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.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11303017/PR-firm-represents-Pfizer-Moderna-sits-CDC-vaccine-advisory-committee.html

Ok - so this renders the PPs statement: "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" completely untrue.

Moderna/Pfizer/CDC share a PR firm - I don't see the issue.

Surely you could also argue there's a COI in being a PR firm for both moderna & pfizer? I just looked them up and they are a global PR firm that reprensent thousands of clients all over the world, so presumably they know how to deal with this.

Incidentally, are there alternatives in terms of using a PR firm? Presumably all companies used this firm far predating the pandemic?

If someone from moderna was actually involved in the decision making process regarding who should be offered vaccination, then yes that would be concerning.

I've read the article (it was shockingly written, BTW) and nothing it said really concerned me. One seat in a committee doesn't mean they were highly influential.

impact.webershandwick.com/the-chronic-challenges-facing-global-health-systems-a1260af7d264

An interesting article published by the PR firm we are discussing, regarding conflict of interest - please note the* **, explained at the very end.

COI questions

But these people aren't involved in decision making? i.e. whether a vaccine is offered to children or not based on an evaluation of the benefits v costs.

I don't really see the issue that once a vaccine is approved for a certain group, someone works on advertising & encouraging uptake.

I don’t know if they are involved in decision making or not. But there shouldn’t be a shared PR firm. It’s called a conflict of interest

Why?

I am genuinely struggling to understand why this an issue, as long as Pfizer/Moderna or whoever, aren't involved in authorisation of products or decisions as to which population strata are offered it.

Preumably Moderna, Pfizer and the CDC have been represented by this company long before 2020 - are there many viable alternatives for PR firms?

Would it even be possible to find a PR firm to represent the CDC who hasn't also represented any other medical product or device?

This makes no sense to me. A PR firm is engaged because they have expertise in public relations, not virology or immunology. They aren't going to be asked for a medical or scientific opinion any more than the external auditors or IT consultants would be. Would it be a conflict of interest if they used the same IT consultants or web developers?

Perhaps this analogy could help us with the debate? Would it be problematic if a PR company represented the two largest arms manufacturers in the world during a time of war, while simultaneously representing the government's principal health protection agency tasked with keeping its population safe?

Only if you thought the war was civil - with its own citizens? There is a danger in over-thinking this.

@MeetPi
Yes, for the analogy to work, it would have to be civil I think. Arms have been an imperative tool in fighting and winning wars, not necessarily contrary to peace-keeping. In order to proceed ethically, it would seem only logical that the two branches (arms and safety) would have a wide and clear separation. I appreciate your comment - made me delve a bit deeper into my analogy. What do you think?

If we assume any government is still running functionally, it would make sense to separate those departments - and it has always been so, in war and peace periods (except in some areas where they may intersect - military hospitals and such).

We need to get to the nexus of your concern, really. Are you worried that vaccines have/are being used against citizens? Do you think medicine has been weaponised (to use a buzzword) by corporates?

I am not drawing conclusions about the motives or outcome of this potential conflict of interest. I just find it ethically suspect to have the CDC, Moderna and Pfizer linked by a PR company, especially when the means of coercion to participate were so powerfully charged. The idea of medicine being used against people is almost too awful to contemplate, but we do know it has happened in the past. The egregore of "public health" has been known to lead to some very dark places.

www.britannica.com/event/Guatemala-syphilis-experiment

Honestly this comparaison is as offensive as the Nazi/Holocaust ones!

We know ethnic minorities have poorer medical treatment & have a long history of exploitation in completely unethical research. The syphilis experiment was particularly grotesque.

It completely belittles the suffering these populations experienced, encourages denials of racism, and ignores the fact that most conspiracy theories are based on racism/anti-Semitism.

To compare any of these scenarios to the roll out of an approved vaccine is unacceptable no?

Also ridiculous given that we know that vaccine uptake is enriched in wealthy white people - encouraging claims like this is what lead to the (understandable) vaccine hesitancy of ethinic minorities which has contributed to the higher rates of illness and death in these people @peppathe3rd

It's devastasting, and we have a huge amount of work ahead of us to understand how these groups can be supported into making an informed choice, and not coerced by disinformation.

