If you could go back in time, would you still get the jab?

[Quweenie]

If you could go back in time, would you still get the Covid jab?

I don’t really care if you’re vaccinated or not, but I’m interested if people would go back and change their decision?

I would like confirmation that such sudden deaths are properly investigated

Which is why have coroners.

I haven't had a covid jab. I never said never... but I just wanted to bide my time a bit and consider it. I am less convinced now than back in 2020 however.

I would like confirmation that such sudden deaths are properly investigated

I agree, my child's friends Dad died in his late 30's four days after a booster, my friends Son had myocarditis, he was only vaccinated to take a trip, he was never worried about Covid, he'd already had it twice.

All anecdotal of course.

I would say posters are forceful against vaccine disinformation, because it literally helps no-one.

If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated/doesn't want to discuss vaccination/doesn't want to disclose if they've had a vaccine, fair enough.

In contrast, when posters spam threads with fake claims - potentially terrifying those who have been vaccinated and coercing those who would benefit out of taking it - then that's not fair enough.

In contrast, when posters spam threads with fake claims - potentially terrifying those who have been vaccinated and coercing those who would benefit out of taking it - then that's not fair enough.

too right

Hmm, seems mumsnet has hidden my post with the link to an Editor of the BMJ discussing the findings of serious adverse events in 1 in 800 vaccinated. Odd.

If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated/doesn't want to discuss vaccination/doesn't want to disclose if they've had a vaccine, fair enough.

Is it fair enough that people disclose that they didn't have the vaccine and why though? Because that is answering the question in the OP.

Yes of course.

Surely you can see there's a difference between saying I don't want to be vaccinated, my dad had X side effect, I don't think I need it (for example)

versus

repeating claims from people who are making a career out of being an anti-vaccine contratrian like - no one should be given a booster/ vaccinated people are more likely to be hospitlised/there's a pandemic of heart issues due to vaccines/vaccinating the general population was a a mistake etc etc etc

Given it was hidden automatically, that suggests you added a link discussing the paper from a dodgy website like bitchute or oddesey which MN seems to have a block on, rather that the actual paper itself.

I've posted many papers that look at vaccine side effects and no issue (no matter the conclusion of the paper).

So i'm assuming you're referring to the doshi paper that can be found here: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283

It has been rightly criticised because of it's terrible methodology. You can make data tell you anything you want it to by misusing epi and statistical methods. This has been widely discussed by quite a few epidemiologists.

Two key issues:

1. This is not a new dataset or finding, they are simply re-doing analysis from RCT data (which was already done correctly - you can see this by looking at the methods sections of relevant publications), in a way to make vaccinated outcomes look worse.
2. The RCT data is now pretty redundant - we have far larger samples now from the roll out of vaccines, which have been used to demonstrate better outcomes in those vaccinated than unvaccinated. It is interesting that the authors choose to cherry pick from this tiny sample of people, when they have data from millions more individuals they could use.

Given it was hidden automatically, that suggests you added a link discussing the paper from a dodgy website like bitchute or oddesey which MN seems to have a block on, rather that the actual paper itself.

I've posted many papers that look at vaccine side effects and no issue (no matter the conclusion of the paper).

So i'm assuming you're referring to the doshi paper that can be found here: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283
It has been rightly criticised because of it's terrible methodology. You can make data tell you anything you want it to by misusing epi and statistical methods. This has been widely discussed by quite a few epidemiologists.

Two key issues:

This is not a new dataset or finding, they are simply re-doing analysis from RCT data (which was already done correctly - you can see this by looking at the methods sections of relevant publications), in a way to make vaccinated outcomes look worse.

The RCT data is now pretty redundant - we have far larger samples now from the roll out of vaccines, which have been used to demonstrate better outcomes in those vaccinated than unvaccinated. It is interesting that the authors choose to cherry pick from this tiny sample of people, when they have data from millions more individuals they could use.

"*Odd"
*
No not really.

How incredibly unfortunate and unusual.

So what did they die of? It won't be nothing.

Another one.

So what did the dad die of?

So what did they die of? It won't be nothing.

No, it's not 'nothing' but it's pointless asking people here what they died of. We simply can't know. As a PP said, that's what Coroners are for.

I'm just pushing against the vague posts like the ones I quoted. I'm always "surprised" that these stories often have no actual cause of death. Of course there will be one, but why won't the posters say what it is. All this obscure "dying after a covid jab" is hardly helpful. I suppose that's the point.

Grant Wahl's family is having to deal head-on with his sudden death being used to bolster vaccine disinformation. How heartbreaking.

www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/opinion/grant-wahl-celine-gounder-vaccine.html?unlocked_article_code=p2h4pMHp_RRNcbnJ21EhZs0rS0RHmQRAmWkZ-MknYNX2jnqkPVZqF2YpBgzSiinitDoNFSnOgpI4ipZEJ5rrWRdVmxTaTrNCPMBC_3_HVUg9RQFnNMAd8pAQmx7c9MIAekhb4TqqEP2MTvyvAgaDF7hNux1-hZuoiydzVQbv2TaE-sY7fyZ2kZ7yC6kk5Pon5NdPrWCbsNwz8ohqUcvYKL4IGjWalD2OKwLvQ9Z0TBFUTfZUPGuOAduxpYY52nCWIv6cax-4xh76tmGByKGUz4EvEipjt0qnIfl3fyfkzKjlc7jH72HN0HRvQjwFOvKbghUPxRWyCwnEBZdpz834Bo38p4DD0g1l7a0A&smid=tw-share

A heart attack. HTH

That is truly upsetting - how brave his wife has been to deal with it all and remain focused throughout.

knitting also heart attacks. As far as I know. You don’t like to ask.

I noticed the BBC covered excess deaths again this morning and interestingly said the unvaccinated more like to die in terms of numbers to June 2022 than the vaccinated which is interesting and perhaps reassuring in terms of vaccjne risk? However I don’t know if people who die within two weeks of a vaccine are actually counted as unvaccinated

I would still get them. They've served me well.

Yes.

@hamstersarse

I agree, I think everyone can choose whether to get it or not. It's the coercion that really sticks in my craw. We should never have been bribed or blackmailed into it.

Wouldn't be a vaccine thread without yet more scary fake claims from @hamstersarse . Crazy it's still going on after 3 years of the same.

Nope, the vaccines are not "gene editing" - they do not change or alter an individual's genome.

Yes, by reducing risk of infection they prevented both COVID deaths (if you are not infected you cannot transmit) and non-COVID deaths (by reducing demand on healthcare), thus protecting others.

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