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.

@BeethovenNinth to be honest I think it’s as much to do with a covid infection as the vaccines.

I agree with you that having Covid can also cause heart and other issues.

*Perhaps your ire would be better directed at the distressing situation which was created by the 'don't kill granny' rhetoric during the pandemic, which it turns out was not based on 'science'?`8

@EcoTourist If you were the PM at the time the pandemic began, what actions would you have taken?

@EcoTourist

What current ‘science’ is that?

Consensus scientific opinion is what feeds the NHS guidance. So that’s the best advice to follow. Not fringe studies or science that hasn’t been properly scrutinised.

@EcoTourist

I'm beyond gobsmacked by the irony here.

You say science 'seems to mean whatever anyone wants it to now' in the same post where you allege, without evidence, that claims that vaccinated people are going to start dropping dead are based 'on the current science'?

Honestly, what absolute garbage.

I've asked before on this thread, but I'll ask again. My mother and brother are doctors. What 'scientific evidence' do you guys have access to that they do not? Or do you just think you're smarter than the vast majority of doctors and scientists?

'science' seems to mean whatever anyone wants it to now

Only to people who are uneducated in science and have no respect for those who have those credentials. I have a science degree (Biochemistry) and a lifelong interest in scientific topics. Throughout the pandemic I've listened to This Week in Virology (TWiV) which is a series of podcasts and very interesting interviews with many people in various fields of science. I have huge, huge respect for those people. They've spent their whole careers learning and understanding whatever their specialist subject is. I would far rather listen to their opinions than some unknown with no proper scientific qualifications on YouTube or one of the other less reputable sites. Or indeed on Mumsnet.

This 'science' thing has turned into quite the mystery, it seems to mean whatever anyone wants it to now!

Only if you're giving equal weight to anyone with an opinion and don't understand how evidence synthesis works @EcoTourist

There is a small minority of people who claim things that do not have a robust evidence base.

For whatever reason, you choose to ignore the scientific consensus (i.e., not all experts will share the exact same opinion regarding policy, but they will broadly agree based on the current evidence base) and follow anyone who challenges it, even when it's clear they're talking nonsense.

Wonder what sparkling glitterbomb of misinformation that was…

any thoughts on the together trial being funded by ftx?

What trial? FTX the crypto currency exchange?

As replied to you on the other thread...

Instead of spamming multiple with cryptic posts, why don't you just explicitly say what you mean @peppathe3rd?

What are your concerns? Do you have a link?

And why are you posting this on vaccine threads?

ftx

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2115869

Sigh. So your point? Why not just say whatever it is you're getting at?

Is the implication that because FTX was investing in vaccine development (although who knows what will happen now) they fixed the Ivermectin trials or something?

Also still awaiting a transparent or informative reply.

Together tested many drugs (cheap, repurposed) that could be used to treat COVID, not just ivermectin.

Other high quality studies independent of Together (and therefore FTX) have also found no evidence for efficacy of ivermectin.

I suspect I won't get an answer but no idea why @peppathe3rd is sharing this on the vaccine threads, when it is nothing to do with vaccines.

I imagine it will follow the same old rhetoric:

1. poster adds a bit of cryptic nonsense from the latest bit of misinformation being bandied about in poster’s fav echo chamber group elsewhere on SM

2. poster assumes superiority as no-one knows what poster is talking about/obviously we don’t have privee to the ‘extra special’ info that poster and her cult have been discussing

3. more info gets drip fed, someone here with decent scientific knowledge will debunk it

4. poster does a massive flounce and scuttles back down the rabbit hole

And repeat. Until poster gets sufficient posts deleted to get booted off Mumsnet…

the ftx scandal is all over the news. i assumed everyone would have read about it. not intentionally cryptic

Again this is deliberately cryptic.

What specifically are your concerns regarding the Together trial being funded by them?

@strupel

Together tested many drugs (cheap, repurposed) that could be used to treat COVID, not just ivermectin.

I suspect I won't get an answer but no idea why @peppathe3rd is sharing this on the vaccine threads, when it is nothing to do with vaccines.

Again, no cryptic intent here - i thought it was obvious why this pertains to vaccines. the EUA authorisation that enabled to vaccine rollout was predicated on there being no effective and available treatments.

Regarding your first paragraph, pre-vax rollout, did the together study find treatments that. worked among the many they tested, as per your info?

the EUA authorisation that enabled to vaccine rollout was predicated on there being no effective and available treatments.

Ah and here it is.

@peppathe3rd - you continually post misinformation and you'd think you'd tire of it at some point in time

Don't get vaccinated if you don't want to, stop trying to terrify those who have been, or would benefit from boosters.

@Biochemist
that is misinformation how please? available treatment did not affect EUA?

So you think that worldwide, multiple governments of multiple countries put on a big show of trying out many repurposed drugs in trials, purely to lie about the results? And the thousands of scientists involved in analysis and publication of results were persuaded to be complicit?

Rightio.

Together found evidence for efficacy for fluoxaime which I believe was not replicated. Solidarity found evidence for various steroids including dexamethasone.

Ivermectin does not work. It would be great if it did, but it doesn't. You are one of the few people still pushing it.

A therapuetic would not have replaced the need for vaccination - due to many reasons which have been posted about on here before. Happy to rehash, but can all be found on AS.

The repeated cryptic hints that the coronavirus vaccines were either unnecessary, unsafe or ineffective.

You are going against mountains of replicated data, curated from countries all over the worldwide.

It's just ridiculous at this point.

Again, no cryptic intent here - i thought it was obvious why this pertains to vaccines. the EUA authorisation that enabled to vaccine rollout was predicated on there being no effective and available treatments.

Moot point now, innit? The only useful prophylactic you can take after infection is Paxlovid, which wasn't authorized until last December.

Regarding your first paragraph, pre-vax rollout, did the together study find treatments that. worked among the many they tested, as per your info?

The results are available here.

www.togethertrial.com/publications

The only positive result was with fluvoxamine.

The RECOVERY trial's identification of dexamethasone was much more useful clinically.

i thought it was obvious why this pertains to vaccines.

It never is though, is it? @peppathe3rd

If you think you have important information regarding vaccine safety/efficacy or whatever, surely it makes sense to explain it in a detailed and transparent way, with links and details.

For those of us who are a bit slow, clear explanations rather than vague hints would be more likely to get people on side.