, who faked the data and claimed that a preservative in the MMR vaccine was highly correlated with (I do not know if he said caused) autism in infants. I mean, talk about a serious blow to public health agencies.

It also comes from the resentment of prescription drug costs and the pharma industry in general, which people are loath to like when there are billions in profits being reaped and drug prices are high. This I won't get political about, but this fuels the resentment of a lot of people who are anti-vaccination.

In addition, people treat their political affiliations like tribal shepherds these days on all sides of the eight-sided die.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I know some people will die in self-driving car accidents and i know some will die from vaccines, but far more lives will be saved by having both. Instead of dismissing them for not being perfect we should focus on making them better. There will be setbacks along the way but that doesn’t mean we’re not on the right track. In the long run, future generations (maybe even ours) will be far healthier and safer because of these advancements.

Yes. Like anything, one must weigh the good vs the bad.

I think that's what good faith discussion with a bit of humility can help with.

A think most people get a bit upset when they are "forced" to do something, especially when they don't view it as necessary or something they don't believe in. Quite a few people lost their jobs when they refused the vaccine (I know a few personally as well). I personally got it when it came out cause I didn't want to lose my job over it. It really wasn't even a question for me, I honestly didn't even care, I just know that lots and lots of people were super ticked off about it.

Some things that could be forced would definitely have benefits, but would they be "good"? Extreme example, say the government outlawed all unhealthy food to the point where it isn't even possible to make something unhealthy. Health-wise, yeah, that would work out great. What would the fallout be?? Who knows.

Reduced all speed limits by like 50% and make it so the top speed a car can even go is like 50mph. That would save a ton of lives. How would the public react? Who knows.

As for what Willie Nelson mentioned about future generations being healthier and safer. We can maybe be safer, but we are heading anywhere but HEALTHIER even if life expectancy stays the same or even rises some.

It does seem (thought I wasn't alive so I can't say for sure) that previous vaccines weren't met with this levle of resistance. It seems like Americans saw the polio vaccine as a modern miracle and were generally eager to get it, welcoming the idea that all future generations could be protected from a nasty disease. The percent of kids vaccinated so they could attend school was incredibly high for decades. This new resistance to vaccines seems to be something that's just come up over the last 10-15 years where they have gone from miracle to scapegoat for endless human problems.

I know some people will die in self-driving car accidents and i know some will die from vaccines, but far more lives will be saved by having both. Instead of dismissing them for not being perfect we should focus on making them better. There will be setbacks along the way but that doesn’t mean we’re not on the right track. In the long run, future generations (maybe even ours) will be far healthier and safer because of these advancements.

Yes. Like anything, one must weigh the good vs the bad.

I think that's what good faith discussion with a bit of humility can help with.

A think most people get a bit upset when they are "forced" to do something, especially when they don't view it as necessary or something they don't believe in. Quite a few people lost their jobs when they refused the vaccine (I know a few personally as well). I personally got it when it came out cause I didn't want to lose my job over it. It really wasn't even a question for me, I honestly didn't even care, I just know that lots and lots of people were super ticked off about it.

Some things that could be forced would definitely have benefits, but would they be "good"? Extreme example, say the government outlawed all unhealthy food to the point where it isn't even possible to make something unhealthy. Health-wise, yeah, that would work out great. What would the fallout be?? Who knows.

Reduced all speed limits by like 50% and make it so the top speed a car can even go is like 50mph. That would save a ton of lives. How would the public react? Who knows.

As for what Willie Nelson mentioned about future generations being healthier and safer. We can maybe be safer, but we are heading anywhere but HEALTHIER even if life expectancy stays the same or even rises some.

It does seem (thought I wasn't alive so I can't say for sure) that previous vaccines weren't met with this levle of resistance. It seems like Americans saw the polio vaccine as a modern miracle and were generally eager to get it, welcoming the idea that all future generations could be protected from a nasty disease. The percent of kids vaccinated so they could attend school was incredibly high for decades. This new resistance to vaccines seems to be something that's just come up over the last 10-15 years where they have gone from miracle to scapegoat for endless human problems.

I think the difference between then and now is the millions/billions pharma spends on advertising

I submit social media and 24/7 news as huge differences then vs now, but i also blame that for a lot of things.

 

[ghostguy123]

If ones concern is the mandate of taking a vaccine, that's an argument to be had. That's a completely different conversation than vaccine safety though.

Indeed it is a much different conversation.

I also think each vaccine would also need its own conversation when it comes to that. The convo of being "forced" to take the MMR vs the Covid vaccine is a wildly different conversation IMO.

Why? It's a philosophical discussion at that point, no?. "I'm good with being told I have to take certain vaccines and not others" seems like a position of confusion should one find themselves there.

I'm good with being told I need to be able to see in order to have a driver's license.

I understand what you are saying, but you also need to understand that there is a difference between a vaccine with decades of positive data Vs. a newly generated Covid vaccine with basically no data, a vaccine created faster than any vaccine ever.

I mean, high school and college kids were having "Covid parties". I don't remember any measles or polio parties.

Basically, I'd rather not have things mandated, but I won't put up a fuss over the MMR vaccine being mandated. However, I'd be pretty ticked if the Covid vaccine was currently mandated (which it definitely is not where I work, and dont know of anyone who is mandated).

So, as of right now, we ARE pretty much being told we have to take certain vaccines and not others. In order to enter nursing school I had certain vaccines to take. I'd easily take them again if I entered a new school and needed them. Covid vaccine? I'd NOT be ok taking that one. I'd still probably do it, but sure wouldnt like it.

 

[Ilov80s]

The percent of kids vaccinated so they could attend school was incredibly high for decades. This new resistance to vaccines seems to be something that's just come up over the last 10-15 years where they have gone from miracle to scapegoat for endless human problems.

There was always an anti-vaccination movement. See Willrich, Michael and his book called Pox. It was largely made up of evangelicals and uneducated immigrants who bore the brunt of the "imperfect" and often compulsory testing done to make the vaccines more efficacious and safe.

The modern resistance comes straight from the 1998 Lancet article by Andrew Wakefield, who faked the data and claimed that a preservative in the MMR vaccine was highly correlated (I do not know if he said caused) with autism in infants. I mean, talk about a serious blow to public health agencies.

It also comes from the resentment of prescription drug costs and the pharma industry in general, which people are loath to like when there are billions in profits being reaped and drug prices are high. This I won't get political about, but this fuels the resentment of a lot of people who are anti-vaccination.

