The problem isn't that they're finally not hosting that misinformation anymore. It's that they're trying to memoryhole the fact that they ever were, instead of saying something to the effect of "we used to believe that the mRNA and the spike protein would not last long in the body, but now we think they do."
What do you expect? An entire history lesson about everything on the CDC site? Go read the scientific articles if that's what you want. CDC should reflect the current best knowledge without fluff.
Actually, a searchable history of no longer valid statements together with an explanation what invalidated them (plus links to the relevant articles) would go a long way towards teaching people how science really operates and that it isn't a kind of "just trust us and our dictate" authoritarian system.
It wouldn't have to clutter the most recent info page, but just be provided as a link somewhere.
Science has a lot of problems today, agreed, but this is not one of it, but the people's one who do not want to understand science and unfortunately cannot even be helped with that but would still make their point with it..
If a significant (and rising) proportion of the population is starting to distrust you and increasingly anecdotes show that we are certainly not moving toward more acceptance of science in the short term - as a slow, generational effect, yes, this is still happening, but it is more than countered when the optics are such that people can read conspiracy due to authoritarian overreach.
Especially one cheered by a suddenly non-cautious, non-skeptical block of people (mostly science journalists) (mis-) representing "The Science".
The reality is we need to be the strongest advocates of scientific thinking and literacy - trust is /the/ critical foundation for all institutions in society, especially ones that want to be able to influence society writ-large.
We, scientists, academics, and yes, the press, have to proactively earn trust.
There should be a page history with a comment describing why changes were made. The latest revision can describe the current best knowledge “without fluff”, and the revision history can show why and how the content changed over time.
The CDC already has a list of when updates were made to all the pages, but AFAICT it doesn’t say what changed or why.
A link to a public git repository of the web site would be a great start. The site should already be in a VCS of some kind, just shove it on github or something where we can all see the history.
And this despite that most of that information is static and primarily text with links to media. There is no reason not to store it as markdown and render the final HTML over the top of it whenever the relevant styling envelope changes.
We really love to overcomplicated things as an industry... (I personally am quite guilty of the same)
They are making this change because previous beliefs they had - which partly formed the basis of regulatory approvals followed by forcing this stuff into people against their will - were wrong.
At minimum this means a total failure of the regulatory process. They were victims of misinformation and made approval decisions based on that. Given their obsession with it they'd need to investigate how that happened and put in place new processes to rebuild the trust that is now correctly lacking.
But that has never been the standard for any publication place? And you only want them to do that because you feel that you’ve won an argument and don’t feel you got a price for it. Imagine how cluttered any Wikipedia page on any subject would be if it needed to contain not just an accurate current state understanding of the subject, but also every previous version ever.
Sure it has, reputable news publications as well as scientific journals issue retractions and updates as a matter of course. E.g. NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/admin/new-york-times-corr... Additionally, your example of Wikipedia directly works against your argument as one of the core features of Wikipedia is the revision history of every single page. Being able to have an understanding of what it said over time is a feature which counterbalances the nature of it being sourced by pseudononymous writers.
If they are changing the information because of scientific knowledge the CDC should have no trouble whatsoever detailing
1) Why they had the information on their website in the first place
2) Why the information in the past was wrong (in light of new evidence)
3) Why the current information should be taken seriously in light of the aforementioned misinformation.
"Science" is not a get out of jail free card for making false claims with 100% confidence that then later get inverted, over and over again. Science is a process for the discovery of things that are true and management of uncertainty is a key part of that process.
Our society seems to have massive problems at every level with distinguishing science from pseudo-science. The CDC is perhaps the biggest and best funded source of misinformation on the planet. They have been constantly making claims backed by nonsense-level studies or even no studies whatsoever, simply to get people to obey their policies. Them quietly editing their website with no admission or notification that they were previously wrong is not Science!!, it's the act of a dystopian bureaucracy.
What would actually be needed here is:
1. A written press release notifying the world of the change, instead of it being spotted by people who have learned not to trust them about anything.
