PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (1 Viewer)

[Harry Manback]

Is anti-vax not a valid perjorative?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

That's how it works. They'd publish their findings and then other scientists would try to poke holes in it and/or reproduce the results.

And there are labs all over the world trying to address this concept of long covid.

 

[RCon]

I kind of feel like society has deemed some level of collateral damage acceptable.

This is a certainty, in pretty much all areas. We could quickly list off a thousand instances in which society/government has deemed a certain amount of collateral damage acceptable. As an easy one, speed limits are a good example. Would lower speed limits save lives? Of course they would.

 

[Harry Manback]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

This interests me aswell. Being a participant in the study and providing whatever info i can doesn't move the needle here or irl. I'm either believed even before i start taking, or immediately dismissed. I know nobody here knows me and my experience plus 5 bucks might get you a cup of coffee, but even more than that I'm curious to the overall sentiment. Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone? I'm always curious where the line gets drawn.

You can put me in the camp that currently believes BOTH that the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people AND that it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone.

That is, if by "some people" you mean a very small percentage of people and by "pretty much everyone" you mean the vast majority of people.

Do you feel otherwise?

Do we not have a flu shot that a lot of people get annually? You seem to be positing "it's just like the flu" as a reason it's not necessary yet we'e deemed a flu shot something to get.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone?

Data shows that both these things are true. This isn't an either/or situation.

Just like almost every other vaccine ever created.

 

[Harry Manback]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

That's how it works. They'd publish their findings and then other scientists would try to poke holes in it and/or reproduce the results.

And there are labs all over the world trying to address this concept of long covid.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of mRNA-1273 vaccine in adults: COVE trial open-label and booster phases - Nature Communications

Building on evidence from the phase 3 COVE trial, the authors report the long-term safety and effectiveness of primary vaccination and boosting with mRNA-1273 against COVID-19, including during emergent variant waves.

www.nature.com

Is this not a long term study?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I kind of feel like society has deemed some level of collateral damage acceptable.

This is a certainty, in pretty much all areas. We could quickly list off a thousand instances in which society/government has deemed a certain amount of collateral damage acceptable. As an easy one, speed limits are a good example. Would lower speed limits save lives? Of course they would.

Agreed. I think it's all weighing out the positives vs negatives. And course, there are always variables and some unknowns there that usually make it more nuanced.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

Thanks. With due respect, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

Of course it happens that some people who are sincerely vaccine hesitant and are asking questions to help them understand the ideas are unfairly characterized as anti-vaxxers. But when we're involved in a conversation and someone says it always happens and "not sure there's an answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion," the implication is that they think it's happening right here and now.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting things if that's not what you meant.

I obviously was wrong but I thought it was pretty clear.

@KarmaPolice made what I thought was a good post.

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

And I agreed.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

Of course it doesn't happen 100% of the time. I thought that would be understood but should have added a qualifier. It's a safe bet that almost nothing happens 100% of the time outside of gravity, death and taxes. And regression to the mean. At least usually.

And I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice

 

[AAABatteries]

Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone?

Data shows that both these things are true. This isn't an either/or situation.

Just like almost every other vaccine ever created.

Right, this was the kind of answer i would hope to hear. You'd be surprised, or maybe not at the amount of "it can't hurt you. Period" I've heard. Seems overall this group understands there's nuance and grey area. It's the data that shows injury that we're light on and why i ask the question.

My wife is not able to have the flu vaccine so can definitely relate to frustration about people saying “it can’t hurt you”.

My issue is the large number of people who really have no clue what they are talking about trying to talk authoritatively on either side of the topic. Theres good data and experts out there and ideally we would be listening to those people.

Also, everyone should be willing to agree there’s very few things in life with zero risk. I maintained in the main Covid thread that most people would change their position if Covid had been even more deadly or in the other direction if the vaccine had had more and worse side effects.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I do think there can be a weaponization of quickly labeling things as conspiracy theories. This is usually done as a way to dismiss the idea.

The idea COVID came from a lab was originally labeled a dangerous conspiracy theory. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7995093/

It's seen differently now. https://oversight.house.gov/release...-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak/

I feel sure the earth isn't flat, I think we landed on the moon, and I'm mostly sure there aren't aliens in New Mexico. But if someone wanted to discuss those things, I don't really mind.

As a big picture thought, I just see a general certanty of things sometimes that seems maybe not always healthy.

I've zero interest in conspiracy. I have lots of interest in the truth.

 

[uwillbsoon]

I do think there can be a weaponization of quickly labeling things as conspiracy theories. This is usually done as a way to dismiss the idea.

The idea COVID came from a lab was originally labeled a dangerous conspiracy theory. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7995093/

It's seen differently now. https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak/

I feel sure the earth isn't flat, I think we landed on the moon, and I'm mostly sure there aren't aliens in New Mexico. But if someone wanted to discuss those things, I don't really mind.

As a big picture thought, I just see a general certanty of things sometimes that seems maybe not always healthy.

I've zero interest in conspiracy. I have lots of interest in the truth.

Your source doesn't talk about lab leak as conspiracy. It talks about lab manipulation. At least the summary I read.

Very different things. One very much is in the land of conspiracy based on the evidence.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I do think there can be a weaponization of quickly labeling things as conspiracy theories. This is usually done as a way to dismiss the idea.

