What sources back up the anti-vaccine movement?

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

The study also clearly says the age range is 18-55.

Let me quote it for you:
Table 6. Systemic reactions in persons aged 12-15 years[...]:
[...]"who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.4% in the vaccine group"

Let me quote you:
"And for some data, here's the current rate of serious side effects from the COVID vaccine:
If you don't want to read it, it's 0.4%."

You have no argument. I am fluent in the English language and have no difficulty understanding the weakness of your argument. Let me sum it up:
You: "Why not get the vaccine?"
Non-Vaccinated: "I do not want to."
You: "Do you have studies to back up your opinion?"
Non-Vaccinated: "I do not need to. I have read/heard about side effects."
You: "The (side) effects of getting the virus are worse."

I have explained that you are assuming the non-vaccinated will get the virus (which you cannot, since most of the world has not gotten it yet and probably will get a weaker variant of it in the future) and comparing apples to oranges (effects of the virus vs side effects of an mRNA vaccine; which differs for age groups, which is why teenagers are usually not required to get it).

 

[smf]

Regarding the 0,4% number by the CDC about the likelihood of side effects from vaccination: You made a comparison with the likelihood of side effects from getting the virus. You are missing two things here. First, vaccination requires medical intervention. So you are comparing the risk of something which has not happened and does not necessarily need to happen (i.e. getting COVID19 or at least one of the current versions of it which most likely will be more harmful than later ones) with sth that has to happen if you enforce vaccination.

As covid is so transmissible, due to it's long incubation period and potential lack of symptoms (which makes it more scary than ebola), then you have no say in whether you're going to catch covid or not.

You're definitely going to catch covid-19 at some point, unless you live in the middle of nowhere and are self sufficient. You might have no symptoms and therefore not know you had it, but then again you might die.

A lot of anti vaxxers are also anti mask, anti social distancing etc. Covid 19 likes those people, they make it easy.

Deciding not to catch covid 19 isn't a source to back up the anti vaccine movement either, its wishful thinking. It will work for some, but fail for others.

 

[smf]

I have explained that you are assuming the non-vaccinated will get the virus (which you cannot, since most of the world has not gotten it yet and probably will get a weaker variant of it in the future) and comparing apples to oranges (effects of the virus vs side effects of an mRNA vaccine; which differs for age groups, which is why teenagers are usually not required to get it).

You're comparing apples and oranges.

We closed down the world to prevent you catching it, but that is unsustainable & the world is now opening up.

You could argue that there is no reason to be vaccinated if we are in perpetual lockdown, however that is not what is going to happen.

 

[The Catboy]

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.

My requests have always been sincere and I am always willing to accept information when given. This isn't some insincere act, I am simply asking for sources that are verified and reviewed. This shouldn't be seen as hostility when people claim they have sources and claim that they have evidence. Requesting evidence, sources, and verification is standard practice and isn't some weird form of flexing my intelligence.

Let me quote it for you:
Table 6. Systemic reactions in persons aged 12-15 years[...]:
[...]"who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.4% in the vaccine group"

Let me quote you:
"And for some data, here's the current rate of serious side effects from the COVID vaccine:
If you don't want to read it, it's 0.4%."

You have no argument. I am fluent in the English language and have no difficulty understanding the weakness of your argument. Let me sum it up:
You: "Why not get the vaccine?"
Non-Vaccinated: "I do not want to."
You: "Do you have studies to back up your opinion?"
Non-Vaccinated: "I do not need to. I have read/heard about side effects."
You: "The (side) effects of getting the virus are worse."

I have explained that you are assuming the non-vaccinated will get the virus (which you cannot, since most of the world has not gotten it yet and probably will get a weaker variant of it in the future) and comparing apples to oranges (effects of the virus vs side effects of an mRNA vaccine; which differs for age groups, which is why teenagers are usually not required to get it).

These kinds of arguments are the reason why I made this thread. I am asking for sources to back up your arguments, you should be able to provide them without making up some hypothetical coupled with claims without sources.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

We closed down the world to prevent you catching it, but that is unsustainable & the world is now opening up.

I have been vaccinated twice and never asked for a shutdown. However, if you shutdown, you better do it like China. Otherwise it is rather pointless. More and more voices now say we have to live with the virus. You either aim to defeat the virus and take any necessary measures or you accept eventual defeat.

@The Catboy: Is the CDC okay as a source? It mentions side effects. Do you require a study to think for you and say "side effects is X, therefore take / do not take the vaccine"? Because that´s not science, that´s an opinion.

 

[The Catboy]

I have been vaccinated twice and never asked for a shutdown. However, if you shutdown, you better do it like China. Otherwise it is rather pointless. More and more voices now say we have to live with the virus. You either aim to defeat the virus and take any necessary measures or you accept eventual defeat.

@The Catboy: Is the CDC okay as a source? It mentions side effects. Do you require a study to think for you and say "side effects is X, therefore take / do not take the vaccine"? Because that´s not science, that´s an opinion.