2. A really detailed and thorough investigation of how they were so wrong about such a critical fact, and how the trial / regulatory approval process missed it.
3. A recognition that other people, with far fewer resources, were actually stating that the mRNA seemed to be lingering in the body many months ago. And that therefore their constant demands that anyone who disagrees with them be silenced are wrong.
The CDC did not cover themselves with glory in this pandemic.
They insisted that they were the only outfit who could conduct covid testing, and shut down all other labs that were doing testing. This was at the very beginning of the outbreak where testing was critical. Then, it took them a long time to produce a test, and the test ended up not working.
And this was after being lazy and just believing the authorities in China about covid instead of doing their own surveillance. Taiwan did a great job of this, but the CDC epically failed.
Remember "2 weeks to flatten the curve"?
And what about the teacher's union using the CDC as a sock puppet?
This is stupid. The page links to a full article describing how quickly this stuff is broken down in your body. If there was new research that said it stuck around longer they might change it - but there hasn’t been - so any change is there for clarity not some secret admission of guilt.
This is an archived page. So what's shown here is that the site /did/ say mRNA and Spike don't last long.
Arguably this is incorrect, although maybe poetic license applies: "Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines..." This is incorrect because the mRNA hijacks the cell's machinery to produce spike so no, this is incorrect; on the other hand, the immune response... mediated by other cells... does indeed break down the cells which are emitting Spike, at least eventually, or at least that's the plan.
All mRNA is regularly degraded. Just because it gets translated doesn't mean it is immune to the degradation machinery.
In any event, none of this even matters - the mRNA and spike proteins are completely innocuous on their own and this language existed just to assuage unfounded (but reasonable) fear.
> “The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body.
> Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination.
The paper “Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination”, Röltgen et al. 2022, published in the journal Cell:
> “Prolonged detection of vaccine mRNA in LN GCs and spike antigen in LN GCs and blood following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination
> The biodistribution, quantity, and persistence of vaccine mRNA and spike antigen after vaccination and viral antigens after SARS-CoV-2 infection are incompletely understood but are likely to be major determinants of immune responses.
> We performed in situ hybridization with control and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine mRNA-specific RNAScope probes in the core needle biopsies of the ipsilateral axillary LNs that were collected 7–60 days after the second dose of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccination and detected vaccine mRNA collected in the GCs of LNs on days 7, 16, and 37 postvaccination, with lower but still appreciable specific signal at day 60 (Figures 7A–7E).”
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but I understand this as saying that the modified mRNA (using pseudouridine) does not degrade nearly as fast as normal mRNA, “Our cells break down mRNA [...] within a few days” vs. 60 days or more.
Now, this is not my area of expertise and I can’t say whether that’s important or not.
This is only news because people labeled conspiracy theorists have been making this claim since the beginning, and now the CDC has to quietly admit that those people were correct.
What else will the conspiracy theorists be correct about?
A list of claims that are likely to see some kind of quiet semi-official recognition over the next five years:
1. COVID vaccines can injure and kill people.
2. They do so at a much higher rate than other vaccines have done in the past.
3. They can hurt fertility (see the recent crash in birth rates around the world).
4. For the vast majority they were not a good cost/benefit tradeoff.
5. Lockdowns were a failed policy and failed in the way lockdown opponents said they'd be at the start.
Some of these things are actually already being admitted in some quarters, if you look closely. Bill Gates, Mr Vaccine himself, recently admitted that COVID is a disease that "a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu". Remember how people who said COVID is basically a bad flu were treated in 2020? How people who said the vaccines don't make sense for anyone except the elderly in 2021?
And w.r.t. injuries you're seeing the Nordic countries pull the vaccines for young people because the cost/benefit tradeoff is wrong. Moderna specifically got banned in parts of Europe for I think the under 30s, though if you look at the data used to justify that it should really have been for more like the under 50s and that data is certainly way too optimistic anyway due to under-reporting.
So far it's still dead silence on fertility. But birth rates are public. Anyone can draw graphs of them, align them seasonally and see the massive drop that starts 9 months after the vaccine rollout reached women of childbearing age.