The idea COVID came from a lab was originally labeled a dangerous conspiracy theory. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7995093/

It's seen differently now. https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak/

I feel sure the earth isn't flat, I think we landed on the moon, and I'm mostly sure there aren't aliens in New Mexico. But if someone wanted to discuss those things, I don't really mind.

As a big picture thought, I just see a general certanty of things sometimes that seems maybe not always healthy.

I've zero interest in conspiracy. I have lots of interest in the truth.

Your source doesn't talk about lab leak as conspiracy. It talks about lab manipulation. At least the summary I read.

Very different things. One very much is in the land of conspiracy based on the evidence.

Timeline: How The Covid Lab Leak Origin Story Went From 'Conspiracy Theory' To Government Debate​

Timeline: How The Covid Lab Leak Origin Story Went From 'Conspiracy Theory' To Government Debate

The U.S. Energy Department reportedly became the second government agency to determine the virus originated in a lab.

www.forbes.com

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theories.

 

[ghostguy123]

Do we have a conspiracy theory thread? Perhaps we should.

Ya know, examples like moon landing, JFK, flat earth, aliens, drones......

It's possible to have those without getting shut down for politics.......right????

 

[Bossman]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

Some might suggest that this scientific group might receive "private" funding to NOT research this any further.
Seems these drug companies would have a lot to lose if research proved the vax was harmful in any way.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone?

Data shows that both these things are true. This isn't an either/or situation.

Just like almost every other vaccine ever created.

Right, this was the kind of answer i would hope to hear. You'd be surprised, or maybe not at the amount of "it can't hurt you. Period" I've heard. Seems overall this group understands there's nuance and grey area. It's the data that shows injury that we're light on and why i ask the question.

Generally speaking, that's correct. But there are always exceptions. I'd hope people understand that. It becomes a problem when anecdotes are used as evidence or someone requires 100% effectiveness etc. That has NEVER been the standard and imposing that standard is just looney tunes.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I won't go to far into this because it would be impossible to keep politics out of it, but i filled out a VAERS report, reached out to moderna, the NIH, familiarized myself with the EUA (which precludes the ability to file a vaccine compensation form) and the response was and still is crickets. I won't lie when it first happened i expected some form of care, or atleast acknowledgement. I thought government agencies would want to get to the bottom of something like that, or maybe the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Maybe I'm naive, but i expected better when all i did was everything i was asked.

My out of pocket expenses were astronomical since no insurance will touch anything to do with this.

They are working to catch up on the backlog that was created during the spam portion of the outbreak. They are required to review every single one of those claims regardless of how absurd. You'll get a response eventually. Make sure you have their email address recognized so it doesn't go to spam. Friend of mine last June said they were about 1/3 of the way through. Pretty crappy job at the moment.

 

[Battersbox]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

For one thing, I certainly don't get the same impression that very few scientists are looking at long term effects of vaccines or of Covid infection, but regardless...

I can't speak for anyone else, but my (and many others) "quick dismissal" isn't of the study itself, but in the way the study is being used to further (or to justify) existing vaccine hesitancy. The purpose of this kind of study, not being yet peer-reviewed and being on such a small scale, is only to bring up a hypothesis that can them be tested, not to come to any kind of conclusions itself. And I (with my very limited knowledge) am not aware of anything about the study itself that means it should be dismissed on face value. So of course, I am fine with further research in the area.

And whether my opinion about the vaccines changes very much depends on the details of any findings. What is the severity of the supposed harm, how small a percentage of vaccinated people are likely to be affected, how different (if at all) are the effects compared to the effects of actually having covid if not protected by the vaccine, etc. These are the kinds of things that need to be weighed the against current overwhelming positive results of the vaccines and how they have saved millions of lives.

I agree there is plenty of research I've seen into the long term effects of Covid infection. However, I have not seen research dedicated toward long term effects of vaccination. It's an important distinction, and outside of the folks at Yale I've not seen much reporting on that type of research.

 

[Harry Manback]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

For one thing, I certainly don't get the same impression that very few scientists are looking at long term effects of vaccines or of Covid infection, but regardless...

I can't speak for anyone else, but my (and many others) "quick dismissal" isn't of the study itself, but in the way the study is being used to further (or to justify) existing vaccine hesitancy. The purpose of this kind of study, not being yet peer-reviewed and being on such a small scale, is only to bring up a hypothesis that can them be tested, not to come to any kind of conclusions itself. And I (with my very limited knowledge) am not aware of anything about the study itself that means it should be dismissed on face value. So of course, I am fine with further research in the area.

And whether my opinion about the vaccines changes very much depends on the details of any findings. What is the severity of the supposed harm, how small a percentage of vaccinated people are likely to be affected, how different (if at all) are the effects compared to the effects of actually having covid if not protected by the vaccine, etc. These are the kinds of things that need to be weighed the against current overwhelming positive results of the vaccines and how they have saved millions of lives.

I agree there is plenty of research I've seen into the long term effects of Covid infection. However, I have not seen research dedicated toward long term effects of vaccination. It's an important distinction, and outside of the folks at Yale I've not seen much reporting on that type of research.

Did you see what I linked? Was that Yale?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I won't go to far into this because it would be impossible to keep politics out of it, but i filled out a VAERS report, reached out to moderna, the NIH, familiarized myself with the EUA (which precludes the ability to file a vaccine compensation form) and the response was and still is crickets. I won't lie when it first happened i expected some form of care, or atleast acknowledgement. I thought government agencies would want to get to the bottom of something like that, or maybe the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Maybe I'm naive, but i expected better when all i did was everything i was asked.

