Has anyone seen the 1,000 peer reviewed medical papers about vaccine injuries.

[sassandfaff]

community.covidvaccineinjuries.com/compilation-peer-reviewed-medical-papers-of-covid-vaccine-injuries/

Would this influence anyone from getting the next booster?

This is what trial data showed when the vaccines were working primarily againt the original variant for which they were designed against

Do you mean the data from the RCTs, @leafyygreens ? They were not designed to show this at all. I suspect you know this as well as I do, and that we're both too busy to get into one of these debates properly. But come on. To pretend that the messaging we had was based on "science" rather than politics is just disingenuous.

I don't think you understand my post.

The vaccines were designed against the original variant - this used genomic data from SARS-COV-2 identified in Wuhan.

As the virus rapidly mutated, vaccines became less effective.

And yes - exactly as I said - the messaging was political rather than scientific.

From my post which you are replying to: ...but this isn't helped by politicians and the media ignoring scienstists to put out definitive firm statements which do not include caution and caveats.

we were explicitly told that we should get jabbed so that we wouldn't catch and transmit the virus

not wouldn’t- less likely.

you have to remember journalists aren’t scientists. What you see in the media is effectively chinese whispers, the scientists publish their raw findings in peer reviewed journals. This is then usually picked up and simplified by something like New Scientist, which publishes a broad explanation for scientists outside the specialism. This is then picked up by mainstream media, who try to simplify it further, with no real understanding of the science or principle, and disseminate to the general public

what you see on the news and in MSM is usually broadly right, but not accurate, with no understanding of how anything was arrived at.

this was an area of interest to me as a career path, I went to many recruitment evenings and spoke to many employers. They point blank will not employ anyone without a journalism qualification, even if you have a PhD and many years in medical information or scientific writing. Which I think is a shame, especially now where the public is able to fact check and is picking up that MSM aren’t always wholly accurate.

Agreed @Reallyreallyborednow , though I think you're being a touch too kind to journalists

You can put out a carefully worded press release about a recent paper saying something like "we have evidence x may help y, under these specific conditions" and it will magically change to something like TOP SCIENTIST SAYS MANGOS CURE DEPRESSION

This isn't just true of the tabloids and it's pretty infuriating.

@leafyygreens no I think I did understand you. I'm saying that at the point that we were told to "get the vaccines to stop transmission", there was no decent data to suggest that they would do this even against the original strain. The RCTs were inadequate for this (and the real world data actively contradicted it).

The point about the messaging being political was that within these messages was always a "trust the science" message, and people were wrongly told that they were the ones being unscientific if they queried the (political) messaging.

At one stage, the public was told that they wouldn't get Covid at all if jabbed. This did reverse very quickly as it became untenable, but the idea that it would drastically reduce infection rates remained (wrongly), as did pervasive ideas about lowering the viral load in the respiratory tract, etc. The messaging to the public was inaccurate at every stage.

Look, we know that vaccines can cause injuries. That's why we have vaccine damage legislation to compensate people. The issue is at population level it is worth vaccinating. It's much cheaper to keep people well and deal with the very small number of problems.

At individual level it's a bit different and you have to take a view.

As we fortunately don't have compulsory vaccination in the UK, it is up to the individual to weigh up if it's worth the risk. For some illnesses it's a no brainer eg meningitis. For others, it might not be eg flu (will they get the right strain(s), will it work for you anyway).

Up until now covid has been worth getting vaccinated against and would be in the no brainer territory for me and probably most people.

But if the booster is only going to be the original strain again I can't see the point of having it. I would have a booster if it covers Omicron.

At one stage, the public was told that they wouldn't get Covid at all if jabbed

I don't think that's true, I think it said it would significantly reduce serious illness.

However, the whole premise of the ridiculous vaccine passport idea was presumably that you should be vaccinated so you wouldn't pass it on.

we were told that mRNA shots will stop covid spread
twitter.com/bobinnz1/status/1489099768760438790?s=21&t=kie5etVWBkGgFdBc9Ilitg

Yep @Hiheyho . That's a striking compilation. That message that the jabs would stop Covid was put about and filtered through widely in early-ish 2021 (in the UK too). And then, even when people were no longer claiming the jabs stopped transmission, people's emotional responses to each other's decisions had already been formed by the claim. We'd heard these claims - made on the basis of extremely poor information - from people we trusted (including lots of doctors), and formed the opinion on that basis that it was selfish/wrong to not have the jab. And that kind of initial opinion/impression lasts, even in the face of strong evidence that it's irrational.

People will now protect their feelings about this, by claiming that it was an accurate thing to say at the time the message went out - but there was NEVER good evidence for it, even with the initial strains. We were duped.

Here you go, there is another video twitter.com/drelidavid/status/1550805949169950722?s=21&t=v5PwnLgDg56_Z-zVswVzUw

How naughty of you.