Reality is most of the things labelled as conspiracy theories never were. They were people saying wait, these decisions make no rational sense, this is clearly mass hysteria and needs to be opposed. No conspiracy was invoked by the vast majority of the most vocal opponents I follow - just irrationality and institutional, culturally embedded ethical problems in the public health sector.
It did not help that there were strong political partisan effects further corrupting this situation beyond what you have noted. I have to admit, I really wonder what the counterfactual world (where Trump got elected for a second term) would look like with respect to which groups believe which information.
Also, don't forget to compensate for 2 years of isolation instead of people going to bars, concerts, schools. Much less opportunity of meeting each other and doing the thing that leads to babies...
You are clearly oversimplifying the relation between fertility and vaccines. You have no data to back up causation rather than correlation.
It is the same flawed argument used by people who think vaccines cause autism. "Oh my kid presented with autism when he was checked and was recently vaccinated, clearly it must be the cause!".
No, there's actually plenty of data. Huge numbers of women have reported disrupted periods immediately after taking the vaccines. They were all ignored, of course because of dumb "correlation is not causation" arguments like yours.
Correlation does not imply causation but causation always implies correlation, so when something fundamentally changes in a biological process as basic as reproduction and the only change of similar scale that matches temporally is an experimental new medical technology, you have to be willfully blind to not want an immediate, thorough and unconflicted investigation into that, because if it isn't the vaccines then that is one hell of a coincidence.
We aren't going to get such an investigation of course, because the public health community doesn't want to admit the possibility that their policies have negative side effects. So correlations will be the best we'll get.
“ public health community doesn't want to admit the possibility that their policies have negative side effects”
Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous.
I think you just anthropomorphism big organizations and give them feeling and motivation. This is something conspirationnist like to do because it give the impression that a big group of people aware of the “secret” are knowingly against them
> Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous.
Absolutely wrong. If a medical student publishes such a paper, the following will happen:
1. Lancet & co. will reject publication. Peer review will be rejected because no one can be found to mess with the pharma industry.
2. student decides to upload it to an open access server. A link is posted to various interest groups.
3. FB, YT and Google will add a warning to each posting with this link that it's contradicts current CDC findings.
4. a fact checker will quickly write an article pointing out that experienced medical professionals do not see any correlation and the student should rather continue studying
5. the university will distance itself from the paper
6. Anthony Fauci & Christian Drosten will publish a joint statement calling the data insufficient and the analysis flawed. Then they will point out something about correlation and causality and simply deny a connection between birth rate and vaccinations
7. the medical student's career is over before it has even begun
P.S.: this has happened already several times. But fair enough - not everytime Fauci & Drosten had to intervene to keep people silenced.
Of course, you can deny that the phama industry in particular has a massive influence on publications like the Lancet. After all, such publications are essential for the approval of a drug. And with multi-billion dollar projects, managers will naturally refuse to have any influence on these publications. After all, it's all about science, and the pharmaceutical industry works exclusively for the benefit of mankind. That corresponding agencies exist, which flood the community with secondary papers to make a publication appear "credible" is of course just a nasty fairy tale.
The fact that scientists defame each other as conspiracy theorists - as happened with the lab-leak theory - is of course also only in the best interests of science.
But of course you are right - in science everyone works completely selflessly and honorably hand in hand for the exclusive good of mankind.
academic publication are not necessarily at all for the approval of a drug. All they need is to do a safety study following the GLP methods to make the FDA happy.
There's no Illuminati, just incentives. Why would scientists and people who depend on science being respected publish papers showing that science created problems instead of solved them? Every incentive they have is the opposite.
The incentive for researcher working for an university is simply to publish as many paper as possible and get as many citations as possible on those papers.
They don’t care if “science“ solve a problem or not they get paid either way.
And guess what, if you publish papers showing that your colleagues and funding sources have no clue and may actually be hurting people, you won't get paid in future.