In addition, people treat their political affiliations like tribal shepherds these days on all sides of the eight-sided die.

I won’t touch on much there to make sure we keep the thread clean. I just kind of meant people are generally very willing to do what they are told. Most people took vaccines for years. Most people stop at red lights and pay their taxes and do lots of things society tells them to do.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The percent of kids vaccinated so they could attend school was incredibly high for decades. This new resistance to vaccines seems to be something that's just come up over the last 10-15 years where they have gone from miracle to scapegoat for endless human problems.

There was always an anti-vaccination movement. See Willrich, Michael and his book called Pox. It was largely made up of evangelicals and uneducated immigrants who bore the brunt of the "imperfect" and often compulsory testing done to make the vaccines more efficacious and safe.

The modern resistance comes straight from the 1998 Lancet article by Andrew Wakefield, who faked the data and claimed that a preservative in the MMR vaccine was highly correlated (I do not know if he said caused) with autism in infants. I mean, talk about a serious blow to public health agencies.

It also comes from the resentment of prescription drug costs and the pharma industry in general, which people are loath to like when there are billions in profits being reaped and drug prices are high. This I won't get political about, but this fuels the resentment of a lot of people who are anti-vaccination.

In addition, people treat their political affiliations like tribal shepherds these days on all sides of the eight-sided die.

I won’t touch on much there to make sure we keep the thread clean. I just kind of meant people are generally very willing to do what they are told. Most people took vaccines for years. Most people stop at red lights and pay their taxes and do lots of things society tells them to do.

But decades ago we as a society were more likely to consume similar information and trust the people telling us those things. This is exactly the opposite now.

 

[dkp993]

I know some people will die in self-driving car accidents and i know some will die from vaccines, but far more lives will be saved by having both. Instead of dismissing them for not being perfect we should focus on making them better. There will be setbacks along the way but that doesn’t mean we’re not on the right track. In the long run, future generations (maybe even ours) will be far healthier and safer because of these advancements.

Yes. Like anything, one must weigh the good vs the bad.

I think that's what good faith discussion with a bit of humility can help with.

For sure. Also needing to be factored in is knowledge today versus knowledge in 2020 and 21. I got vaccinated and boosted and felt confident and good about my decision when I did. Now in 2025 knowing what I know and having had COVID multiple times I wouldn’t do it based on my overall risk profile and how much we know about COVID now. But none of that makes me feel like I made the wrong decision in 21. Like today, I only made the best decision I can make with the information at hand at that time. Ensuring we frame the conversation with that knowledge will help in my opinion.

Curious about what you learned that would keep you from getting the vaccine now.

Largely the risk/benefit proposition. As a healthy 40 something with no comorbidities (and having had COVID multiple times now) I’m not as concerned about it as I was in 2020 when COVID was far less understood. I generally don’t like to take any medication unless I have too so it follows my general philosophy on medication in general.

Did you have covid before getting vaccinated?

Not sure. Was sick the week COVID broke but they didn’t have tests for it then.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I know some people will die in self-driving car accidents and i know some will die from vaccines, but far more lives will be saved by having both. Instead of dismissing them for not being perfect we should focus on making them better. There will be setbacks along the way but that doesn’t mean we’re not on the right track. In the long run, future generations (maybe even ours) will be far healthier and safer because of these advancements.

Yes. Like anything, one must weigh the good vs the bad.

I think that's what good faith discussion with a bit of humility can help with.

For sure. Also needing to be factored in is knowledge today versus knowledge in 2020 and 21. I got vaccinated and boosted and felt confident and good about my decision when I did. Now in 2025 knowing what I know and having had COVID multiple times I wouldn’t do it based on my overall risk profile and how much we know about COVID now. But none of that makes me feel like I made the wrong decision in 21. Like today, I only made the best decision I can make with the information at hand at that time. Ensuring we frame the conversation with that knowledge will help in my opinion.

Curious about what you learned that would keep you from getting the vaccine now.

Largely the risk/benefit proposition. As a healthy 40 something with no comorbidities (and having had COVID multiple times now) I’m not as concerned about it as I was in 2020 when COVID was far less understood. I generally don’t like to take any medication unless I have too so it follows my general philosophy on medication in general.

Did you have covid before getting vaccinated?

Not sure. Was sick the week COVID broke but they didn’t have tests for it then.

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

That said, none of my family has gone beyond the three doses from the beginning and me and my mom are in the field of study and had some research published/acknowledged in the heat of the battle.

 

[FarFromHome]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If ones concern is the mandate of taking a vaccine, that's an argument to be had. That's a completely different conversation than vaccine safety though.

Indeed it is a much different conversation.

I also think each vaccine would also need its own conversation when it comes to that. The convo of being "forced" to take the MMR vs the Covid vaccine is a wildly different conversation IMO.

Why? It's a philosophical discussion at that point, no?. "I'm good with being told I have to take certain vaccines and not others" seems like a position of confusion should one find themselves there.

I'm good with being told I need to be able to see in order to have a driver's license.

I understand what you are saying, but you also need to understand that there is a difference between a vaccine with decades of positive data Vs. a newly generated Covid vaccine with basically no data, a vaccine created faster than any vaccine ever.

I mean, high school and college kids were having "Covid parties". I don't remember any measles or polio parties.

Basically, I'd rather not have things mandated, but I won't put up a fuss over the MMR vaccine being mandated. However, I'd be pretty ticked if the Covid vaccine was currently mandated (which it definitely is not where I work, and dont know of anyone who is mandated).

So, as of right now, we ARE pretty much being told we have to take certain vaccines and not others. In order to enter nursing school I had certain vaccines to take. I'd easily take them again if I entered a new school and needed them. Covid vaccine? I'd NOT be ok taking that one. I'd still probably do it, but sure wouldnt like it.

The bold is where you lose me and perhaps it's because of my background, but the length of study as an indicator of safety is a false sense of security story that our government has instilled in us as a society. <---- My OPINION.

The time it takes to get to market is mostly because of beuracracy and unnecessary CYA measures than the science. People think the time is for safety. It's not.

Back in the day, vaccines could be dangerous because of the additives used to stabilize them. Things like mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, etc. all dangerous and none now required in these new kinds of vaccines. It's major progress in safety and cuts down on the time people need to wait and see if there are negative reactions. Now they can mostly focus on the immune response.