@bronzepig

To compare any of these scenarios to the roll out of an approved vaccine is unacceptable no?

Thanks for giving a brilliant answer to this. I admit I was struggling to find an answer that wasn't too impolite. I'm sorry, @peppathe3rd, I simply cannot tell if you're just uninformed and trying to learn, or trying to stir the pot.

I did not compare this vaccine rollout to the syphilis experiment. I used it as an example of how, in the past, medicine has been weaponised (to borrow @MeetPi's phrase). I am neither uninformed, nor trying to stir the pot. Several people found it baffling that anyone would have a problem with the current PR conflict of interest we are discussing - it was in this context that I wrote. I appreciate that you were attempting not to be rude, as that doesn't hold back many other people on here. I was attempting to take this vaccine rollout out of the equation and consider the moral consequences of a potential conflict of interest between the 3 entities in question. I remain unconvinced that this was an ethical decision by the CDC.

@bronzepig

It completely belittles the suffering these populations experienced, encourages denials of racism, and ignores the fact that most conspiracy theories are based on racism/anti-Semitism.

The mental gymnastics you must go through to draw such inane conclusions are something to behold.

Honestly this comparaison is as offensive as the Nazi/Holocaust ones!

We know ethnic minorities have poorer medical treatment & have a long history of exploitation in completely unethical research. The syphilis experiment was particularly grotesque.

It completely belittles the suffering these populations experienced, encourages denials of racism, and ignores the fact that most conspiracy theories are based on racism/anti-Semitism.

To compare any of these scenarios to the roll out of an approved vaccine is unacceptable no?

Excellent post @bronzepig

These "inane conclusions" have been very eloquently explained by marginalized populations including ethnic minorities who have previously been exploited in this way and the Jewish community.

I am happy to link from some who are spoken out publicly on this, if useful.

It remains the case that comparing the vaccine roll out, or NPIs used, to events like the Holocaust or previous medical experimentation on vulnerable populations is incredibly harmful & offensive for the reasons they have outlined.

Thank you @Sleeplessinthesouth71 & @MeetPi . Attempting to use racism to back up a particular agenda, instead of tackling the very real harms it causes in everyday life is incredibly problematic.

We know that white wealthy people are those disproportinately taking up vaccination - these arguments are invalid

My risk from covid is very low. My risk from vaccine injury is zero. I like these odds. I'll keep them.

@bronzepig
yes, please. i would love to read the literature you reference.
this becomes SO frustrating because it is evident how intelligent you all are, at the same time determined not to give an inch to any ideas that counter the script you adhere to. i.e. anyone questioning is uniformed, fringe, now racist, dangerous, unethical, relies on social media for facts, and on and on.
i wrote that methods of operating in the egregore of public health in the past, while applying the benefit of hindsight, have revealed heinous policies. applying critical thought and a healthy amount of skepticism towards present public health measures should be welcomed by the scientific community and not censored at every turn. when a policy, idea or practice is in the best interest of its population, that light will always outshine doubts. if truth is on your side, no amount of questioning will dim that absolute. however, when none of you can even entertain the idea that this alleged PR conflict of interest is in any way problematic, the truth slips further and further away from your positions. moreover, you repeatedly state that questioning an approved treatment protocol is inappropriate, but, again, history has shown us that MANY approved medical interventions have been disastrous to "public health." class 1 recalls by the fda, for example, take place every year.

not to give an inch to any ideas that counter the script you adhere to. i.e. anyone questioning is uniformed, fringe, now racist, dangerous, unethical, relies on social media for facts, and on and on.

Nope @peppathe3rd

Questioning & keeping an open mind is obviously not a bad thing. I'm a working scientist and spend many hours a week reading & critically assessing the developments regarding SARS-COV-2, including vaccines.

If there was good quality evidence emerging that rolling out vaccines was a huge mistake I would say so. I have seen none of your claims that are actually informed by robust evidence.

And no of course anyone "questioning" isn't racist, but some the recent posts on the thread certainly lead that way.

You accuse others of being blind and reciting from a "script", but refuse to acknowledge anyone else's posts.