If you want to call many separate systems with differing interests, ideologies and goals ‘the Illuminati’, go ahead. Nice strawman. The comment clearly name different parties.
You just can’t attribute a behavior that require coordination by a group of people. It’s common for 2 people to make a deal to execute an illegal scheme ex: 2 CEO of 2 different company. But it.s impossible for all employee to knowingly participate in the illegal scheme and no whistleblower leaking the whole operation.
This is a really common but really naive take. People who have actually tried to publish papers that make vaccines look bad, don't get famous or praised. Their work is sunk immediately because it never gets published at all.
This has led to the strange phenomenon in which all vaccine papers praise vaccines and say everyone should take them in the abstract, even if the data the paper reports shows clearly that there is a big problem. You just can't get published without a statement of ideological loyalty at the start.
Vaccines are a modern miracle of science. They save lives effectively. Yes, we have a system that is so privatized and powerful and feeding off public spending getting ridiculously rich and the formalization of scientific literature sounds like a huge PITA and a privileged one at that—-it’s fucked up. But, vaccines work when you need them to, wouldn’t you say? Presuming you had a choice, it’s a reliable technology and we’re on a technology forum.. so, come on, no boogeymen talk here, please.
people who said COVID is basically a bad flu are still wrong because Covid kill a lot more people than the flue.
because covid unlike the flue will kill people that are other perfectly healthy
Re your first point. This was always true. The cdc has always had a page listing incidents from vaccines. They’re just EXCEEDINGLY rare, much rarer than bad health outcomes from covid. If your point #2 was true at ALL there would have to have been millions hospitalized from the vaccine… and we all know that’s not true.
Covid has BECOME a disease that primarily effects the elderly and immunocompromised. That was due to the huge vaccination efforts, and mutations in the disease.
Either way, I’m still wearing a mask when I go grocery shopping because I don’t want to be the one who gives covid to someone’s grandma, or someone doing chemotherapy.
Depends on how you interpret "primarily affected". Like, yeah, it always had an outsized impact on the elderly and immunocompromised - but the vaccine and changes in the virus have lead to a pretty decent decrease in risk for younger people.
And no I'm not going to go do your reading for you. Vaccine effectiveness stats are easily googled. Reports on omicron's reduced severity are also easily googled.
Depends on how you define "primarily". Elderly and immunocompromised have always been at a much higher risk, but there were still thousands of young, healthy people who died in the pre-vaccine days.
Thousands globally? Maybe. If you look at places that didn't overreact like Sweden then there's no excess death under 75, so young people weren't dying regardless of health. In other parts of Europe there was no excess death under 45 but many countries over-reacted especially at the start with ventilator abuse, so that would have hurt the numbers.
The day peoples will understand that BMI > 30 induces immnunodepression.
Obese peoples have 5 to 6 times more chance to die from any respiratory disease than normal peoples.
Also affecting effectiveness of any vaccine by halving it for obese peoples.
Covid-19 was primarily fat shaming, and also naturally targeting old peoples cause they are often weak at advanced age.
"If your point #2 was true at ALL there would have to have been millions hospitalized from the vaccine… and we all know that’s not true."
We actually have no idea how many people have become sick because of the vaccine because the medical system refuses to record vaccine injuries properly.
But, consider the US reporting system. Most reports come from medical providers not individuals. There are in fact about 175,000 COVID vaccine hospitalizations reported and the underreporting factor for VAERS and similar systems is usually measured at ~40x, so that would indeed be millions.
You might think that sounds obviously wrong but it doesn't to me. I don't have an unusually large social circle and I know people who went to the hospital for specialist checkups due to vaccine injuries, and I have one close friend who really should have gone but didn't (he had a heart attack but fortunately it wasn't fatal and he seems OK now). Millions of people with hospital-visit-worthy injuries is well within the bounds of what seems possible in a big country like the USA, let alone globally.
That’s entirely self-reported, and according to that there have been 30k deaths due to covid vaccine. Not sure how people are self-reporting their own death - but I strongly suspect that data has been influenced by people’s political beliefs and isn’t an accurate representation of real events.
