Is it ok to ask about the ramping up of vaccine side effects stories?

[SparklingJam]

I’m generally pro vaccines, but I’m starting to question the effects of the covid jab, and wonder if it’s possible to have a discussion about it. Apologies if this has been done to death, or isn’t an accepted topic.

I’ve been seeing more information about deaths of young men, how the vaccine isn’t very effective against covid, and hearing all about dreadful side effects, to the point where some people won’t have the jab because they “know” they’ll die.

I can fully accept that there are side effects, but the talk of increased deaths (apparently 1300 excess deaths per week, coupled with videos of supposed undertakers saying they are 50-100% busier now) is making me question things and worry.

Having said that, in my extended circle of friends, family and colleagues, I know many people who are mostly vaccinated, and apart from a day or 5 of feeling fluey they all have no side effects and haven’t died.
At the same time through the same extended group, I know a couple who have died of covid and several who still have long covid which has disabled them to varying degrees.

It would be logical to think that the excess deaths are a catch up to lock down and lack of hospital treatment, plus the current issues many have with seeing a gp or calling an ambulance, but I am assured by certain people that the excess deaths are solely due to the vaccine.

@Tractorcrisis
Resorting to insults when you can't win an argument is not impressive intellectually.

@peppathe3rd oh well, that’s lucky for me that Mumsnet doesn’t support ableism and will allow the intellectually inferior to post 👍

So I read today that the CDC in the US - controversially pushing these products on the young children in the US - has a member of Moderna’s PR firm on its committee

leaving aside the fact this is the Daily Mail, how is this acceptable? How can we have faith in our regulators?

it’s a bit like the Reuters fact checkers again.

People were heavily censored for so called “misinformation” regarding these products not preventing transmission. Yet we have had outrageous claims from Biden to Tony Blair to GM tv about these products allowed, knowing the things weren’t tested for that

at what point will people be allowed to disagree with any official narrative in a cashless world?

@BeethovenNinth

So who do you choose to have faith in? And what proof do you have that their evidence is more robust, better researched, peer reviewed and more highly qualified than the consensus of global medical expertise on Covid?
And why would you try and persuade other people to think otherwise? Is that in the best interests of public health?
If you think it’s somehow ‘better’ to question the narrative, why do you not apply the same scepticism/questioning to the sources you are promoting? Why are those sources more reliable?

What makes you think I’m not sceptical of all sources? I take a dim view is the “covid doesn’t exist” brigade

But I believe in free speech, the ability to question, that corporations should never influence regulators, that the state needs to be separate from the courts, and that when big money is to be made, people are easily corrupted.

we have a dangerous time when corporates effectively run the narrative.

@BeethovenNinth

at what point will people be allowed to disagree with any official narrative in a cashless world?

You just did? And you have been doing repeatedly - as have all the other 'coerced', 'maligned', 'non-sheep', put-upon members of the extreme right. They haven't shut up, actually. This is a good thing, as we don't want repression of free speech. But don't claim otherwise. Some have been shut down, yes. But that would be they've violated the Terms of Service of the platform they were on, and cannot be defined as oppression. They've just found another platform, haven't they?

Ok, so the consultant cardiology you link to is this guy:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseem_Malhotra

His dad was certainly very eminent (in medical politics), but from his own Wikipedia page he has never held a substantive consultant cardiology post, let alone been a “top” cardiologist.

Absolutely no credibility on vaccines whatsoever, and not in any position to have firsthand experience of any deaths due to vaccines (doesn’t actually work in the NHS).

@BeethovenNinth

But then why cite sources that have EVEN less credibility?? And cite those sources without question or thorough analysis?

The second one, Dr John Campbell. If you click through to his webpage, the first line is “Hello I’m Dr John Campbell, a retired A&E nurse…” again, no reason to pay any more attention to him than you would to Bob down the pub.

OP if this is a genuine request for information” and not just an attempt to post antivaxxer conspiracy videos without getting deleted, you need to actually Google who is posting these videos and not just stop at “doctor” - there is no reason to elevate what a random doctor or nurse says on YouTube over any other member of the public.

@BeethovenNinth

What proof do you have that your fringe sources are not ALSO corrupt, are financially motivated - or out to make a ‘name for themselves’?

This is human nature - unfortunately. But medical knowledge is better now than say 20/30 years ago. Regulation is not perfect - but there are more robust procedures in place than 20/30 years ago. Our knowledge of vaccines/viruses progresses forwards thanks to the best medical minds globally.

So in the best interests of global health - you go with the consensus of medical expert opinion. It is NOT safer to try and persuade other to believe fringe evidence/studies/anecdotal evidence and hunches.