My out of pocket expenses were astronomical since no insurance will touch anything to do with this.

They are working to catch up on the backlog that was created during the spam portion of the outbreak. They are required to review every single one of those claims regardless of how absurd. You'll get a response eventually. Make sure you have their email address recognized so it doesn't go to spam. Friend of mine last June said they were about 1/3 of the way through. Pretty crappy job at the moment.

You're referring to VAERS? It's 4 years later. I'm not sure a form email regretting my unfortunate reaction will do much good. I don't expect they would offer any kind of reimbursement. Due to EUA classification I wouldn't be eligible anyway. It's hard to put any lipstick on this pig imo.

Yes VAERS. That's how long it's taking them to get through all the ******** that was logged once people found out the system existed. Pretty pathetic IMO.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Doesn't yale have to go back and adjust their approach? They initially set it up as a study of those who got vaccinated and didn't have any symptoms after the fact. The rather obvious problem here is those that could have also caught the virus and remained asymptomatic after bring vaccinated.

 

[uwillbsoon]

And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie

Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.

 

[jhib]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

This interests me aswell. Being a participant in the study and providing whatever info i can doesn't move the needle here or irl. I'm either believed even before i start taking, or immediately dismissed. I know nobody here knows me and my experience plus 5 bucks might get you a cup of coffee, but even more than that I'm curious to the overall sentiment. Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone? I'm always curious where the line gets drawn.

You can put me in the camp that currently believes BOTH that the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people AND that it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone.

That is, if by "some people" you mean a very small percentage of people and by "pretty much everyone" you mean the vast majority of people.

Do you feel otherwise?

Do we not have a flu shot that a lot of people get annually? You seem to be positing "it's just like the flu" as a reason it's not necessary yet we'e deemed a flu shot something to get.

I think you might be misreading what I wrote/quoted. It was about the vaccine itself not causing any negatives for most people other than maybe mild temporary symptoms. Not about Covid just being like the flu.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie

Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.

Spot On!

There is zero evidence this virus was created in a lab. People continue to try and figure out if it was even altered in a lab. There is a very little bit of evidence that leaves that a slight possibility, but it's not likely with what is known right now. The most likely scenarios are coming from infection out in the wild or infection while studying in the lab.

 

[Battersbox]

And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie

Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.

Spot On!

There is zero evidence this virus was created in a lab. People continue to try and figure out if it was even altered in a lab. There is a very little bit of evidence that leaves that a slight possibility, but it's not likely with what is known right now. The most likely scenarios are coming from infection out in the wild or infection while studying in the lab.

Whether it was created in a lab or altered in a lab doesn't matter. What matters is it likely escaped from the lab, which was in the realm of conspiracy theory for quite a long time whenever anyone suggested that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to conflate the two issues (whether it was created in a lab, or just escaped because it was being studied/altered in a lab), people were still gaslit about the very idea it could have possibly been the responsibility of the folks working at that lab in Wuhan.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.

Not sure what you mean by accusing people of trying to play "gotcha".

Not much gotcha in seeing what was once a conspiracy theory changed to not being one as Forbes reported. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisa...-from-conspiracy-theory-to-government-debate/

That was my only point in being careful about what we attack as conspiracy theory. If you disagree with the Forbes article, that's cool. I don't.

 

[jhib]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

Thanks. With due respect, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

Of course it happens that some people who are sincerely vaccine hesitant and are asking questions to help them understand the ideas are unfairly characterized as anti-vaxxers. But when we're involved in a conversation and someone says it always happens and "not sure there's an answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion," the implication is that they think it's happening right here and now.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting things if that's not what you meant.

I obviously was wrong but I thought it was pretty clear.

@KarmaPolice made what I thought was a good post.

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

And I agreed.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

Of course it doesn't happen 100% of the time. I thought that would be understood but should have added a qualifier. It's a safe bet that almost nothing happens 100% of the time outside of gravity, death and taxes. And regression to the mean. At least usually.

And I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice

Sorry for my misinterpreting your posts. I wasn't really focused what % of time you meant it happens, but whether or not you were implying that it was happening in this thread. Glad to hear it was a general statement about society rather than a criticism of the use of the term "anti-vaxxer" in this thread.

 

[AAABatteries]

A government debate link seems kind of political to me.

 

[LawFitz]

Glad to hear it was a general statement about society rather than a criticism of the use of the term "anti-vaxxer" in this thread.

Joe can clarify, but I read his response as being both.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie

Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.

Spot On!

There is zero evidence this virus was created in a lab. People continue to try and figure out if it was even altered in a lab. There is a very little bit of evidence that leaves that a slight possibility, but it's not likely with what is known right now. The most likely scenarios are coming from infection out in the wild or infection while studying in the lab.

Whether it was created in a lab or altered in a lab doesn't matter. What matters is it likely escaped from the lab, which was in the realm of conspiracy theory for quite a long time whenever anyone suggested that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to conflate the two issues (whether it was created in a lab, or just escaped because it was being studied/altered in a lab), people were still gaslit about the very idea it could have possibly been the responsibility of the folks working at that lab in Wuhan.

Me conflate? Good one!