Did you consider the obvious possibility that there are 30k deaths reported because it is not in fact self reported? Whoever told you that wasn't being honest. VAERS reports aren't even mostly self reported. Go browse through the reports. You'll discover they mostly come from medical professionals.
But even for the ones that are self-reported, so what? If someone is filling out complex forms with specific details of an injury that they think was caused by the vaccine, that is an important signal.
"I strongly suspect that data has been influenced by people’s political beliefs and isn’t an accurate representation of real events."
Absolutely correct! The vast majority of people have been told that doubting the vaccines is not allowed and will result in immediate and severe retaliation by ideological extremists, who are entirely committed to defending the public health bureaucracy. The historical underreporting factor was something like 40x but ideology and politics has surely hugely increased it now.
Obviously what you're claiming is the opposite - that for some reason huge numbers of people have been filling out bogus, untrue injury reports. It's a delusional belief. Go find evidence of that and then we'll talk.
Until then the evidence is on the side of massive under-reporting of a major tragedy by people who ideologically cannot or will not accept that The Science is made up of liars and incompetents.
If there had been 30k deaths, or 170k injuries, there would be other sources corroborating those numbers. Believing a single source of data that is easily skewed - like for example the data you’ve cited - is as you say: delusional
> that for some reason huge numbers of people have been filling out bogus, untrue injury reports. It's a delusional belief. Go find evidence of that and then we'll talk.
Evidence like the 9k people in the US seeking financial compensation for vaccine injury? You’re comfortable with the idea that less than 5% of people impacted bothered to try to get money for their suffering? 170k injuries and 30k deaths would make for some biiig class action lawsuits but those don’t seem to be showing up anywhere
And for all those who downplay this process of deletion and think that's just how science works:
Where were you when YT and FB were deleting content and accusing people of spreading lies because they contradicted CDC information?
Where were you to say that error is part of science and people with a different opinion may well be right?
Where were you when people from the "team science" mob defamed people with an unpopular opinion and destroyed their livelihoods when they were blackballed by their employers?
So yes - actually, it would be a small thing if the CDC corrected this message after the fact. But after everyone elevated the CDC as the only incontrovertible truth, the fall down is now just a little longer.
Please read my statement carefully. Do you understand the meaning of a Straw man argument?
I am not implying it to "everyone", but accusing people of a double standard who now argue that deleting a statement is "quite normal" because that is how it is done in science. And there are plenty of examples in these threads.
So I am not accusing these people of anything (because that would be a straw man argument), but I find it hypocritical when someone considers changes in CDC content to be "everyday scientific practice" without taking into the account that entire careers were destroyed based on precisely this content by a mob using CDC content as their religious truth.
Necessary but not sufficient for accuracy. Someone googling about molecular biology and posting it on Facebook isn't "contributing to the discourse". They're drowning out signal with noise.
My xp in peer review (in actual scientific research) is that it is VERY STRONGLY BIASED to the agendas of the reviewers, when it's not just failing bc of their incompetence.
If anything covid has shown that scientic "truths" are highly political.
I mean, they link to https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/where-mrna-vaccines-and-sp... on that very same page, I assume that they just thought that they could shovel it off to someone else?
It's a little sussy that they just wiped it but I don't see how that's evidence that it's untrue, rather that maybe the science isn't as conclusive as previously thought, or that the wording of "not very long" is stupid and vague, and that it doesn't need to be said because it actually is so conclusive.
Think they'll make a statement?
90 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadIt wouldn't have to clutter the most recent info page, but just be provided as a link somewhere.
The reality is we need to be the strongest advocates of scientific thinking and literacy - trust is /the/ critical foundation for all institutions in society, especially ones that want to be able to influence society writ-large.
We, scientists, academics, and yes, the press, have to proactively earn trust.
The CDC already has a list of when updates were made to all the pages, but AFAICT it doesn’t say what changed or why.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/whats-new-all.html
A link to a public git repository of the web site would be a great start. The site should already be in a VCS of some kind, just shove it on github or something where we can all see the history.