I'll also through out there that people don't bat an eye at getting a flu shot and its a new formula just about every year.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

 

[dkp993]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

 

[FarFromHome]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

Good points. The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are. Reminds me of when Rogan had Bill Burr on and Bill made the comment how silly it is for them both to sit here and talk about this topic intelligently with zero actual training or education.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

Good points. The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are. Reminds me of when Rogan had Bill Burr on and Bill made the comment how silly it is for them both to sit here and talk about this topic intelligently with zero actual training or education.

Not sure what logic you are speaking of. I'm merely pointing out the actual historical events of the vaccines we've lived through. In my experience, those that have gone with the "you can't predict what the future holds" kinds of arguments, of which these are all a type of that, have decided their belief is actually a truth and they are trying to reconcile what they are seeing with that truth. Not saying this about you specifically of course. Please don't take it that way.

 

[rockaction]

The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are

Do you mean that they're not as smart as they think they are? Because the next sentence doesn't really follow from this. In fact, this is saying that people are smarter than they give themselves credit for. It's confusing.

I'm not trying to anti- or pro-vaccine here. I just think your syntax is off and it's causing me to not understand your point.

 

[FarFromHome]

The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are

Do you mean that they're not as smart as they think they are? Because the next sentence doesn't really follow from this. In fact, this is saying that people are smarter than they give themselves credit for. It's confusing.

I'm not trying to anti- or pro-vaccine here. I just think your syntax is off and it's causing me to not understand your point.

I think my point is that in todays culture, with phone and Internet, everyone believes they are an expert. I love my son. He is 25. He is an example of this. He thinks because he spent 3 hours researching the history of Egypt on his phone sitting on the couch that he is in a position to debate folks that have spent decades living in Egypt and studying manuscripts. Bringing this back to this vaccine debate, sometimes, it hard to know what info is researched and accurate and what info is my son on his phone. Seems like when it comes to medical stuff we should have a more clear path to answers. All my uneducated opinion of course. I'm also an unvaccinated individual married to a wife that is vaccinated. She chose. I chose.

 

[rockaction]

The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are

Do you mean that they're not as smart as they think they are? Because the next sentence doesn't really follow from this. In fact, this is saying that people are smarter than they give themselves credit for. It's confusing.

I'm not trying to anti- or pro-vaccine here. I just think your syntax is off and it's causing me to not understand your point.

I think my point is that in todays culture, with phone and Internet, everyone believes they are an expert. I love my son. He is 25. He is an example of this. He thinks because he spent 3 hours researching the history of Egypt on his phone sitting on the couch that he is in a position to debate folks that have spent decades living in Egypt and studying manuscripts. Bringing this back to this vaccine debate, sometimes, it hard to know what info is researched and accurate and what info is my son on his phone. Seems like when it comes to medical stuff we should have a more clear path to answers. All my uneducated opinion of course. I'm also an unvaccinated individual married to a wife that is vaccinated. She chose. I chose.

Sounds like you're saying that there are a lot of unqualified people that think they're experts in fields that they're not really experts in. Is this correct? Because now I get it. You're saying Burr and Rogan were being self-deprecating and saying that they weren't really qualified to be discussing what they were discussing as if they were experts.

Makes total sense. I'd agree with you that more people are thinking that they are experts at things they just started researching than ever before, and I would agree with you if you're saying we used to defer to experts a lot more than we do now. I personally do not understand the mentality of the self-appointed "research expert," but okay, I guess.

 

[ghostguy123]

The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are

Do you mean that they're not as smart as they think they are? Because the next sentence doesn't really follow from this. In fact, this is saying that people are smarter than they give themselves credit for. It's confusing.

I'm not trying to anti- or pro-vaccine here. I just think your syntax is off and it's causing me to not understand your point.

I think my point is that in todays culture, with phone and Internet, everyone believes they are an expert. I love my son. He is 25. He is an example of this. He thinks because he spent 3 hours researching the history of Egypt on his phone sitting on the couch that he is in a position to debate folks that have spent decades living in Egypt and studying manuscripts. Bringing this back to this vaccine debate, sometimes, it hard to know what info is researched and accurate and what info is my son on his phone. Seems like when it comes to medical stuff we should have a more clear path to answers. All my uneducated opinion of course. I'm also an unvaccinated individual married to a wife that is vaccinated. She chose. I chose.

Sounds like you're saying that there are a lot of unqualified people that think they're experts in fields that they're not really experts in. Is this correct? Because now I get it. You're saying Burr and Rogan were being self-deprecating and saying that they weren't really qualified to be discussing what they were discussing as if they were experts.

Makes total sense. I'd agree with you that more people are thinking that they are experts at things they just started researching than ever before, and I would agree with you if you're saying we used to defer to experts a lot more than we do now. I personally do not understand the mentality of the self-appointed "research expert," but okay, I guess.

I think people these days don't trust "the experts" nearly as much anymore, because they don't trust that they are getting unbiased truth.
I certainly can't blame people for not trusting main stream media stuff anymore. It's lie after lie after spin after spin.

However, people "doing their own research" (which is a silly phrase for lots of reasons) somehow trust what they read on the interwebs.

It really is kind of impossible these days to know who or what to trust.

 

[rockaction]

The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are

Do you mean that they're not as smart as they think they are? Because the next sentence doesn't really follow from this. In fact, this is saying that people are smarter than they give themselves credit for. It's confusing.

I'm not trying to anti- or pro-vaccine here. I just think your syntax is off and it's causing me to not understand your point.

I think my point is that in todays culture, with phone and Internet, everyone believes they are an expert. I love my son. He is 25. He is an example of this. He thinks because he spent 3 hours researching the history of Egypt on his phone sitting on the couch that he is in a position to debate folks that have spent decades living in Egypt and studying manuscripts. Bringing this back to this vaccine debate, sometimes, it hard to know what info is researched and accurate and what info is my son on his phone. Seems like when it comes to medical stuff we should have a more clear path to answers. All my uneducated opinion of course. I'm also an unvaccinated individual married to a wife that is vaccinated. She chose. I chose.

Sounds like you're saying that there are a lot of unqualified people that think they're experts in fields that they're not really experts in. Is this correct? Because now I get it. You're saying Burr and Rogan were being self-deprecating and saying that they weren't really qualified to be discussing what they were discussing as if they were experts.

Makes total sense. I'd agree with you that more people are thinking that they are experts at things they just started researching than ever before, and I would agree with you if you're saying we used to defer to experts a lot more than we do now. I personally do not understand the mentality of the self-appointed "research expert," but okay, I guess.