As to "escape" from a lab and the shock/awe of that possibility. It's tough to empathize with that position knowing how prevalent the virus was found to be in a variety of animals out in the wild there. Read an article just a couple weeks ago about research on three other animals showing the virus has been in circulation among them for a long while prior to the outbreak.

I know our CIA is behind the "lab leak" theory now. However, I'm trying to figure out why it matters at all knowing how many different sources appear to have been carrying it at the time. Does it matter if it came from a person infected while researching vs from an animal? If one believes that, why does it matter?

The other thing that people might want to stop and consider is why it's been so hard to get info as part of the general public and supposedly so tough for our spy agencies to get info. Feels very coordinated if one wants to go that path doesn't it? That's as conspiratorual as I'll ever get on this as I simply don't believe the governments want us to know so we're never going to for certain.

The two most likely options have always been infected person studying it or caught from animal. Anyone saying either of those were conspiracies should not be listened to IMO.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I won't go to far into this because it would be impossible to keep politics out of it, but i filled out a VAERS report, reached out to moderna, the NIH, familiarized myself with the EUA (which precludes the ability to file a vaccine compensation form) and the response was and still is crickets. I won't lie when it first happened i expected some form of care, or atleast acknowledgement. I thought government agencies would want to get to the bottom of something like that, or maybe the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Maybe I'm naive, but i expected better when all i did was everything i was asked.

My out of pocket expenses were astronomical since no insurance will touch anything to do with this.

They are working to catch up on the backlog that was created during the spam portion of the outbreak. They are required to review every single one of those claims regardless of how absurd. You'll get a response eventually. Make sure you have their email address recognized so it doesn't go to spam. Friend of mine last June said they were about 1/3 of the way through. Pretty crappy job at the moment.

You're referring to VAERS? It's 4 years later. I'm not sure a form email regretting my unfortunate reaction will do much good. I don't expect they would offer any kind of reimbursement. Due to EUA classification I wouldn't be eligible anyway. It's hard to put any lipstick on this pig imo.

Yes VAERS. That's how long it's taking them to get through all the ******** that was logged once people found out the system existed. Pretty pathetic IMO.

You said your friend works in some capacity with VAERS? Could you explain to me what they're doing when they contact someone that fills out a report? I'm very curious as to what their response is and what they do for the recipient after that.

They have to research the whole claim. Collect symptoms, ask for details maybe not included in stilly. Ask current status etc.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

By the way, that Forbes article is saying exactly what I am.

Two likely scenarios:
1. Caught in the wild.
2. Caught in the lab during study.

"Experts" at the beginning said #1 was most likely and probable, though #2 was a possibility.

Conspiracy theories include:
1. Created in a lab.
2. Got out of a lab because of GoF research.

No evidence to support either position. I frequently heard people equating #2 in the likely scenarios with #1 in the conspiracy theories. It's completely incorrect to do so. That's not nitpicking. That's being precise.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I won't go to far into this because it would be impossible to keep politics out of it, but i filled out a VAERS report, reached out to moderna, the NIH, familiarized myself with the EUA (which precludes the ability to file a vaccine compensation form) and the response was and still is crickets. I won't lie when it first happened i expected some form of care, or atleast acknowledgement. I thought government agencies would want to get to the bottom of something like that, or maybe the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Maybe I'm naive, but i expected better when all i did was everything i was asked.

My out of pocket expenses were astronomical since no insurance will touch anything to do with this.

They are working to catch up on the backlog that was created during the spam portion of the outbreak. They are required to review every single one of those claims regardless of how absurd. You'll get a response eventually. Make sure you have their email address recognized so it doesn't go to spam. Friend of mine last June said they were about 1/3 of the way through. Pretty crappy job at the moment.

You're referring to VAERS? It's 4 years later. I'm not sure a form email regretting my unfortunate reaction will do much good. I don't expect they would offer any kind of reimbursement. Due to EUA classification I wouldn't be eligible anyway. It's hard to put any lipstick on this pig imo.

Yes VAERS. That's how long it's taking them to get through all the ******** that was logged once people found out the system existed. Pretty pathetic IMO.

You said your friend works in some capacity with VAERS? Could you explain to me what they're doing when they contact someone that fills out a report? I'm very curious as to what their response is and what they do for the recipient after that.

They have to research the whole claim. Collect symptoms, ask for details maybe not included in stilly. Ask current status etc.

Ok, but what do they do with that information? How does someone like me benefit from answering their questions this long after the fact?

It's documentation for future events. All that system is for is to identify patterns like a monitoring system. The problem with it in this case is people didn't know about it and when they learned about it they started spamming it with crap (for political reasons is assume)

Doctors and hospitals use it to try and see early warning signs of a problem.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

Thanks. With due respect, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

Of course it happens that some people who are sincerely vaccine hesitant and are asking questions to help them understand the ideas are unfairly characterized as anti-vaxxers. But when we're involved in a conversation and someone says it always happens and "not sure there's an answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion," the implication is that they think it's happening right here and now.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting things if that's not what you meant.

I obviously was wrong but I thought it was pretty clear.

@KarmaPolice made what I thought was a good post.

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

And I agreed.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

Of course it doesn't happen 100% of the time. I thought that would be understood but should have added a qualifier. It's a safe bet that almost nothing happens 100% of the time outside of gravity, death and taxes. And regression to the mean. At least usually.