We really love to overcomplicated things as an industry... (I personally am quite guilty of the same)
At minimum this means a total failure of the regulatory process. They were victims of misinformation and made approval decisions based on that. Given their obsession with it they'd need to investigate how that happened and put in place new processes to rebuild the trust that is now correctly lacking.
There is no memory-holing going on. Just tweaks to what they think is a high priority to communicate via that page.
1) Why they had the information on their website in the first place 2) Why the information in the past was wrong (in light of new evidence) 3) Why the current information should be taken seriously in light of the aforementioned misinformation.
Our society seems to have massive problems at every level with distinguishing science from pseudo-science. The CDC is perhaps the biggest and best funded source of misinformation on the planet. They have been constantly making claims backed by nonsense-level studies or even no studies whatsoever, simply to get people to obey their policies. Them quietly editing their website with no admission or notification that they were previously wrong is not Science!!, it's the act of a dystopian bureaucracy.
What would actually be needed here is:
1. A written press release notifying the world of the change, instead of it being spotted by people who have learned not to trust them about anything.
2. A really detailed and thorough investigation of how they were so wrong about such a critical fact, and how the trial / regulatory approval process missed it.
3. A recognition that other people, with far fewer resources, were actually stating that the mRNA seemed to be lingering in the body many months ago. And that therefore their constant demands that anyone who disagrees with them be silenced are wrong.
They insisted that they were the only outfit who could conduct covid testing, and shut down all other labs that were doing testing. This was at the very beginning of the outbreak where testing was critical. Then, it took them a long time to produce a test, and the test ended up not working.
And this was after being lazy and just believing the authorities in China about covid instead of doing their own surveillance. Taiwan did a great job of this, but the CDC epically failed.
Remember "2 weeks to flatten the curve"?
And what about the teacher's union using the CDC as a sock puppet?
https://nypost.com/2021/05/01/teachers-union-collaborated-wi...
Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules? Note these ones:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
"Eschew flamebait."
Arguably this is incorrect, although maybe poetic license applies: "Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines..." This is incorrect because the mRNA hijacks the cell's machinery to produce spike so no, this is incorrect; on the other hand, the immune response... mediated by other cells... does indeed break down the cells which are emitting Spike, at least eventually, or at least that's the plan.
Right. Now compare it to the page as it looks today to see that they deleted that section.
In any event, none of this even matters - the mRNA and spike proteins are completely innocuous on their own and this language existed just to assuage unfounded (but reasonable) fear.
> “The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body.
> Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination.
The paper “Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination”, Röltgen et al. 2022, published in the journal Cell:
> “Prolonged detection of vaccine mRNA in LN GCs and spike antigen in LN GCs and blood following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination
> The biodistribution, quantity, and persistence of vaccine mRNA and spike antigen after vaccination and viral antigens after SARS-CoV-2 infection are incompletely understood but are likely to be major determinants of immune responses.
> We performed in situ hybridization with control and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine mRNA-specific RNAScope probes in the core needle biopsies of the ipsilateral axillary LNs that were collected 7–60 days after the second dose of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccination and detected vaccine mRNA collected in the GCs of LNs on days 7, 16, and 37 postvaccination, with lower but still appreciable specific signal at day 60 (Figures 7A–7E).”
> https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9#sec...
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but I understand this as saying that the modified mRNA (using pseudouridine) does not degrade nearly as fast as normal mRNA, “Our cells break down mRNA [...] within a few days” vs. 60 days or more.
Now, this is not my area of expertise and I can’t say whether that’s important or not.
What else will the conspiracy theorists be correct about?
A list of claims that are likely to see some kind of quiet semi-official recognition over the next five years:
1. COVID vaccines can injure and kill people.
2. They do so at a much higher rate than other vaccines have done in the past.
3. They can hurt fertility (see the recent crash in birth rates around the world).
4. For the vast majority they were not a good cost/benefit tradeoff.
5. Lockdowns were a failed policy and failed in the way lockdown opponents said they'd be at the start.
Some of these things are actually already being admitted in some quarters, if you look closely. Bill Gates, Mr Vaccine himself, recently admitted that COVID is a disease that "a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu". Remember how people who said COVID is basically a bad flu were treated in 2020? How people who said the vaccines don't make sense for anyone except the elderly in 2021?