I think people these days don't trust "the experts" nearly as much anymore, because they don't trust that they are getting unbiased truth.
I certainly can't blame people for not trusting main stream media stuff anymore. It's lie after lie after spin after spin.

However, people "doing their own research" (which is a silly phrase for lots of reasons) somehow trust what they read on the interwebs.

It really is kind of impossible these days to know who or what to trust.

I can see that. I also think the nefariousness charge is a bit overblown and needs a correction back a bit to trust. I mean, as a collective we don't trust anything. The levels of trust in our society regarding our institutions has plummeted. That's for sure.

I lament the good old days when everybody got lied to and lacked the consciousness to do anything about it. Now it feels like we have all this information at our fingertips and a heightened consciousness and skeptical nature only now nobody trusts anything.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

There is no reason not to trust the actual experts. The studies are published and the data is there along with their analysis. It's as rock solid as it's ever been ever.

What I see is people putting that "expert" label on individuals and entities they shouldn't. Like "the media" or spokesperson for drug companies or appointed doctors to govt positions etc.

Then there is the problem of separating the data/truth from what actions we should take based on that data/truth. The actual experts are generally silent on those sorts of things by nature. They'll give their personal opinion if asked but they'll also make clear that it is their opinion.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are

Do you mean that they're not as smart as they think they are? Because the next sentence doesn't really follow from this. In fact, this is saying that people are smarter than they give themselves credit for. It's confusing.

I'm not trying to anti- or pro-vaccine here. I just think your syntax is off and it's causing me to not understand your point.

I think my point is that in todays culture, with phone and Internet, everyone believes they are an expert. I love my son. He is 25. He is an example of this. He thinks because he spent 3 hours researching the history of Egypt on his phone sitting on the couch that he is in a position to debate folks that have spent decades living in Egypt and studying manuscripts. Bringing this back to this vaccine debate, sometimes, it hard to know what info is researched and accurate and what info is my son on his phone. Seems like when it comes to medical stuff we should have a more clear path to answers. All my uneducated opinion of course. I'm also an unvaccinated individual married to a wife that is vaccinated. She chose. I chose.

This reminds me of an instance that happened right here on these forums a few years ago. There was a discussion here about abortion and the conversation veered into the topic of ectopic pregnancies. A few posters here were arguing so passionately and confidently about it. My wife happens to be an OB/GYN with years of training and real world hands on experience with ectopic pregnancies so I asked her to read the discussion. She basically said no one had any idea what they were talking about, and they had clearly spent about 5 minutes on google looking up some quick terms and gotchas to use in an argument. Her reaction was a mixture of laughter and frustration, and she analogized it to me sending her and her friend a 3 minute youtube video about fantasy football and then having them have a 5-page debate about the merits of value-based drafting with each other, and asking me to read it.

I think this kind of thing has always been the case to a large extent as people do have some pushback to just blindly trusting what they are told, which is somewhat healthy. The difference now I think is that in the past that was limited to the boundaries of the dinner table and who you could feasibly converse with. Everyone had their own weird theories that were generally limited to their own circle.

Now in the days of social media, podcasts, etc the ability to organize fake expertise into one or two stronger sounding arguments and spread it is much easier. And people have certainly taken advantage of that, as you have people who have ACTUAL expertise in marketing and debate that are able to twist logical sounding conclusions that are easy for people to latch onto. So now you have people that are actually experts in their field, but are generally not charismatic people that are good at debates and soundbites, lined up against people that know little about the actual field, but are experts in charisma, debate, and rolling things into an easily digestible and nice sounding package that is easy to market.

I do feel sorry for these experts and leaders in their field at times. I think a similar example would be if for some reason fantasy football became a focus of the nation and politics, and some charismatic podcaster or influencers went out there and started pushing some easily digestible narrative like "kickers score the most points, so they should obviously be the first pick in your fantasy drafts!". To someone that has never or barely played fantasy football, there is logical sense to that. They could even back it up with anecdotes about their bro that drafted Martin Gramatica in the 1st round and won his championship, and find all kinds of out of context stats to quote. And then their fellow podcasters and influencers start pushing the same thing. And suddenly huge swaths of the nation are in uproar that kickers should be the 1st pick in fantasy drafts, and start legislating based on that logic. Meanwhile JB and FBGs and everyone here are dismissed as "big running back", obviously having ulterior motives for perpetrating the lie that kickers should be picked later in drafts.

It's a difficult situation, because some skepticism is healthy and certainly has a place. The problem now is that skepticism can too easily be rolled into a few charistmatic people with a microphone that don't really understand what they're talking about, but whose opinion and logical fallacies people will just absolutely eat up and spread.

 

[dkp993]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

What do you mean by this?

Vaccine’s in the context of actually immunizing you from the pathogens. Like polo or the measles.

To be clear, I fully understand the are different pathogens and mutations of strains are involved. I’m merely speaking to the word vaccine and how the majority of people think of it.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

So you're convinced that it's flawed thinking for someone to be concerned about a brand new vaccine and it's long term side effects after a 3 week test?

I know 6 people in real life that have had strokes or heart attacks that took the vaccine. Might be coincidental. They could have all had other health issues that I wouldn't be aware of. That's pretty scary. Was it related to Covid? Vaccine? None of us know for sure but for me personally, I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

 

[ghostguy123]

I'd think more people would tend to object to getting a vaccine for something that they dont even really care if they get.

I'm guessing basically everyone would be strongly against getting polio.

Most people I have ever talked to dont seem to care if they get covid.

 

[jhib]

If ones concern is the mandate of taking a vaccine, that's an argument to be had. That's a completely different conversation than vaccine safety though.

Indeed it is a much different conversation.

I also think each vaccine would also need its own conversation when it comes to that. The convo of being "forced" to take the MMR vs the Covid vaccine is a wildly different conversation IMO.

Why? It's a philosophical discussion at that point, no?. "I'm good with being told I have to take certain vaccines and not others" seems like a position of confusion should one find themselves there.

I'm good with being told I need to be able to see in order to have a driver's license.

I understand what you are saying, but you also need to understand that there is a difference between a vaccine with decades of positive data Vs. a newly generated Covid vaccine with basically no data, a vaccine created faster than any vaccine ever.

I mean, high school and college kids were having "Covid parties". I don't remember any measles or polio parties.

Basically, I'd rather not have things mandated, but I won't put up a fuss over the MMR vaccine being mandated. However, I'd be pretty ticked if the Covid vaccine was currently mandated (which it definitely is not where I work, and dont know of anyone who is mandated).