And I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice

Sorry for my misinterpreting your posts. I wasn't really focused what % of time you meant it happens, but whether or not you were implying that it was happening in this thread. Glad to hear it was a general statement about society rather than a criticism of the use of the term "anti-vaxxer" in this thread.

As I said, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

It was a general criticism of how we as society use words to dismiss things and I think that discourages discussion. And it was also used here. Maybe it wasn't meant specifically for the person replied to but it happens here.

That's why the poster replied with:

And no need to use pejoratives like the term 'anit-vaxxer.' I am not anti-vax, of the traditional sort. I am highly dubious though, of mRNA and DNA-vector tech. That much is obvious, but please don't turn this thread into another pissing match.

Followed up with

Is anti-vax not a valid pejorative?

Now maybe some might want to dive into the "Yes you are - No I'm not" discussion. I don't think that's very helpful here. Maybe its' naive, but I tend to assume people are discussing in good faith.


I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice in how discussion bogs down.

 

[Joe Bryant]

'Anti-vaxxer' is and has been used as a pejorative. And that is especially derailing of respectful discussion when most people who have been labeled as such are hesitant towards, suspicious of, and questioning mRNA and other new genetic-modification tech, rather than traditional vaccines. But let's move on from that angle. I accept your apology.

Thanks. Agreed best to move on as there can be good discussion here.

 

[The Z Machine]

Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone? I'm always curious where the line gets drawn.

I certainly think it's possible or even probable that some very very small % of people could have a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. Any vaccine. Any drug for that matter.

The debate for public health officials and drug approvals people is whether the small % of people adversely affected (and what those effects are) are justifiably harmed for the greater good of preventing severe outcomes for the population if the vaccine is NOT approved.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@Sparky Polastri can I ask your background in all of this? It's ok if you don't want to answer. You seem to have pretty fully formed opinions on most of it and I'm just curious where that comes from. Medical background? Covid aficionado? Trust me bro? No disrespect meant here either I just want to know where the ideas we're discussing come from.

I am finishing up my PhD at Vanderbilt University. I was incredibly lucky to have participated in a couple research studies on COVID at the very beginning of my grad school career since cardiovascular issues seemed to pop up with many. Had a paper published with my mom's lab (my PI and her are really good friends) which was really cool on the effects of COVID on the heart. I don't know everything about this stuff for sure, but I've been involved in a lot of different aspects as I blaze my path to completion. Hope to continue the heart research once done.

 

[uwillbsoon]

And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie

Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.

Spot On!

There is zero evidence this virus was created in a lab. People continue to try and figure out if it was even altered in a lab. There is a very little bit of evidence that leaves that a slight possibility, but it's not likely with what is known right now. The most likely scenarios are coming from infection out in the wild or infection while studying in the lab.

Whether it was created in a lab or altered in a lab doesn't matter. What matters is it likely escaped from the lab, which was in the realm of conspiracy theory for quite a long time whenever anyone suggested that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to conflate the two issues (whether it was created in a lab, or just escaped because it was being studied/altered in a lab), people were still gaslit about the very idea it could have possibly been the responsibility of the folks working at that lab in Wuhan.

Gaslit by who?

You may be right. I've always been confused by how both were considered "lab leak" because the scientists were always pretty consistent in identifying what they thought a conspiracy theory was. And it wasn't that it leaked from a lab. It that it was created in a lab.

What I saw was a conflation by those who tended to be anti-vax to prove they weren't conspiratorial. But it may have also been used by other political actors after Trump entered the fray. I just saw it more after the fact by anti-vaxxers.

It's been interesting seeing the sources that conflate the two posted here: One is a partisan House committee hearing and the other is a "an entertainment and Hollywood" reporter that was posted by Forbes. Forbes is known to play the SEO game and take just about anything anyone will submit. Doesn't look like that's her - she's an actual Forbes reporter. But her history at Forbes is one of covering Beyonce's net worth and listicles like "The highest paid dead celebrities of 2023"

Meanwhile, the scientific sources have been precise in what they said was a conspiracy theory. Probably a lesson to be learned there. Read the source, not someone's interpretation.

 

[The Z Machine]

Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone? I'm always curious where the line gets drawn.

I certainly think it's possible or even probable that some very very small % of people could have a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. Any vaccine. Any drug for that matter.

The debate for public health officials and drug approvals people is whether the small % of people adversely affected (and what those effects are) are justifiably harmed for the greater good of preventing severe outcomes for the population if the vaccine is NOT approved.

Reasonable take. Seems we've established a certain amount of collateral damage is acceptable. Do you think there's any responsibility for the pharmaceutical companies to help those deemed collateral damage. Without getting political should governments do more to help? Universities? Because after 5 years there's still limited research into long covid and pvs, unless I'm unaware of some big study other than the small focused studies i listed above.

Good question. Do people that experience a severe outcome from other drugs approved by the FDA receive compensation as you suggest?

 

[jhib]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

Thanks. With due respect, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

Of course it happens that some people who are sincerely vaccine hesitant and are asking questions to help them understand the ideas are unfairly characterized as anti-vaxxers. But when we're involved in a conversation and someone says it always happens and "not sure there's an answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion," the implication is that they think it's happening right here and now.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting things if that's not what you meant.

I obviously was wrong but I thought it was pretty clear.

@KarmaPolice made what I thought was a good post.

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

And I agreed.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

Of course it doesn't happen 100% of the time. I thought that would be understood but should have added a qualifier. It's a safe bet that almost nothing happens 100% of the time outside of gravity, death and taxes. And regression to the mean. At least usually.

