What sources back up the anti-vaccine movement?

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

When The Catboy is saying "is there evidence against vaccines" they're banking on your ability to infer from the information presented that they're looking for evidence of the vaccines being harmful, those harmful effects creating fear in people, not that they're looking for evidence that vaccines don't exist as a concept.

The evidence that vaccines can be harmful is readily available. It does not need peer-reviewed studies. In fact, you have to give a signature, that you are aware of them (prior to getting vaccinated). The producers as well as health institutions inform about the risks.
I wasn´t implying that Catboy questions the existence of vaccines. Please read my latest reply (2 min before yours was made) about why his request is illogical.

 

[The Catboy]

The evidence that vaccines can be harmful is readily available. It does not need peer-reviewed studies. In fact, you have to give a signature, that you are aware of them (prior to getting vaccinated). The producers as well as health institutions inform about the risks.
I wasn´t implying that Catboy questions the existence of vaccines. Please read my latest reply (2 min before yours was made) about why his request is illogical.

There is evidence that vaccines do have the occasional to rare harmful side-effect and those papers are typically peer-reviewed. The peer-review process is an extremely important to separate random claims from actual research.
Back when the majority of the anti-vaccine movement was still claiming “vaccines cause autism,” many of them cited debunked “research” or research that couldn’t or won’t be verified through peer-review. This tread seems to have stopped and there are countless claims that you can find in places like the Covid 19 vaccine thread and on social that lack any sources to them. Asking these these claims to have a source and for that source to be a peer-reviewed paper is literally how science works. If the source hasn’t been verified, then it’s worth being concerned about the lack of verification.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

You shouldn´t believe everything you read or hear online, on TV or in newspaper. That should be obvious. There are gullible people of all kinds. Doesn´t refute anything I stated. People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view. It is a risk-reward calculation for themselves and society. You cannot prove them wrong just as you cannot prove that participating in traffic is safe.
Sadly, in most countries partisanship has taken control of most people. They are either against or for vaccination mendates based on their affiliation. The current position is by no means obvious. If Trump had opted for a "medical fasicm" approach the fight could be exactly the opposite of what it is today. Let´s not forget that the term "Liberals" comes from liberty and that right-wingers have not always been prononents of freedom. In the very early stages I still remember main stream media outlets making fun of people who wore masks in the streets (at least in Germany). It flipped 180°.

 

[subcon959]

The evidence that vaccines can be harmful is readily available. It does not need peer-reviewed studies. In fact, you have to give a signature, that you are aware of them (prior to getting vaccinated). The producers as well as health institutions inform about the risks.
I wasn´t implying that Catboy questions the existence of vaccines. Please read my latest reply (2 min before yours was made) about why his request is illogical.

You're wasting your time, we already went through this near the beginning of the thread and it didn't make any difference. OP is obviously smart enough to understand exactly what they are doing, and will innocently insist that this is a sincere request when confronted about it. It's a waste of everyone's time posting here as no such peer review will ever exist.

 

[appleburger]

You shouldn´t believe everything you read or hear online, on TV or in newspaper. That should be obvious. There are gullible people of all kinds. Doesn´t refute anything I stated. People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view. It is a risk-reward calculation for themselves and society. You cannot prove them wrong just as you cannot prove that participating in traffic is safe.
Sadly, in most countries partisanship has taken control of most people. They are either against or for vaccination mendates based on their affiliation. The current position is by no means obvious. If Trump had opted for a "medical fasicm" approach the fight could be exactly the opposite of what it is today. Let´s not forget that the term "Liberals" comes from liberty and that right-wingers have not always been prononents of freedom. In the very early stages I still remember main stream media outlets making fun of people who wore masks in the streets (at least in Germany). It flipped 180°.

I don't think you're paying enough attention to what Catboy is saying.

"People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view."

Sure, they can be "justified" in your view, but if they want to convince others that their reasoning is based on reality then it's pretty important to use logic to do that. The entire purpose of a study is to weed out human error when it comes to judgement.

You're claiming that judgments can be made without science, which I agree with - however, if you want to convince somebody else that your reasoning is actually sound, then you should do yourself the favor using a method that doesn't allow you to fallaciously reach that conclusion.

That's the entire purpose of science to begin with. It's just a method for determining what's real (or, really, getting as close to that as we reasonably can).