Strange posts tonight. Lots of credible experts have criticised various aspects of the vaccines and messaging from politicians etc.

The difference is they do this based on robust evidence, rather than the scaremongering you see from people who are using the pandemic to profit (and who are presumably not sharing their profits with the people who repeat their claims on forums like MN...)

The fact remains that offering vaccines to the general population when we did saved millions of lives. Would have no problem accepting a booster this autumn if recommended. Other people may not want to, and that's fine too!

The guy who is a self publicist trying to make money from alternatives to vaccines. Gotcha.

Would have no problem accepting a booster this autumn if recommended. Other people may not want to, and that's fine too!

This is great - I'm happy for you that you're happy, and am in agreement with this attitude.

But can you see that when people were coerced, vilified, insulted and sometimes even sacked (on the basis of claims about the jabs' effects on transmission, which turned out to be untrue), this was not the atmosphere coming across? And that it has undermined trust in public health policy? I don't think it's "strange" at all.

Hang on - vaccine companies make billions of $$$$$!

Dr Malhotra - he might make a few quid (no idea - not read what he’s promoting) but let’s not pretend the vaccine companies aren’t dominated by their race to enormous profits!

@virginrivieras I know, it's bizarre how people who critiqued the jabs have been dismissed as profit-driven, when overwhelmingly these people risked their careers and reputations for what they said, whereas working in line with pharma is rather lucrative and will get you promotions.

And more broadly - argue the points, don't go for ad hominem - it's a bad look.

Hang on - vaccine companies make billions of $$$$$!

the Oxford/AZ covid vaccine is produced at cost. No profit. What’s in it for them?

Pharma companies make millions, yes. Especially in the US where healthcare is for-profit. But if they sell unsafe products those millions will be gone in a flash, again especially in the US where punitive damages run into the millions. It isn’t in their interests to sell products which cause more harm than benefit.

He pushed the bloody thing for ages! And with him being a cardiologist, I'm surprised he didn't know before what people like myself knew - before the bloody things came out!
You can defend this thing all you want but the sad truth is there are many having adverse reactions and not just cardiac issues. I'm not going to go into what other things are spiralling out of control since this thing came out. I don't want to scare people, but it's information that came out before the bloody things started, from other professors who have been silenced!

He pushed the bloody thing for ages! And with him being a cardiologist, I'm surprised he didn't know before what people like myself knew - before the bloody things came out!
You can defend this thing all you want but the sad truth is there are many having adverse reactions and not just cardiac issues. I'm not going to go into what other things are spiralling out of control since this thing came out. I don't want to scare people, but it's information that came out before the bloody things started, from other professors who have been silenced!

Don't understand this 'silenced' thing.

It's all over the internet. You tube, Instagram whatever. In fact look down this actual thread. 🤷‍♀️

It's all there if you look. In fact that's the clarion call " do your research ".

It's not silenced. It's often just seen as not credible. Like the " 1,000 s" of papers referenced in the OP.

Silenced in the MAINSTREAM. Yes I agree it's all been out there for people to find. But those who rely on the mainstream media will be kept in the dark.

The censorship on places like Twitter and YouTube has been NUTS. Well qualified people getting "warning" stickers slapped on for posting a BMJ article which doesn't support use of the jabs. People whose accounts were removed for plotting graphs from publicly available data. Of course, this is not reported in mainstream media, so it's not surprising that people don't know if they're not specifically following the people in question.

Silenced in the MAINSTREAM. Yes I agree it's all been out there for people to find. But those who rely on the mainstream media will be kept in the dark.

So you think there's a conspiracy of silence in the MAINSTREAM ?

That ALL the people working in the MAINSTREAM have agreed/ decided/ been forced not to take these other opinions seriously?

It wouldn't cross your bow that many of the opinions just don't have credibility? Don't stand up to scrutiny? Haven't inspired a credible journalist to push it further?

Trump is always bleating about the MAINSTREAM MEDIA who conspired against his non election results. He just didn't like what actually happened.

PS love your capitals.

" kept in the dark "

why?

I’ve had all 3 vaccines so far because IMO less damage is done by vaccines than by Covid which is frankly bloody nasty in some cases.

However - I’m under no illusions that adverse effects are continually denied and minimised. A case in point - look at what what happened with Glaxo denying the swine flu jab had caused life altering narcolepsy…. Until they eventually admitted it. This is pretty recent too.

I will take the vaccines but I’m well aware the side effects and adverse events will be sometimes swept under the carpet so in the meantime I’ll continue to keep reading published medical research into vaccine safety - FWIW. I’ll also keep myself as safe as possible, I’ll avoid crowds, I would report any side effects to the yellow card scheme fwiw. What else can we actually do?! It’s a trade-off at the end of the day…