And w.r.t. injuries you're seeing the Nordic countries pull the vaccines for young people because the cost/benefit tradeoff is wrong. Moderna specifically got banned in parts of Europe for I think the under 30s, though if you look at the data used to justify that it should really have been for more like the under 50s and that data is certainly way too optimistic anyway due to under-reporting.
So far it's still dead silence on fertility. But birth rates are public. Anyone can draw graphs of them, align them seasonally and see the massive drop that starts 9 months after the vaccine rollout reached women of childbearing age.
Reality is most of the things labelled as conspiracy theories never were. They were people saying wait, these decisions make no rational sense, this is clearly mass hysteria and needs to be opposed. No conspiracy was invoked by the vast majority of the most vocal opponents I follow - just irrationality and institutional, culturally embedded ethical problems in the public health sector.
It is the same flawed argument used by people who think vaccines cause autism. "Oh my kid presented with autism when he was checked and was recently vaccinated, clearly it must be the cause!".
Correlation does not imply causation but causation always implies correlation, so when something fundamentally changes in a biological process as basic as reproduction and the only change of similar scale that matches temporally is an experimental new medical technology, you have to be willfully blind to not want an immediate, thorough and unconflicted investigation into that, because if it isn't the vaccines then that is one hell of a coincidence.
We aren't going to get such an investigation of course, because the public health community doesn't want to admit the possibility that their policies have negative side effects. So correlations will be the best we'll get.
Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous.
I think you just anthropomorphism big organizations and give them feeling and motivation. This is something conspirationnist like to do because it give the impression that a big group of people aware of the “secret” are knowingly against them
Absolutely wrong. If a medical student publishes such a paper, the following will happen:
1. Lancet & co. will reject publication. Peer review will be rejected because no one can be found to mess with the pharma industry.
2. student decides to upload it to an open access server. A link is posted to various interest groups.
3. FB, YT and Google will add a warning to each posting with this link that it's contradicts current CDC findings.
4. a fact checker will quickly write an article pointing out that experienced medical professionals do not see any correlation and the student should rather continue studying
5. the university will distance itself from the paper
6. Anthony Fauci & Christian Drosten will publish a joint statement calling the data insufficient and the analysis flawed. Then they will point out something about correlation and causality and simply deny a connection between birth rate and vaccinations
7. the medical student's career is over before it has even begun
P.S.: this has happened already several times. But fair enough - not everytime Fauci & Drosten had to intervene to keep people silenced.
Of course, you can deny that the phama industry in particular has a massive influence on publications like the Lancet. After all, such publications are essential for the approval of a drug. And with multi-billion dollar projects, managers will naturally refuse to have any influence on these publications. After all, it's all about science, and the pharmaceutical industry works exclusively for the benefit of mankind. That corresponding agencies exist, which flood the community with secondary papers to make a publication appear "credible" is of course just a nasty fairy tale.
The fact that scientists defame each other as conspiracy theorists - as happened with the lab-leak theory - is of course also only in the best interests of science.
But of course you are right - in science everyone works completely selflessly and honorably hand in hand for the exclusive good of mankind.
They don’t care if “science“ solve a problem or not they get paid either way.
This has led to the strange phenomenon in which all vaccine papers praise vaccines and say everyone should take them in the abstract, even if the data the paper reports shows clearly that there is a big problem. You just can't get published without a statement of ideological loyalty at the start.
Not true. Every flu season there are stories of young people in great shape– often athletes or in the military, who die due to the flu.
But I still remember Italy ER having lot of young people on ventilator!
It’s not because you look good on instagram that you are healthy…
Time to fight superstitions
Covid has BECOME a disease that primarily effects the elderly and immunocompromised. That was due to the huge vaccination efforts, and mutations in the disease.