So, as of right now, we ARE pretty much being told we have to take certain vaccines and not others. In order to enter nursing school I had certain vaccines to take. I'd easily take them again if I entered a new school and needed them. Covid vaccine? I'd NOT be ok taking that one. I'd still probably do it, but sure wouldnt like it.

I definitely remember hearing about measles parties before covid came around.

 

[Mitchie]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

So you're convinced that it's flawed thinking for someone to be concerned about a brand new vaccine and it's long term side effects after a 3 week test?

I know 6 people in real life that have had strokes or heart attacks that took the vaccine. Might be coincidental. They could have all had other health issues that I wouldn't be aware of. That's pretty scary. Was it related to Covid? Vaccine? None of us know for sure but for me personally, I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

Not even remotely close to three weeks.

How have Covid-19 vaccines been made quickly and safely? | News | Wellcome

International cooperation and focus have led to effective and safe Covid-19 vaccines in less than a year, and created a blueprint for future vaccine development.

wellcome.org

And you can try to come to your own conclusion off of anecdotal evidence from people that you have no idea what their health is like, or you can try to learn the truth from scientific studies

Risk of heart attack, stroke drops after COVID vaccination, data show

www.cidrap.umn.edu

 

[dkp993]

I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

While I don’t have a firm stance on the COVID vaccine any longer and more and more questions for me continue to present themselves. The hard part about where we, the general public, are right now is trying to distinguish what you say above. Is it tied to the vaccine or is it what I call the “yellow car syndrome”*? Unfortunately I’m not sure we’ll ever get to any kind of accepted consensus on this, not matter what study is produced. Ultimately I believe that sad fact will be COVID’s true long lasting impact.

*day in and day out I never see yellow cars. Then someone mentions it and now I see yellow cars everywhere.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

So you're convinced that it's flawed thinking for someone to be concerned about a brand new vaccine and it's long term side effects after a 3 week test?

I know 6 people in real life that have had strokes or heart attacks that took the vaccine. Might be coincidental. They could have all had other health issues that I wouldn't be aware of. That's pretty scary. Was it related to Covid? Vaccine? None of us know for sure but for me personally, I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

Not even remotely close to three weeks.

How have Covid-19 vaccines been made quickly and safely? | News | Wellcome

International cooperation and focus have led to effective and safe Covid-19 vaccines in less than a year, and created a blueprint for future vaccine development.

wellcome.org

And you can try to come to your own conclusion off of anecdotal evidence from people that you have no idea what their health is like, or you can try to learn the truth from scientific studies

Risk of heart attack, stroke drops after COVID vaccination, data show

www.cidrap.umn.edu

His post said 3 weeks

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The problem with your logic is in todays culture people are way smarter then they think they are

Do you mean that they're not as smart as they think they are? Because the next sentence doesn't really follow from this. In fact, this is saying that people are smarter than they give themselves credit for. It's confusing.

I'm not trying to anti- or pro-vaccine here. I just think your syntax is off and it's causing me to not understand your point.

I think my point is that in todays culture, with phone and Internet, everyone believes they are an expert. I love my son. He is 25. He is an example of this. He thinks because he spent 3 hours researching the history of Egypt on his phone sitting on the couch that he is in a position to debate folks that have spent decades living in Egypt and studying manuscripts. Bringing this back to this vaccine debate, sometimes, it hard to know what info is researched and accurate and what info is my son on his phone. Seems like when it comes to medical stuff we should have a more clear path to answers. All my uneducated opinion of course. I'm also an unvaccinated individual married to a wife that is vaccinated. She chose. I chose.

This reminds me of an instance that happened right here on these forums a few years ago. There was a discussion here about abortion and the conversation veered into the topic of ectopic pregnancies. A few posters here were arguing so passionately and confidently about it. My wife happens to be an OB/GYN with years of training and real world hands on experience with ectopic pregnancies so I asked her to read the discussion. She basically said no one had any idea what they were talking about, and they had clearly spent about 5 minutes on google looking up some quick terms and gotchas to use in an argument. Her reaction was a mixture of laughter and frustration, and she analogized it to me sending her and her friend a 3 minute youtube video about fantasy football and then having them have a 5-page debate about the merits of value-based drafting with each other, and asking me to read it.

I think this kind of thing has always been the case to a large extent as people do have some pushback to just blindly trusting what they are told, which is somewhat healthy. The difference now I think is that in the past that was limited to the boundaries of the dinner table and who you could feasibly converse with. Everyone had their own weird theories that were generally limited to their own circle.

Now in the days of social media, podcasts, etc the ability to organize fake expertise into one or two stronger sounding arguments and spread it is much easier. And people have certainly taken advantage of that, as you have people who have ACTUAL expertise in marketing and debate that are able to twist logical sounding conclusions that are easy for people to latch onto. So now you have people that are actually experts in their field, but are generally not charismatic people that are good at debates and soundbites, lined up against people that know little about the actual field, but are experts in charisma, debate, and rolling things into an easily digestible and nice sounding package that is easy to market.

I do feel sorry for these experts and leaders in their field at times. I think a similar example would be if for some reason fantasy football became a focus of the nation and politics, and some charismatic podcaster or influencers went out there and started pushing some easily digestible narrative like "kickers score the most points, so they should obviously be the first pick in your fantasy drafts!". To someone that has never or barely played fantasy football, there is logical sense to that. They could even back it up with anecdotes about their bro that drafted Martin Gramatica in the 1st round and won his championship, and find all kinds of out of context stats to quote. And then their fellow podcasters and influencers start pushing the same thing. And suddenly huge swaths of the nation are in uproar that kickers should be the 1st pick in fantasy drafts, and start legislating based on that logic. Meanwhile JB and FBGs and everyone here are dismissed as "big running back", obviously having ulterior motives for perpetrating the lie that kickers should be picked later in drafts.

It's a difficult situation, because some skepticism is healthy and certainly has a place. The problem now is that skepticism can too easily be rolled into a few charistmatic people with a microphone that don't really understand what they're talking about, but whose opinion and logical fallacies people will just absolutely eat up and spread.

My dad showed the covid thread to me and my mom. Pretty shocking stuff in that thread. That's how I ended up lurking and then joining just a little while back.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

So you're convinced that it's flawed thinking for someone to be concerned about a brand new vaccine and it's long term side effects after a 3 week test?