In addition to this, saying that nobody has "disproven" your point is a bad angle, imo. If this was a courtroom, and pro-vaccine folks are the prosecutors, and anti-vax are the defense, then it's up to each side to bring their own evidence to the table. Every individual reading this, then, is a judge. It isn't the prosecution or defense's job to necessarily "disprove" the other side. The goal is to provide evidence for your argument so that the judge(s) can make the most reasonable decision based on what's presented to them. If you can manage to outright disprove the other side completely, then that's just a slam dunk.
If I claim I have invisible pixies in my back yard, then you simply cannot prove me wrong, because it's not falsifiable. But you can look at my lack of evidence and reasonably say that you aren't convinced until I come up with something to allow you to see what I see.

The evidence backing up the efficacy of vaccinations is way, way stronger than the anti-vax side in my eyes - in fact, the anti-vax side has history of fabricating information to push sales towards alternative "medications". I think hbomberguy on youtube did a great job documenting this: - he did his homework.

I'll throw you a bone, though. Vaccines haven't been a "wonder cure", and they have been improved over time, with issues along the way. Science is iterative, and we absolutely can fuck up. But, it's not nearly as bad of a dice roll as ignoring it. When it comes to human judgement versus a method that uses logic and reason to find the best possible answer to these problems, I'm going with science every time. No brainer for me.

So, why are you convinced that vaccines are potentially more risky than not receiving them? Because I see a ton of evidence that shows the opposite. COVID seems to be taking out way more people than vaccines are.

 

[smf]

People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view.

Ironically most will believe any old rubbish that they themselves made up or read on facebook or twitter, but challenge it and you need a ten year study and even then will say something about bill gates...

I agree that everything has a risk, the general population are notoriously bad at assessing risks. Air travel hesitancy after 9/11 caused an extra 1,595 road deaths in the following year. AFAIK there were no plane related deaths during that time.

 

[subcon959]

I agree that everything has a risk, the general population are notoriously bad at assessing risks. Air travel hesitancy after 9/11 caused an extra 1,595 road deaths in the following year. AFAIK there were no plane related deaths during that time.

What about Flight 587? It was just a month or so after 9/11 I believe.

 

[appleburger]

You're wasting your time, we already went through this near the beginning of the thread and it didn't make any difference. OP is obviously smart enough to understand exactly what they are doing, and will innocently insist that this is a sincere request when confronted about it. It's a waste of everyone's time posting here as no such peer review will ever exist.

No peer reviewed paper for showing the efficacy of vaccinations? I suppose this depends on the angle you attack from, but there's definitely a lot of research, documentation and peer reviewed studies on the topic, as far as I'm aware.

The video I posted above has a Google Doc Link showing 100+ sources, and while many of them are just news articles, there is plenty of research to sift through for those willing to spend time sorting through it all. Most of the COVID related articles are towards the end of that document.

 

[subcon959]

No peer reviewed paper for showing the efficacy of vaccinations?

Er no, the topic is requesting the exact opposite.

 

[appleburger]

Er no, the topic is requesting the exact opposite.

Well, the purpose of research is to answer the question at hand, in this case: "are vaccines effective/dangerous/etc" - and all of these either show that they are effective/not dangerous, or fallaciously find they are dangerous, but are then called out in subsequent reviews from peers.

OP is asking for sources that back up anti-vax, and I see plenty of counter examples, in addition to "examples" for anti-vax that are torn apart very easily. For me, that makes the best answer to OP's question "No, there aren't any that do a good job of backing up the anti-vax movement".

Would you agree?

 

[subcon959]

Would you agree?

I've been saying from the start that no such evidence (to support anti-vax) will exist, so to me it seems like the thread is more of a way to continuously call out anti-vaxers, which for some reason doesn't sit right with me (even though I'm not anti-vax in the slightest).

 

[appleburger]

I've been saying from the start that no such evidence (to support anti-vax) will exist, so to me it seems like the thread is more of a way to continuously call out anti-vaxers, which for some reason doesn't sit right with me (even though I'm not anti-vax in the slightest).

I think we're in agreement, then. Doesn't seem likely that the anti-vax position has a snowball's chance in hell of garnering any real evidence.

To be frank, I'm not calling out "anti-vaxers" as individuals, but I am attempting to lay out the evidence in a digestible way to show which position is the strongest, regardless of who believes what as a person. People are going to "believe" all kinds of nonsense, but when somebody poses the question "is there evidence for this claim?" then I think it's completely fair game to lay out the cards.

There's a problem at hand - we don't know - that includes me. It's difficult to truly know anything with certainty, obviously. But we can still tackle the question and come up with the best possible answer with the information we have. So I'm making an attempt to answer OPs question.