And I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice

Sorry for my misinterpreting your posts. I wasn't really focused what % of time you meant it happens, but whether or not you were implying that it was happening in this thread. Glad to hear it was a general statement about society rather than a criticism of the use of the term "anti-vaxxer" in this thread.

As I said, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

It was a general criticism of how we as society use words to dismiss things and I think that discourages discussion. And it was also used here. Maybe it wasn't meant specifically for the person replied to but it happens here.

That's why the poster replied with:

And no need to use pejoratives like the term 'anit-vaxxer.' I am not anti-vax, of the traditional sort. I am highly dubious though, of mRNA and DNA-vector tech. That much is obvious, but please don't turn this thread into another pissing match.

Followed up with

Is anti-vax not a valid pejorative?

Now maybe some might want to dive into the "Yes you are - No I'm not" discussion. I don't think that's very helpful here. Maybe its' naive, but I tend to assume people are discussing in good faith.


I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice in how discussion bogs down.

Ok, so I didn't misinterpret but maybe I was just unfocused with my own point. I agree that terms like anti-vaxxer can be used inappropriately like you originally noted ("Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer"), but I very much disagree that that is what has happened here in this thread.

By acting like there is no appropriate use for "anti-vaxxer" in actual conversation (whether to refer to individuals or to their stated ideas), one plays right into the anti-vaxxer movement's hands, for they don't want their views to be labelled as such and want the discussion on that front to be shut down. So they claim to be the victim of harmful words and carry on.

There's no reason why the conversation should be shut down by using terms the other side disagrees with.

LawFitz referred to individuals as "heavily vaccinated." Other posters asked for clarifying comments about what that meant, to which LawFitz was evasive. It wasn't the term that bogged down the conversation, it was dropping the term without backing it up.

People here (myself included) have called "turbo cancer" a anti-vax idea and gave some reasons why. LawFitz has every opportunity to defend his position that people died of turbo cancer (leaving out people he knows if that is too uncomfortable). In fact, as someone actually interested in the conversation, I encourage it and look forward to it.

 

[uwillbsoon]

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.

Not sure what you mean by accusing people of trying to play "gotcha".

Not much gotcha in seeing what was once a conspiracy theory changed to not being one as Forbes reported. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisa...-from-conspiracy-theory-to-government-debate/

That was my only point in being careful about what we attack as conspiracy theory. If you disagree with the Forbes article, that's cool. I don't.

See my previous response. I don't "disagree" with the "report". Since it's not a "report" but basically a timeline of events that links to great sources. I probably have a bone to pick with the headline writer. But they were looking for clicks. That's what Forbes does.

Do you disagree that what the scientists have - as outlined in the Forbes report - said? Because they didn't necessarily call "lab leak" a conspiracy. They call man-made a conspiracy. Others - on both sides - conflated the two to score points. I was probably imprecise in calling out anti-vaxxers as using it to dunk on folks. But that's where I see most frequently.

And I get your point. You just used a bad example from my perspective. The scientists were very clear - as Forbes' list shows - in saying that man-made was a conspiracy theory. And it still is based on the evidence.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@Sparky Polastri can I ask your background in all of this? It's ok if you don't want to answer. You seem to have pretty fully formed opinions on most of it and I'm just curious where that comes from. Medical background? Covid aficionado? Trust me bro? No disrespect meant here either I just want to know where the ideas we're discussing come from.

I am finishing up my PhD at Vanderbilt University. I was incredibly lucky to have participated in a couple research studies on COVID at the very beginning of my grad school career since cardiovascular issues seemed to pop up with many. Had a paper published with my mom's lab (my PI and her are really good friends) which was really cool on the effects of COVID on the heart. I don't know everything about this stuff for sure, but I've been involved in a lot of different aspects as I blaze my path to completion. Hope to continue the heart research once done.

That's awesome and thank you for the response. I've appreciated your take on things, but as you know everyone on the internet seems to be an expert and mostly an expert in "trust me bro".

What do you make of the extremely high levels of VEGF and SCD40L found in long covid patients? Also in my case and many others my TAT tests were literally off the charts after 2 years. Quest lab ends the high end of their scale at >60 and I exceeded that. If you want exact ranges on the Cytokine panel i took I would happily provide that if you think it would be of any use to you, or helpful in this conversation. If not that's ok too.

Being completely transparent, I haven't followed the long covid stuff that much. That said, shooting from the hip, we know how destructive covid was to the "infrastructure" of our bodies. Everything from lungs, to blood vessels, to heart to everything really could be impacted depending on the person. I can easily see scenarios where the body had to really do some work to rebuild/repair significant damage from the virus. The more inflammation we have the higher some of those markers are going to be.

 

[Harry Manback]

Thanks. Agreed best to move on as there can be good discussion here.

Not my board and I'm new, but I appreciate this. The conspiracies only derail good conversation. Labs, caves, bats, nanobots, turbo cancers all great if that's your kind of thing, but none of it relates to the main topic. And i mean "your" generally, no disrespect and this wasn't at anyone in particular.

You're new? You said you've been lurking for 20 years. That's hardly new.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

Thanks. With due respect, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

Of course it happens that some people who are sincerely vaccine hesitant and are asking questions to help them understand the ideas are unfairly characterized as anti-vaxxers. But when we're involved in a conversation and someone says it always happens and "not sure there's an answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion," the implication is that they think it's happening right here and now.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting things if that's not what you meant.