I know 6 people in real life that have had strokes or heart attacks that took the vaccine. Might be coincidental. They could have all had other health issues that I wouldn't be aware of. That's pretty scary. Was it related to Covid? Vaccine? None of us know for sure but for me personally, I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

I think I made clear my thoughts in other posts. This isn't close to what I said.

Cardiovascular research is my area of study, so if you have any questions let me know. The conflation of causation and correlation ran rampant in the early stages of the pandemic when people didn't know what was going on or what the vaccines did. Your questions should be satisfied by now on the likelihood of the vaccines being the issue, but if not and you have questions I am happy to talk through.

There are a lot of people out there that experienced things or learned things they never knew prior to covid and I think that's a good thing, but to many fall in the "I didn't know about this before, so it must be because of the vaccine" mindset.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

While I don’t have a firm stance on the COVID vaccine any longer and more and more questions for me continue to present themselves. The hard part about where we, the general public, are right now is trying to distinguish what you say above. Is it tied to the vaccine or is it what I call the “yellow car syndrome”*? Unfortunately I’m not sure we’ll ever get to any kind of accepted consensus on this, not matter what study is produced. Ultimately I believe that sad fact will be COVID’s true long lasting impact.

*day in and day out I never see yellow cars. Then someone mentions it and now I see yellow cars everywhere.

For individual causes, no, you won't get the answers. That's not how this is judged/measured though. We talk about this in terms of probability/likelihood. Millions have been vaccinated world wide and there has been no major escalations in heart related deaths etc during that time. While it's true that some can have a negative reaction or die any time anything foreign is introduced to the body, it can also be true that it is highly unlikely/probable. The later is what the trials and testing are focused on.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

His post said 3 weeks

Nowhere did I mention a "three week test"

I said it took them three weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

 

[dkp993]

I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

While I don’t have a firm stance on the COVID vaccine any longer and more and more questions for me continue to present themselves. The hard part about where we, the general public, are right now is trying to distinguish what you say above. Is it tied to the vaccine or is it what I call the “yellow car syndrome”*? Unfortunately I’m not sure we’ll ever get to any kind of accepted consensus on this, not matter what study is produced. Ultimately I believe that sad fact will be COVID’s true long lasting impact.

*day in and day out I never see yellow cars. Then someone mentions it and now I see yellow cars everywhere.

For individual causes, no, you won't get the answers. That's not how this is judged/measured though. We talk about this in terms of probability/likelihood. Millions have been vaccinated world wide and there has been no major escalations in heart related deaths etc during that time. While it's true that some can have a negative reaction or die any time anything foreign is introduced to the body, it can also be true that it is highly unlikely/probable. The later is what the trials and testing are focused on.

Don’t disagree with anything you said. And the vaccine is clearly largely safe. I’m certainly not debating that. But for the general public it’s hard to parse out at this point, unless you’re an expert in the field, the level and frequency of damage (those that have a adverse reaction) versus the vaccines that we are all comfortable and understand. (Again, polio measles, etc., etc. Yes, there’s a contingency that has risen over the last few years about their safety but as @rockaction pointed out upstream most know why that came about.) Add in the level of distrust that most have on the sources providing the information now and it becomes a complicated soup of ingredients. This all goes back to my statement about COVID’s true long lasting impact.

 

[Willie Neslon]

If you've been vaccinated for COVID, you can't say with 100% certainty that you would be alive today if you hadn't been vaccinated. Conspiracy theorists never engage with that point. They focus entirely on reports of vaccine injuries while ignoring the far greater number of lives saved. It's classic black and white thinking that shows up in every conspiracy theory.

 

[Hastur]

Anyone else find it weird the original poster abandoned the thread after the first two?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

What do you mean by this?

Vaccine’s in the context of actually immunizing you from the pathogens. Like polo or the measles.

To be clear, I fully understand the are different pathogens and mutations of strains are involved. I’m merely speaking to the word vaccine and how the majority of people think of it.

Still not sure I follow. The original measles vaccine was roughly 70% effective (i believe....don't remember for sure). The covid vaccines were well over 90% effective against the initial strands. The new measles vaccines are on the order of 95% effective with one shot and up to 97% with a second.

I don't know much about polio vaccines though. Can't comment on them with any confidence.

If the measles outbreaks we are seeing aren't contained and the virus becomes more widespread, don't be surprised if it's recommended that we get boosters.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Anyone else find it weird the original poster abandoned the thread after the first two?

Given the initial post and terms used, I'm not surprised at all.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

So you're convinced that it's flawed thinking for someone to be concerned about a brand new vaccine and it's long term side effects after a 3 week test?

I know 6 people in real life that have had strokes or heart attacks that took the vaccine. Might be coincidental. They could have all had other health issues that I wouldn't be aware of. That's pretty scary. Was it related to Covid? Vaccine? None of us know for sure but for me personally, I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

I think I made clear my thoughts in other posts. This isn't close to what I said.

Cardiovascular research is my area of study, so if you have any questions let me know. The conflation of causation and correlation ran rampant in the early stages of the pandemic when people didn't know what was going on or what the vaccines did. Your questions should be satisfied by now on the likelihood of the vaccines being the issue, but if not and you have questions I am happy to talk through.

There are a lot of people out there that experienced things or learned things they never knew prior to covid and I think that's a good thing, but to many fall in the "I didn't know about this before, so it must be because of the vaccine" mindset.

It's pretty much impossible to discuss this with you without breaking rules so I'll leave it at if you can't understand why the public would be hesitant on long term effects of a quickly produced vaccine, then I can't help you. It's not about whether it's actually safe or not long term you have to let long term happen to judge that. You're also just dismissing all the sudden heart and stroke issues as being some mindset so no point in further discussion.

 

[dkp993]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

What do you mean by this?

Vaccine’s in the context of actually immunizing you from the pathogens. Like polo or the measles.

To be clear, I fully understand the are different pathogens and mutations of strains are involved. I’m merely speaking to the word vaccine and how the majority of people think of it.

Still not sure I follow. The original measles vaccine was roughly 70% effective (i believe....don't remember for sure). The covid vaccines were well over 90% effective against the initial strands. The new measles vaccines are on the order of 95% effective with one shot and up to 97% with a second.

I don't know much about polio vaccines though. Can't comment on them with any confidence.

If the measles outbreaks we are seeing aren't contained and the virus becomes more widespread, don't be surprised if it's recommended that we get boosters.