The side effects are literally so small and only last for a few hours. Why would a few hours of discomfort be worse than a few weeks? It's accepted but the request needs to make sense without just being some weak argument. This is like comparing a small cut to a bullet wound by calling the side-effects justification to not getting vaccinated or being against vaccines. So you can but really consider questioning if that's truly an honest take?

 

[subcon959]

My requests have always been sincere and I am always willing to accept information when given. This isn't some insincere act, I am simply asking for sources that are verified and reviewed. This shouldn't be seen as hostility when people claim they have sources and claim that they have evidence. Requesting evidence, sources, and verification is standard practice and isn't some weird form of flexing my intelligence.

These kinds of arguments are the reason why I made this thread. I am asking for sources to back up your arguments, you should be able to provide them without making up some hypothetical coupled with claims without sources.

Apologies if that wasn't your intention as it came across that way to me.

The side effects are literally so small and only last for a few hours. Why would a few hours of discomfort be worse than a few weeks? It's accepted but the request needs to make sense without just being some weak argument. This is like comparing a small cut to a bullet wound by calling the side-effects justification to not getting vaccinated or being against vaccines. So you can but really consider questioning if that's truly an honest take?

I posted an advisory statement from the government appointed Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisations (UK) on the other thread regarding 12-15 year olds. They came to the conclusion that overall benefit was slightly greater than the risk of Covid itself (acknowledging it is a much less dangerous infection for children), but enough wasn't known about long term effects for them to advise a mandate (specifically regarding prolonged tissue damage to the heart). This obviously only applies to kids, but I'm not sure that it would be any different regarding the time required to obtain data for long term effects on adults. This is probably also why there was no mandate and it was just heavily recommended.

 

[The Catboy]

Apologies if that wasn't your intention as it came across that way to me.



I posted an advisory statement from the government appointed Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisations (UK) on the other thread regarding 12-15 year olds. They came to the conclusion that overall benefit was slightly greater than the risk of Covid itself (acknowledging it is a much less dangerous infection for children), but enough wasn't known about long term effects for them to advise a mandate (specifically regarding prolonged tissue damage to the heart). This obviously only applies to kids, but I'm not sure that it would be any different regarding the time required to obtain data for long term effects on adults. This is probably also why there was no mandate and it was just heavily recommended.

That’s fascinating and at least more than the strange arguments I’ve seen. I can see why that would leave people with concerns regarding their well-being for the Covid shot. But that’s only one shot and only one very specific issue and doesn’t quite answer the question. This topic still isn’t about the Covid vaccine, I am not saying those articles are unwelcome though. This is more about the larger movement against vaccines and those claiming to have sources against vaccines. I can see where concerns might come up from that article but that’s a very recent development, whereas this movement has been around for quite some time now.

 

[appleburger]

That’s fascinating and at least more than the strange arguments I’ve seen. I can see why that would leave people with concerns regarding their well-being for the Covid shot. But that’s only one shot and only one very specific issue and doesn’t quite answer the question. This topic still isn’t about the Covid vaccine, I am not saying those articles are unwelcome though. This is more about the larger movement against vaccines and those claiming to have sources against vaccines. I can see where concerns might come up from that article but that’s a very recent development, whereas this movement has been around for quite some time now.

If sources backing up anti-vax are what you're after, that hbomberguy video summarizes what evidence is out there very well. It's subsequently torn to pieces, because the "evidence" is terrible and fraught with deception, but it's the best summary of the movement's evidence I've come across so far.

 

[djpannda]

If sources backing up anti-vax are what you're after, that hbomberguy video summarizes what evidence is out there very well. It's subsequently torn to pieces, because the "evidence" is terrible and fraught with deception, but it's the best summary of the movement's evidence I've come across so far.

so your saying .....there are no creditable anti-vac sources?

 

[The Catboy]

If sources backing up anti-vax are what you're after, that hbomberguy video summarizes what evidence is out there very well. It's subsequently torn to pieces, because the "evidence" is terrible and fraught with deception, but it's the best summary of the movement's evidence I've come across so far.

A YouTube video isn’t a source. I am looking for actual research papers that have been verified and published on a reputable source. Claims of some conspiracy of information being destroyed really doesn’t hold up in the days of the internet.

 

[appleburger]

A YouTube video isn’t a source. I am looking for actual research papers that have been verified and published on a reputable source. Claims of some conspiracy of information being destroyed really doesn’t hold up in the days of the internet.

Totally agree. I'm saying the video is largely about peer reviewed sources. It attempts to cover the best possible argument the anti-vax stance has and then scrutinize them in detail.

The sources are all in a google doc in the video description - there's over 100 of them. Some are articles, others are papers, some of which are peer reviewed.

 

[appleburger]

so your saying .....there are no creditable anti-vac sources?

I don't know if there are, but I've looked for them and haven't found any.

The study from the early 90's was "credible" until peers realized the evidence was mostly just worries from parents, and not a properly controlled, unbiased study.

To it's credit, it does list the limitations of the study (like all who seek credibility do), but the doctor behind the paper was very unethical in how he proceeded to inform the public using his extremely weak findings.

Funny enough, even though this sprouted the anti-vax movement, the doc behind this study still advocated for vaccines - he was only warning against one in particular.