I think the value of Dr John Campbell's you tube videos in the early days of the pandemic was that he explained concepts well. A good teacher, so to speak, presenting the data and what it might mean.

@BeethovenNinth

I do think it’s ‘good’ to question the narrative, and that is how society progresses forward - but it’s just doing it critically. Particularly when it comes to health/science/safety.

If you are going to send a rocket to the moon, you do the best you can - at that point in time - with the best knowledge, resources available to you. If you choose to go with a fringe, non peer reviewed, lesser researched method - it is less likely that the rocket will get there safely.

That lesser research MAY eventually prove to have elements that improve safety, but it’s not until it’s been thoroughly tested/researched etc.

Politics - yes. We should ALWAYS question the narrative. But I don’t think the same applies to medicine AT A POINT IN TIME. You go with the best cancer treatment available AT THAT TIME. However - of course cancer treatment will improve in 10/20 years time BECAUSE of people questioning the narrative. But it’s impossible to know which fringe studies will carry that weight for the future. This is why for medicine it’s consensus opinion (at the time of need) = best interest of public health. Consensus scientific opinion = more likely successful mission to the moon.

Well you are assuming the decision to extend the roll out to very young people or to force people to have it it lose their jobs was right due to the evidence at the time

i am questioning the quality and interpretation of that evidence.

if that evidence has been presented in a false way or as a result of corruption then then that is astonishing if it has led to a mandated roll out to young people

@BeethovenNinth

I think it’s important to extrapolate the politics from the science.

I totally agree that the politics was corrupt here in the UK.

However - the very top medical expertise globally gave the advice on safety (and that was despite whichever political party was in power in their country of origin), and I believe that was the most transparent, best medical advice we had at the time in the middle of a pandemic, and without a crystal ball or knowing how the virus could mutate.

I would never expect that to be faultless - just the safest thing to do at the time.

Now the threat has subsided somewhat, we can question and see how to improve for the future.

To persuade others to follow an alternative agenda which doesn’t have robust evidence - or hasn’t been thoroughly tested/researched etc - is quite simply - not the safest approach. It’s more likely to destroy MORE peoples’ lives than the narrative.

I'm having my booster on Tuesday and husband's is on Monday. Very happy to take advantage of a vaccine offer.

I think it depends on the data being released by the producers of the product and how that is interpreted. I don’t make that statement glibly.

I hope to god you are right and I’m just a cynical neurotic idiot!

Nothing wrong with being a cynical neurotic idiot! @BeethovenNinth

It is really important to question - to bring about future change.

at what point will people be allowed to disagree with any official narrative in a cashless world? @BeethovenNinth

^^ feel like this is bit of another rabbit hole tbh,

People can disagree with whatever they want to. Others are allowed to explain why they don't, and there is a pretty strong rationale to combat health misinformation, hence all the passionate replies.

The reason people are posting these kind of theories all over threads are because of how loud and prolific anti-vaccine activists are. Clearly if they were being censored, no one would be hearing about it.

Credible media aren't going to publish things that there isn't good evidence for - this is not specific to coronavirus - so you can hardly cry censorship.

@Changechangychange you will be dismayed to hear that Malhotra and Campbell have teamed up with Russel Brand, and are now spreading all sorts of nonsese over the internet. This might explain the uptick in fake claims here too.

An NHS cardiologist (a real one - not just someone who doesn't practise and makes his money from being controversial) described them as "the three disinformation horseman of the apocolypse", which seems fairly apt.

...CDC in the US - controversially pushing these products on the young children in the US - has a member of Moderna’s PR firm on its committee

Ignoring the emotive words here, who are you referring to & what specifically is their role @BeethovenNinth ?

Had a quick look, couldn't work out who you mean.

We had a non-expert anti-vaccine activist on the JCVI who was directly involved in decision making, until he was booted off (Dingwall).

Weber Shandwick, the PR firm, allegedly represents Pfizer, Moderna and the CDC. I have not personally researched this, but I imagine that is what is being referred to in the post.

This doesn't really fit in line with the claim:

CDC in the US - controversially pushing these products on the young children in the US - has a member of Moderna’s PR firm on its committee

This is why it's frustrating when people repeat things that aren't true, without doing due diligence.

It's just this drip drip into the sea of misinformation that makes informed decision making very difficult.

@saltedcaramel1
this is what was written:

So I read today that the CDC in the US - controversially pushing these products on the young children in the US - has a member of Moderna’s PR firm on its committee

leaving aside the fact this is the Daily Mail, how is this acceptable? How can we have faith in our regulators?

No link was given - I had literally no other information other than that statement....

If you provide me with the article then I can try and understand if this means Moderna has a role in CDC's decision making.

The two companies sharing a PR firm, is not alarming in itself.

i know. just please wait one sec. i'm linking the article