Either way, I’m still wearing a mask when I go grocery shopping because I don’t want to be the one who gives covid to someone’s grandma, or someone doing chemotherapy.
Could you point to a reference on this? My understanding was COVID had always primarily affected the elderly and immunocompromised.
And no I'm not going to go do your reading for you. Vaccine effectiveness stats are easily googled. Reports on omicron's reduced severity are also easily googled.
Obese peoples have 5 to 6 times more chance to die from any respiratory disease than normal peoples. Also affecting effectiveness of any vaccine by halving it for obese peoples.
Covid-19 was primarily fat shaming, and also naturally targeting old peoples cause they are often weak at advanced age.
We actually have no idea how many people have become sick because of the vaccine because the medical system refuses to record vaccine injuries properly.
But, consider the US reporting system. Most reports come from medical providers not individuals. There are in fact about 175,000 COVID vaccine hospitalizations reported and the underreporting factor for VAERS and similar systems is usually measured at ~40x, so that would indeed be millions.
You might think that sounds obviously wrong but it doesn't to me. I don't have an unusually large social circle and I know people who went to the hospital for specialist checkups due to vaccine injuries, and I have one close friend who really should have gone but didn't (he had a heart attack but fortunately it wasn't fatal and he seems OK now). Millions of people with hospital-visit-worthy injuries is well within the bounds of what seems possible in a big country like the USA, let alone globally.
Scale that up to the US population and we’d expect around 7000 people claiming vaccine injury.
Note that there is money in the program in Canada, so pretty good incentive to apply.
To say that I’m skeptical of your 170,000 number (google shows no interesting results for “vaccine injury 170,000”) would be an understatement
Edit: https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data
There is a similar program in the US, and less than 10,000 claims have been made.
https://openvaers.com/
But even for the ones that are self-reported, so what? If someone is filling out complex forms with specific details of an injury that they think was caused by the vaccine, that is an important signal.
"I strongly suspect that data has been influenced by people’s political beliefs and isn’t an accurate representation of real events."
Absolutely correct! The vast majority of people have been told that doubting the vaccines is not allowed and will result in immediate and severe retaliation by ideological extremists, who are entirely committed to defending the public health bureaucracy. The historical underreporting factor was something like 40x but ideology and politics has surely hugely increased it now.
Obviously what you're claiming is the opposite - that for some reason huge numbers of people have been filling out bogus, untrue injury reports. It's a delusional belief. Go find evidence of that and then we'll talk.
Until then the evidence is on the side of massive under-reporting of a major tragedy by people who ideologically cannot or will not accept that The Science is made up of liars and incompetents.
> that for some reason huge numbers of people have been filling out bogus, untrue injury reports. It's a delusional belief. Go find evidence of that and then we'll talk.
Evidence like the 9k people in the US seeking financial compensation for vaccine injury? You’re comfortable with the idea that less than 5% of people impacted bothered to try to get money for their suffering? 170k injuries and 30k deaths would make for some biiig class action lawsuits but those don’t seem to be showing up anywhere
Where were you when YT and FB were deleting content and accusing people of spreading lies because they contradicted CDC information?
Where were you to say that error is part of science and people with a different opinion may well be right?
Where were you when people from the "team science" mob defamed people with an unpopular opinion and destroyed their livelihoods when they were blackballed by their employers?
So yes - actually, it would be a small thing if the CDC corrected this message after the fact. But after everyone elevated the CDC as the only incontrovertible truth, the fall down is now just a little longer.
I am not implying it to "everyone", but accusing people of a double standard who now argue that deleting a statement is "quite normal" because that is how it is done in science. And there are plenty of examples in these threads.
So I am not accusing these people of anything (because that would be a straw man argument), but I find it hypocritical when someone considers changes in CDC content to be "everyday scientific practice" without taking into the account that entire careers were destroyed based on precisely this content by a mob using CDC content as their religious truth.
Don't confuse the matter with a random agenda.
If anything covid has shown that scientic "truths" are highly political.