I obviously was wrong but I thought it was pretty clear.

@KarmaPolice made what I thought was a good post.

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

And I agreed.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

Of course it doesn't happen 100% of the time. I thought that would be understood but should have added a qualifier. It's a safe bet that almost nothing happens 100% of the time outside of gravity, death and taxes. And regression to the mean. At least usually.

And I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice

Sorry for my misinterpreting your posts. I wasn't really focused what % of time you meant it happens, but whether or not you were implying that it was happening in this thread. Glad to hear it was a general statement about society rather than a criticism of the use of the term "anti-vaxxer" in this thread.

As I said, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

It was a general criticism of how we as society use words to dismiss things and I think that discourages discussion. And it was also used here. Maybe it wasn't meant specifically for the person replied to but it happens here.

That's why the poster replied with:

And no need to use pejoratives like the term 'anit-vaxxer.' I am not anti-vax, of the traditional sort. I am highly dubious though, of mRNA and DNA-vector tech. That much is obvious, but please don't turn this thread into another pissing match.

Followed up with

Is anti-vax not a valid pejorative?

Now maybe some might want to dive into the "Yes you are - No I'm not" discussion. I don't think that's very helpful here. Maybe its' naive, but I tend to assume people are discussing in good faith.


I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice in how discussion bogs down.

Ok, so I didn't misinterpret but maybe I was just unfocused with my own point. I agree that terms like anti-vaxxer can be used inappropriately like you originally noted ("Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer"), but I very much disagree that that is what has happened here in this thread.

By acting like there is no appropriate use for "anti-vaxxer" in actual conversation (whether to refer to individuals or to their stated ideas), one plays right into the anti-vaxxer movement's hands, for they don't want their views to be labelled as such and want the discussion on that front to be shut down. So they claim to be the victim of harmful words and carry on.

There's no reason why the conversation should be shut down by using terms the other side disagrees with.

LawFitz referred to individuals as "heavily vaccinated." Other posters asked for clarifying comments about what that meant, to which LawFitz was evasive. It wasn't the term that bogged down the conversation, it was dropping the term without backing it up.

People here (myself included) have called "turbo cancer" a anti-vax idea and gave some reasons why. LawFitz has every opportunity to defend his position that people died of turbo cancer (leaving out people he knows if that is too uncomfortable). In fact, as someone actually interested in the conversation, I encourage it and look forward to it.

My post was intended as a more general observation. It also follows along with a back and forth with rockaction about our morphing language and how I get frustrated the way terms and definitions have morphed.

You bring up a good point that healthy debate should include a back and forth about those terms. Maybe it's always been that way, but I just feel like it's so common now that it is quite hard to engage with people on important topics anymore, and I feel I have to do that to an unnecessary level. I'd love him or others to explain what that term mean, but I was just pointing out that was how I interpreted that based on my few interactions with people. Just in these 7 pages we've had to touch on what anti-vaxx or heavily vaxxed means, what a shot vs. vaccine is and how people use that, where we get info and what type, etc.. it becomes really hard to actually talk about the vaccines themselves and their +s/-s

Gun control is another topic I like to try to talk about, but find impossible. Like we just pointed out we start off with assumptions about people being a gun nut or anti-gunner. Then I have to pick through what people mean when they say mass shooting. Then I need to know where they get their stats because sometimes even those have a different qualifier (I've seen the cut off be 4 victims or 3, for example). It's silly that we have to go through all that, but if you don't you are just yelling past each other.

Our language has become highly charged and polarizing at the same we (again, generalizing) retreat to our bubbles of information that often include much different stats and terms.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wasn't talking to you, Sparky.

I read that as Ellen talking to Clark.

I did the same thing, lmao

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Do we have a conspiracy theory thread? Perhaps we should.

Ya know, examples like moon landing, JFK, flat earth, aliens, drones......

It's possible to have those without getting shut down for politics.......right????

FBGs: "Hold my beer"

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Really good thread. Happy it's lasted this long. Don't have a lot to add, other than to say that the times I've been asked why I would get more Covid shots if they aren't required (by friends that, let's be honest, are further right on the political spectrum), I always say that I would rather die from Science than die from Politics.
Sadly, I'm not sure they always get the point, but I'm certainly fine with people that have the opposite opinion.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@Sparky Polastri can I ask your background in all of this? It's ok if you don't want to answer. You seem to have pretty fully formed opinions on most of it and I'm just curious where that comes from. Medical background? Covid aficionado? Trust me bro? No disrespect meant here either I just want to know where the ideas we're discussing come from.

I am finishing up my PhD at Vanderbilt University. I was incredibly lucky to have participated in a couple research studies on COVID at the very beginning of my grad school career since cardiovascular issues seemed to pop up with many. Had a paper published with my mom's lab (my PI and her are really good friends) which was really cool on the effects of COVID on the heart. I don't know everything about this stuff for sure, but I've been involved in a lot of different aspects as I blaze my path to completion. Hope to continue the heart research once done.

That's awesome and thank you for the response. I've appreciated your take on things, but as you know everyone on the internet seems to be an expert and mostly an expert in "trust me bro".