You seem focused on efficacy, I’m speaking to perception from the general public. When you have to continue to get new vaccines, every time the virus mutates, which is quite rapidly in the case of this virus, it doesn’t feel like a vaccine. Shots and shots and shots, and more shots for something that doesn’t seem all that serious for healthy non cormorbilities people. It’s not that way with measles or polio. And that’s what most people think of when they think a vaccine, one shot (possibly a booster not long after) and you’re good for life. Not sure how else to say it.

 

[BlackCrowes]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

What do you mean by this?

Vaccine’s in the context of actually immunizing you from the pathogens. Like polo or the measles.

To be clear, I fully understand the are different pathogens and mutations of strains are involved. I’m merely speaking to the word vaccine and how the majority of people think of it.

Still not sure I follow. The original measles vaccine was roughly 70% effective (i believe....don't remember for sure). The covid vaccines were well over 90% effective against the initial strands. The new measles vaccines are on the order of 95% effective with one shot and up to 97% with a second.

I don't know much about polio vaccines though. Can't comment on them with any confidence.

If the measles outbreaks we are seeing aren't contained and the virus becomes more widespread, don't be surprised if it's recommended that we get boosters.

You seem focused on efficacy, I’m speaking to perception from the general public. When you have to continue to get new vaccines, every time the virus mutates, which is quite rapidly in the case of this virus, it doesn’t feel like a vaccine. Shots and shots and shots, and more shots for something that doesn’t seem all that serious for healthy non cormorbilities people. It’s not that way with measles or polio. And that’s what most people think of when they think a vaccine, one shot (possibly a booster not long after) and you’re good for life. Not sure how else to say it.

Then the public needs to be educated, which is becoming increasingly difficult for some reason

 

[Scoresman]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

What do you mean by this?

Vaccine’s in the context of actually immunizing you from the pathogens. Like polo or the measles.

To be clear, I fully understand the are different pathogens and mutations of strains are involved. I’m merely speaking to the word vaccine and how the majority of people think of it.

Still not sure I follow. The original measles vaccine was roughly 70% effective (i believe....don't remember for sure). The covid vaccines were well over 90% effective against the initial strands. The new measles vaccines are on the order of 95% effective with one shot and up to 97% with a second.

I don't know much about polio vaccines though. Can't comment on them with any confidence.

If the measles outbreaks we are seeing aren't contained and the virus becomes more widespread, don't be surprised if it's recommended that we get boosters.

You seem focused on efficacy, I’m speaking to perception from the general public. When you have to continue to get new vaccines, every time the virus mutates, which is quite rapidly in the case of this virus, it doesn’t feel like a vaccine. Shots and shots and shots, and more shots for something that doesn’t seem all that serious for healthy non cormorbilities people. It’s not that way with measles or polio. And that’s what most people think of when they think a vaccine, one shot (possibly a booster not long after) and you’re good for life. Not sure how else to say it.

Then the public needs to be educated, which is becoming increasingly difficult for some reason

Social media is to blame here at least partially. Before, people were most likely in a bubble with any crazy theories they might come up with. Now it’s too easy to find like minded people on the internet who also “do their own research” and it validates their mindset.

 

[dkp993]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

What do you mean by this?

Vaccine’s in the context of actually immunizing you from the pathogens. Like polo or the measles.

To be clear, I fully understand the are different pathogens and mutations of strains are involved. I’m merely speaking to the word vaccine and how the majority of people think of it.

Still not sure I follow. The original measles vaccine was roughly 70% effective (i believe....don't remember for sure). The covid vaccines were well over 90% effective against the initial strands. The new measles vaccines are on the order of 95% effective with one shot and up to 97% with a second.

I don't know much about polio vaccines though. Can't comment on them with any confidence.

If the measles outbreaks we are seeing aren't contained and the virus becomes more widespread, don't be surprised if it's recommended that we get boosters.

You seem focused on efficacy, I’m speaking to perception from the general public. When you have to continue to get new vaccines, every time the virus mutates, which is quite rapidly in the case of this virus, it doesn’t feel like a vaccine. Shots and shots and shots, and more shots for something that doesn’t seem all that serious for healthy non cormorbilities people. It’s not that way with measles or polio. And that’s what most people think of when they think a vaccine, one shot (possibly a booster not long after) and you’re good for life. Not sure how else to say it.

Then the public needs to be educated, which is becoming increasingly difficult for some reason

Hence my point made upstream…. “Unfortunately I’m not sure we’ll ever get to any kind of accepted consensus on this, not matter what study is produced. Ultimately I believe that sad fact will be COVID’s true long lasting impact.”

 

[Joe Bryant]

Anyone else find it weird the original poster abandoned the thread after the first two?

Given the initial post and terms used, I'm not surprised at all.

What exactly do you mean?

Posters here have a wide range of participation in threads. Some are frequent contributors, some are not. Some mostly read.

I've also never felt any obligation to carry a thread once it's started. I don't mind at all someone starting a thread for discussion and then not contributing more if they don't feel they have something of value to add.

Or are you saying it's a bot or something like that?

 

[uwillbsoon]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

So you're convinced that it's flawed thinking for someone to be concerned about a brand new vaccine and it's long term side effects after a 3 week test?

I know 6 people in real life that have had strokes or heart attacks that took the vaccine. Might be coincidental. They could have all had other health issues that I wouldn't be aware of. That's pretty scary. Was it related to Covid? Vaccine? None of us know for sure but for me personally, I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

I think I made clear my thoughts in other posts. This isn't close to what I said.

Cardiovascular research is my area of study, so if you have any questions let me know. The conflation of causation and correlation ran rampant in the early stages of the pandemic when people didn't know what was going on or what the vaccines did. Your questions should be satisfied by now on the likelihood of the vaccines being the issue, but if not and you have questions I am happy to talk through.

There are a lot of people out there that experienced things or learned things they never knew prior to covid and I think that's a good thing, but to many fall in the "I didn't know about this before, so it must be because of the vaccine" mindset.

It's pretty much impossible to discuss this with you without breaking rules so I'll leave it at if you can't understand why the public would be hesitant on long term effects of a quickly produced vaccine, then I can't help you. It's not about whether it's actually safe or not long term you have to let long term happen to judge that. You're also just dismissing all the sudden heart and stroke issues as being some mindset so no point in further discussion.

Does anyone have data to prove or disprove the rise in strokes or cardiovascular issues?

Seems this would be relatively easily measured at a high level?

 

[Hastur]

Anyone else find it weird the original poster abandoned the thread after the first two?

Given the initial post and terms used, I'm not surprised at all.

What exactly do you mean?

Posters here have a wide range of participation in threads. Some are frequent contributors, some are not. Some mostly read.