Fighting people on what or why they believe is often futile, especially if it's unsolicited - but answering somebody's question on the current evidence supporting a position is something I think we can productively answer.

 

[Dax_Fame]

I don't know if they have anything in their deck but I would reckon most considered 'anti-vax' are being roped in with those hesitant to get vaccinated.

I was hesitant myself. New vaccine tech is a scary thing. I was being patient and just staying out of everyone's way, as anyone who chooses not be vaccinated should...

But then family pressure pretty much forced me to get it and now I've been suffering with the heart inflammation thing..... And all those who pressured me have gotten the Delta variant BAD... So what was it all for?

I did what I was told was right and all I got was a broken heart and a family full of very sick vaccinated folk.

My reasons for hesitation was I didn't believe it would work. Not the vaccine itself, but the whole mismanagement of the situation. I said I didn't want to get it because it would mutate by the time enough people got it and here we are.

Needless to say, I'm not getting any booster. This whole thing is stupid and no one can be trusted. The people in charge have a financial interest in pumping as many of these outdated vaccines into the arms of people for their big pharma friends. This is being used to divide people in an already very divided world. Conspiracy theory? Conspiracy fact. Draw a few lines for yourself and what you'll find will shock and aggravate you.

I don't care what anyone thinks about the vaccine or COVID in general. I support anyone's views on any of this crap. We're all in it together. Respect and care for each other.

*Steps down off soap box*

 

[subcon959]

I think we're in agreement, then. Doesn't seem likely that the anti-vax position has a snowball's chance in hell of garnering any real evidence.

To be frank, I'm not calling out "anti-vaxers" as individuals, but I am attempting to lay out the evidence in a digestible way to show which position is the strongest, regardless of who believes what as a person. People are going to "believe" all kinds of nonsense, but when somebody poses the question "is there evidence for this claim?" then I think it's completely fair game to lay out the cards.

There's a problem at hand - we don't know - that includes me. It's difficult to truly know anything with certainty, obviously. But we can still tackle the question and come up with the best possible answer with the information we have. So I'm making an attempt to answer OPs question.

Fighting people on what or why they believe is often futile, especially if it's unsolicited - but answering somebody's question on the current evidence supporting a position is something I think we can productively answer.

If you look at the post following yours you will see what I've been going on about. To the average person, anecdotal evidence is degrees of magnitude more powerful than any peer review studies. So even though it might be your intention to dispute a movement, in actual fact all that is happening is that individuals are going to feel targeted and then nobody wins. There needs to be more compassion if we're going to change things, throwing cold hard numbers at people will achieve nothing, or even worse cause them to become more entrenched.

 

[appleburger]

I don't know if they have anything in their deck but I would reckon most considered 'anti-vax' are being roped in with those hesitant to get vaccinated.

I was hesitant myself. New vaccine tech is a scary thing. I was being patient and just staying out of everyone's way, as anyone who chooses not be vaccinated should...

But then family pressure pretty much forced me to get it and now I've been suffering with the heart inflammation thing..... And all those who pressured me have gotten the Delta variant BAD... So what was it all for?

I did what I was told was right and all I got was a broken heart and a family full of very sick vaccinated folk.

My reasons for hesitation was I didn't believe it would work. Not the vaccine itself, but the whole mismanagement of the situation. I said I didn't want to get it because it would mutate by the time enough people got it and here we are.

Needless to say, I'm not getting any booster. This whole thing is stupid and no one can be trusted. The people in charge have a financial interest in pumping as many of these outdated vaccines into the arms of people for their big pharma friends. This is being used to divide people in an already very divided world. Conspiracy theory? Conspiracy fact. Draw a few lines for yourself and what you'll find will shock and aggravate you.

I don't care what anyone thinks about the vaccine or COVID in general. I support anyone's views on any of this crap. We're all in it together. Respect and care for each other.

*Steps down off soap box*

That's going to depend on who you talk to. It's not reasonable to lump those who are hesitant in with those who fully claim vaccines cause autism, or something like that. That would be a straw-man argument, and that's a waste of everyone's time. I would hesitate to assume everyone in this thread is doing that. But I'll go ahead and tell you I'm not going for the straw-man here.

Hesitancy is understandable, and I feel for those who've run into issues with either COVID or vaccinations. And there are risks associated with the vaccines, some moreso for a very small number of people. I think the issues with COVID outweigh any vaccine issues for 99% of the population. The data is just way too damning for me to be convinced otherwise so far.