It's pretty fascinating, I think.

 

[subcon959]

That’s fascinating and at least more than the strange arguments I’ve seen. I can see why that would leave people with concerns regarding their well-being for the Covid shot. But that’s only one shot and only one very specific issue and doesn’t quite answer the question. This topic still isn’t about the Covid vaccine, I am not saying those articles are unwelcome though. This is more about the larger movement against vaccines and those claiming to have sources against vaccines. I can see where concerns might come up from that article but that’s a very recent development, whereas this movement has been around for quite some time now.

Ahh, I guess I misinterpreted the title to mean Covid vaccines rather than the general anti-vax group. It seems to me that there shouldn't be much of a debate in that case as there is a wealth of data spanning decades. I don't believe there's ever been a link established between any vaccine and autism, which seems to be the primary issue put forward in this country.

 

[appleburger]

@The Catboy if you want some more peer reviewed papers that discuss serious side effects posted, I did find a couple referenced in this article, here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1209

But there are real safety problems associated with vaccines, such as paralysis after oral polio vaccine83 and disseminated infections after Bacille Calmette-Guérin84

Googling around for those two studies it quotes, I can't access the full articles for free, but maybe I'm just missing a link or not looking hard enough (I'm just lightly googling while working, so don't take my word for it that they're hard to find)

If you're interested in any serious side effects from the COVID vaccines in particular, AFAIK all the current studies show no serious side effects for just about everyone that's received them, when you compare them to other vaccines, especially. The fact that there are so many counter-examples should really force one to consider that examples aren't likely to become available until a "gotcha" moment comes along, or something.

I'm sure somebody with some stronger research skills than me here can distill this a little better.

This doesn't support "anti vax", really at all (which is a little vague and could imply different takes depending on who you talk to, I think), but if we're discussing vaccine side effect studies in general, then maybe this gets you somewhere?

 

[appleburger]

Ahh, I guess I misinterpreted the title to mean Covid vaccines rather than the general anti-vax group. It seems to me that there shouldn't be much of a debate in that case as there is a wealth of data spanning decades. I don't believe there's ever been a link established between any vaccine and autism, which seems to be the primary issue put forward in this country.

Yeah, the autism study is the highlight of the hbomberguy video and there's a tonnnnnn of info out there tearing that study apart, in general.

If we divide up the conversation into any serious side effects from past vaccines, then there is literature on that. Not for COVID vaccines, though - they're among the least risky we've developed - somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[subcon959]

Yeah, the autism study is the highlight of the hbomberguy video and there's a tonnnnnn of info out there tearing that study apart, in general.

If we divide up the conversation into any serious side effects from past vaccines, then there is literature on that. Not for COVID vaccines, though - they're among the least risky we've developed - somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Other than the usual allergy to components and risk of anaphylactic shock, there doesn't appear to be anything particularly serious discovered yet. But, I do think these things take time and we won't know for sure until several years later. My only real concern is the myocarditis in young males being something that could cause long term tissue damage, which again would need to be studied over a long time to reach a conclusion. For now, it seems acute rather than chronic and should be treatable so each parent needs to make their own decision if the risk is worth it.

 

[The Catboy]

Totally agree. I'm saying the video is largely about peer reviewed sources. It attempts to cover the best possible argument the anti-vax stance has and then scrutinize them in detail.

The sources are all in a google doc in the video description - there's over 100 of them. Some are articles, others are papers, some of which are peer reviewed.

The issue with that is the YouTube video is trying to control a narrative. There are side effects to vaccines that people should be aware of and concerned about, the same for all medications. But that’s where we start getting into cherry picking. People looking at the small fraction of possible side effects and saying “See! Vaccines scary because you might get mildly sick for a few hours!” That might happen but it’s a few hours of discomfort vs a few weeks of suffering with possible long-term side effects, such as lung damage with Covid. I am trying to avoid cherry picking and ask, what is the evidence anti-vaxxors are referring to and has that evidence been verified and isn’t just cherry picking for a narrative?
As for the autism debate, that’s completely debunked by countless papers. Equally, it’s also a super shitty movement that basically is “I would rather have a dead child than one with autism.”

 

[plasturion]

https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/26/two...19-vaccines-weve-never-seen-anything-like-it/

 

[appleburger]

The issue with that is the YouTube video is trying to control a narrative. There are side effects to vaccines that people should be aware of and concerned about, the same for all medications. But that’s where we start getting into cherry picking. People looking at the small fraction of possible side effects and saying “See! Vaccines scary because you might get mildly sick for a few hours!” That might happen but it’s a few hours of discomfort vs a few weeks of suffering with possible long-term side effects, such as lung damage with Covid. I am trying to avoid cherry picking and ask, what is the evidence anti-vaxxors are referring to and has that evidence been verified and isn’t just cherry picking for a narrative?
As for the autism debate, that’s completely debunked by countless papers. Equally, it’s also a super shitty movement that basically is “I would rather have a dead child than one with autism.”

That's a good point, but the sources in the description contain the articles in question if you want to bypass the youtuber's take on it. Better than me pasting 20+ links here