I've also never felt any obligation to carry a thread once it's started. I don't mind at all someone starting a thread for discussion and then not contributing more if they don't feel they have something of value to add.

Or are you saying it's a bot or something like that?

No, Lawfritz is not a bot. It just seems a little unusual for someone to post something so controversial and then not contribute to the discussion.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'd submit for consideration the possibility that the vaccines eased tour processing of covid and you'd have likely had a much worse time of it without them. Of course we'll never know for sure, but that is a pretty likely possibility.

I’m wholly unconvinced of that but of course that’s just my opinion.*

*and for perspective/frame of reference. I’m pro-vaccine and would encourage those in a at risk situation to take it. But I’m also of the camp that this isn’t a “vaccine”, at least not in the classical polo or measles sense.

What do you mean by this?

Vaccine’s in the context of actually immunizing you from the pathogens. Like polo or the measles.

To be clear, I fully understand the are different pathogens and mutations of strains are involved. I’m merely speaking to the word vaccine and how the majority of people think of it.

Still not sure I follow. The original measles vaccine was roughly 70% effective (i believe....don't remember for sure). The covid vaccines were well over 90% effective against the initial strands. The new measles vaccines are on the order of 95% effective with one shot and up to 97% with a second.

I don't know much about polio vaccines though. Can't comment on them with any confidence.

If the measles outbreaks we are seeing aren't contained and the virus becomes more widespread, don't be surprised if it's recommended that we get boosters.

You seem focused on efficacy, I’m speaking to perception from the general public. When you have to continue to get new vaccines, every time the virus mutates, which is quite rapidly in the case of this virus, it doesn’t feel like a vaccine. Shots and shots and shots, and more shots for something that doesn’t seem all that serious for healthy non cormorbilities people. It’s not that way with measles or polio. And that’s what most people think of when they think a vaccine, one shot (possibly a booster not long after) and you’re good for life. Not sure how else to say it.

People have quickly forgotten how well the vaccines worked against the initial viruses. If people are comparing these vaccines to measles vaccines just because they are asked to take multiple shots then they aren't comparing apples to apples. If measles were to mutate the same was covid does, you'd have to take more frequent boosters, but it doesn't, so you don't. That's not about the vaccine. That's about the virus you are fighting. Same thing with chicken pox or shingles or any other virus that doesn't mutate all that much. The other reason frequent boosters might be needed I concentration of the virus and it's load. Vaccines are used to get the antibodies made and flowing through the bloodstream so that we can cut down the amount of time the virus is in the body unchecked.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Anyone else find it weird the original poster abandoned the thread after the first two?

Given the initial post and terms used, I'm not surprised at all.

What exactly do you mean?

Posters here have a wide range of participation in threads. Some are frequent contributors, some are not. Some mostly read.

I've also never felt any obligation to carry a thread once it's started. I don't mind at all someone starting a thread for discussion and then not contributing more if they don't feel they have something of value to add.

Or are you saying it's a bot or something like that?

I don't know how to say it any differently. I am not at all surprised the guy hasn't contributed to the thread. I answered the question asked.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Anyone else find it weird the original poster abandoned the thread after the first two?

Given the initial post and terms used, I'm not surprised at all.

What exactly do you mean?

Posters here have a wide range of participation in threads. Some are frequent contributors, some are not. Some mostly read.

I've also never felt any obligation to carry a thread once it's started. I don't mind at all someone starting a thread for discussion and then not contributing more if they don't feel they have something of value to add.

Or are you saying it's a bot or something like that?

I don't know how to say it any differently. I am not at all surprised the guy hasn't contributed to the thread. I answered the question asked.

Specifically why are you not surprised? What terms?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

So you're convinced that it's flawed thinking for someone to be concerned about a brand new vaccine and it's long term side effects after a 3 week test?

I know 6 people in real life that have had strokes or heart attacks that took the vaccine. Might be coincidental. They could have all had other health issues that I wouldn't be aware of. That's pretty scary. Was it related to Covid? Vaccine? None of us know for sure but for me personally, I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

I think I made clear my thoughts in other posts. This isn't close to what I said.

Cardiovascular research is my area of study, so if you have any questions let me know. The conflation of causation and correlation ran rampant in the early stages of the pandemic when people didn't know what was going on or what the vaccines did. Your questions should be satisfied by now on the likelihood of the vaccines being the issue, but if not and you have questions I am happy to talk through.

There are a lot of people out there that experienced things or learned things they never knew prior to covid and I think that's a good thing, but to many fall in the "I didn't know about this before, so it must be because of the vaccine" mindset.

It's pretty much impossible to discuss this with you without breaking rules so I'll leave it at if you can't understand why the public would be hesitant on long term effects of a quickly produced vaccine, then I can't help you. It's not about whether it's actually safe or not long term you have to let long term happen to judge that. You're also just dismissing all the sudden heart and stroke issues as being some mindset so no point in further discussion.

Does anyone have data to prove or disprove the rise in strokes or cardiovascular issues?

Seems this would be relatively easily measured at a high level?

There isn't one. Yes, it's true that the numbers are increasing, but that's been true for 100 years. Most people know very little about cardiovascular disease. Here's a little article addressing our general awareness/understanding of it.

More than half of U.S. adults don’t know heart disease is leading cause of death, despite 100-year reign

Highlights: More than half (51%) of respondents in a 2023 Harris Poll survey conducted on behalf of the American Heart Association did not identify heart disease as the leading cause of death in the U.S. According to the 2024 Heart Disease and Stroke ...

newsroom.heart.org

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Anyone else find it weird the original poster abandoned the thread after the first two?

Given the initial post and terms used, I'm not surprised at all.

What exactly do you mean?

Posters here have a wide range of participation in threads. Some are frequent contributors, some are not. Some mostly read.

I've also never felt any obligation to carry a thread once it's started. I don't mind at all someone starting a thread for discussion and then not contributing more if they don't feel they have something of value to add.

Or are you saying it's a bot or something like that?

I don't know how to say it any differently. I am not at all surprised the guy hasn't contributed to the thread. I answered the question asked.

Specifically why are you not surprised? What terms?

Mostly because he did the same thing in the covid thread. Name sounded familiar so I went back over to it and its the same guy. Had I done that research initially, I would have never bothered posting in here, but then I'd have missed out conversing with dp and will be so I guess something positive came out of it. "Turbo cancer" is a very conspiratorial phrase. Most of you have probably never heard of it until this thread though.