The big picture here is, which risk is bigger for you, me or anybody else? Vaccine or no vaccine? For me that choice was easy, but that's me. My immediate family is at far greater risk from COVID that from vaccinations, so we all got vaccinated and I feel pretty secure that we made the best choice for us.

As to your point about mutations, the current vaccines do still protect against the current mutation (first google result will be the CDC laying out the current understanding of the science behind that), so your colleagues that caught it are very likely to be in a better situation than if they weren't vaccinated, unless I'm missing something.

As to some of your other points I want to address:

• This whole thing is stupid and no one can be trusted
  • Can you elaborate on that? Why can't literally any one person be trusted on this? And does that go for all vaccines, or the currently available COVID vaccines? And is it the safety of the vaccine you don't trust, or is it the motives behind producing it? Maybe the quality control? I'm genuinely interested in what you mean
• The people in charge have a financial interest in pumping as many of these outdated vaccines into the arms of people for their big pharma friends
  • There is certainly financial gain to be made, yes - and I personally find health being so profitable in the US a bit shady
  • What makes these vaccines "out-dated", and what do you think needs to be modified? Vaccinations are a fairly well recognized mechanism by today's medical standards. For example, I'd say brain surgery is far, far less understood, and I'd sure as hell be scared to take on the associated risks.
  • Can you name one person in charge who has "big pharma friends"? Not sure who you're referring to here - could be a political figure or Mafia member for all I know (not throwing shade your way, just trying to understand your view more clearly)
• I don't care what anyone thinks about the vaccine or COVID in general. I support anyone's views on any of this crap. We're all in it together. Respect and care for each other.
  • It's good to look at this from a view of respect, for sure, and I'm glad we can all talk about this without it becoming a flame war!

 

[appleburger]

If you look at the post following yours you will see what I've been going on about. To the average person, anecdotal evidence is degrees of magnitude more powerful than any peer review studies. So even though it might be your intention to dispute a movement, in actual fact all that is happening is that individuals are going to feel targeted and then nobody wins. There needs to be more compassion if we're going to change things, throwing cold hard numbers at people will achieve nothing, or even worse cause them to become more entrenched.

Yes, anecdotal evidence is extremely powerful for people, and yes you are correct that people will take any adversity as an attack on them personally.

However, that's not true for everyone. Some people look into what they don't know rather than focusing on what they think they do know. Some people are naturally curious and understand that they can't possibly do enough research on their own to form strong opinions on everything, and these people put themselves in a position where they have to admit they are always learning and even having their minds changed.

I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone falls in one camp or the other, though. Clearly, you seem to understand that evidence can be a powerful tool for those who do want to learn. How people want to use that information is up to them - we'll need to be patient and compassionate regardless, to your point.

 

[smf]

What about Flight 587? It was just a month or so after 9/11 I believe.

That was an international flight, I was comparing it to people driving within america rather than taking an internal flight.

 

[smf]

It's not reasonable to lump those who are hesitant in with those who fully claim vaccines cause autism, or something like that. That would be a straw-man argument, and that's a waste of everyone's time. I would hesitate to assume everyone in this thread is doing that. But I'll go ahead and tell you I'm not going for the straw-man here.

It's reasonable to lump anyone together who goes on the internet to talk about how they aren't getting vaccines

I agree they aren't all being vaccinated for the same reason, but they are contributing to the same problem (which is validating vaccine hesitancy).

If you have a rare specific reason why you aren't going to be vaccinated, then it's very unlikely you're going to go online to argue h your point. It's only the people who have a tenuous reason, who are trying to gain support to make themselves feel better.

 

[subcon959]

It's reasonable to lump anyone together who goes on the internet to talk about how they aren't getting vaccines

I agree they aren't all being vaccinated for the same reason, but they are contributing to the same problem (which is validating vaccine hesitancy).

If you have a rare specific reason why you aren't going to be vaccinated, then it's very unlikely you're going to go online to argue h your point. It's only the people who have a tenuous reason, who are trying to gain support to make themselves feel better.

I think you are being far too cynical if you're going to assume everyone who posts about vaccine hesitancy on a gaming forum is doing it for nefarious reasons.

 

[smf]

hat individuals are going to feel targeted and then nobody wins. There needs to be more compassion if we're going to change things, throwing cold hard numbers at people will achieve nothing, or even worse cause them to become more entrenched.

Possibly, however if you don't say anything then that legitimizes their view and can persuade others. Their view being entrenched or simply unchanged makes no difference either.

So we can just write off the entrenched ones and try to save who we can.