What do you make of the extremely high levels of VEGF and SCD40L found in long covid patients? Also in my case and many others my TAT tests were literally off the charts after 2 years. Quest lab ends the high end of their scale at >60 and I exceeded that. If you want exact ranges on the Cytokine panel i took I would happily provide that if you think it would be of any use to you, or helpful in this conversation. If not that's ok too.

Being completely transparent, I haven't followed the long covid stuff that much. That said, shooting from the hip, we know how destructive covid was to the "infrastructure" of our bodies. Everything from lungs, to blood vessels, to heart to everything really could be impacted depending on the person. I can easily see scenarios where the body had to really do some work to rebuild/repair significant damage from the virus. The more inflammation we have the higher some of those markers are going to be.

Yeah, that's the gist of it and fair enough. Do you think the elevated VEGF for a period of years increase any risk for cancer?

To cause cancer? No. Its a SIGN that something might be going on. VEGF is protein that is used to stimulate blood vessel growth. Cancers need blood to grow/spread, so when we see elevated levels its a sign that the body needs to grow blood vessels. That can be for a bunch of different reasons and it's important to understand WHY its elevated. This is NOT my area of expertise, so you'll likely get textbook answers....hahahaha

 

[AAABatteries]

If people are going to get offended by the term “anti-vaxxer” then maybe, just maybe, we should delete the post(s) that contains anti-vax terminology and links.

 

[jhib]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

Thanks. With due respect, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

Of course it happens that some people who are sincerely vaccine hesitant and are asking questions to help them understand the ideas are unfairly characterized as anti-vaxxers. But when we're involved in a conversation and someone says it always happens and "not sure there's an answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion," the implication is that they think it's happening right here and now.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting things if that's not what you meant.

I obviously was wrong but I thought it was pretty clear.

@KarmaPolice made what I thought was a good post.

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

And I agreed.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

Of course it doesn't happen 100% of the time. I thought that would be understood but should have added a qualifier. It's a safe bet that almost nothing happens 100% of the time outside of gravity, death and taxes. And regression to the mean. At least usually.

And I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice

Sorry for my misinterpreting your posts. I wasn't really focused what % of time you meant it happens, but whether or not you were implying that it was happening in this thread. Glad to hear it was a general statement about society rather than a criticism of the use of the term "anti-vaxxer" in this thread.

As I said, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

It was a general criticism of how we as society use words to dismiss things and I think that discourages discussion. And it was also used here. Maybe it wasn't meant specifically for the person replied to but it happens here.

That's why the poster replied with:

And no need to use pejoratives like the term 'anit-vaxxer.' I am not anti-vax, of the traditional sort. I am highly dubious though, of mRNA and DNA-vector tech. That much is obvious, but please don't turn this thread into another pissing match.

Followed up with

Is anti-vax not a valid pejorative?

Now maybe some might want to dive into the "Yes you are - No I'm not" discussion. I don't think that's very helpful here. Maybe its' naive, but I tend to assume people are discussing in good faith.


I was talking more about general discussion anywhere, not just this forum. But mainly I was agreeing with @KarmaPolice in how discussion bogs down.

Ok, so I didn't misinterpret but maybe I was just unfocused with my own point. I agree that terms like anti-vaxxer can be used inappropriately like you originally noted ("Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer"), but I very much disagree that that is what has happened here in this thread.

By acting like there is no appropriate use for "anti-vaxxer" in actual conversation (whether to refer to individuals or to their stated ideas), one plays right into the anti-vaxxer movement's hands, for they don't want their views to be labelled as such and want the discussion on that front to be shut down. So they claim to be the victim of harmful words and carry on.

There's no reason why the conversation should be shut down by using terms the other side disagrees with.

LawFitz referred to individuals as "heavily vaccinated." Other posters asked for clarifying comments about what that meant, to which LawFitz was evasive. It wasn't the term that bogged down the conversation, it was dropping the term without backing it up.

People here (myself included) have called "turbo cancer" a anti-vax idea and gave some reasons why. LawFitz has every opportunity to defend his position that people died of turbo cancer (leaving out people he knows if that is too uncomfortable). In fact, as someone actually interested in the conversation, I encourage it and look forward to it.

My post was intended as a more general observation. It also follows along with a back and forth with rockaction about our morphing language and how I get frustrated the way terms and definitions have morphed.

You bring up a good point that healthy debate should include a back and forth about those terms. Maybe it's always been that way, but I just feel like it's so common now that it is quite hard to engage with people on important topics anymore, and I feel I have to do that to an unnecessary level. I'd love him or others to explain what that term mean, but I was just pointing out that was how I interpreted that based on my few interactions with people. Just in these 7 pages we've had to touch on what anti-vaxx or heavily vaxxed means, what a shot vs. vaccine is and how people use that, where we get info and what type, etc.. it becomes really hard to actually talk about the vaccines themselves and their +s/-s

Gun control is another topic I like to try to talk about, but find impossible. Like we just pointed out we start off with assumptions about people being a gun nut or anti-gunner. Then I have to pick through what people mean when they say mass shooting. Then I need to know where they get their stats because sometimes even those have a different qualifier (I've seen the cut off be 4 victims or 3, for example). It's silly that we have to go through all that, but if you don't you are just yelling past each other.

Our language has become highly charged and polarizing at the same we (again, generalizing) retreat to our bubbles of information that often include much different stats and terms.

I definitely get your frustration and share it to an extent. Unfortunately, one of the alternatives is people using terms any way they want to express views that then go unchallenged. I don't love that.