why are all these medical professionals in support of the dominant narrative and dismissive of more balanced approaches? — dazed

There are multiple reasons why it seems that most medical professional are supporting the dominant narrative, rather than balanced approaches: Firstly, the threat of losing our employment is real if we speak out against the current sales pitch. (Notice the my name is not featured on my posts). Secondly, not that many are willing to look too hard at the "facts". (We get nervous too, and many, many people will cling to false hope, rather than admit reality). Lastly, which ties into the second point, about false hope, if I tell you the vaccine won't work (I am not saying that, I have no idea) do you want to believe me, or would you rather that I am wrong, that I must be wrong, so you feel better, more secure.


Also, the leaders (?) of the world felt compelled to act last spring, and act fast. So, regardless of the initial science against it, the world went into some version of lockdown, (which was advised against by WHO and a multitude of other advisors) then the world went to general masking, (Which was also advised against by the WHO and a multitude of advisors) and the leaders of the world were clearly seen to be doing something (the fact that there was no actual science to support these decisions was glossed over). Then in April, suddenly the science changed. In Canada this change took place over the weekend: Thursday the Chief medical officer of Canada said essentially "there is no scientific support for lockdowns, border closures, or generalized masking. None of these interventions will help stop the virus, however they will cause severe harm to the economy and the mental health of the populations affected." Our prime minister had a "weekend emergency meeting" with the provincial leaders and Chief medical officers...Tuesday the same chief medical officer said "Lockdowns, border closures, and general masking will provide an effective control of the virus; the science is there." I call bullshit. Science doesn't change that fast. Political pressure moves that fast though. The WHO changed it's tune as well, doing a complete 180 on it's previous stance; thereby backing all the governments that had already made these changes based on needing to be seen to do something.

So I put it out there: Does anyone think that, if the lockdowns and border closures and masking were a mistake, any government would admit that mistake? Not a chance in hell. Way easier to motivate the leaders of a few key areas to support the changes than to own the catastrophe.

There are multiple reasons why it seems that most medical professional are supporting the dominant narrative, — Book273

Of course, rather than all this conspiracy bumf, it just could be that the 'dominant narrative' is roughly right...

Yeah, I know, that's not going to fit in with the need to post crap on the web, nor with whatever paranoid fantasies one might entertain.

But it is the simplest explanation.

sure, but science changing in 4 days? on multiple points, all aligning to secure an otherwise tenuous position? Highly suspect.

Not real clear how my carrying a knife is relevant to my ability to discern questionable directives based on cloudy science, but ok, clearly you have an issue with knives...likely guns too.

I don't want to do my own study. That is ridiculous. However, I did research the methodology used to determine the efficacy of the first three vaccines. Questionable is the kindest term I am willing to use. I have spent approximately 100 hours doing lit research on coronavirus vaccines, recent and more distant, nothing really reassuring came up. I have researched mask usage, again, nothing reassuring came up. Physical distancing as well, that one has actual value and real data to support it, so yay, 1 out of three so far. Lockdowns, nothing to support. Border closure, still nothing. So 1 out of 5 with real data to support it. No way could I run my practice with that poor of a track record.

Few people want to hear what I have to say. Most react on par with you. Which is fine, we all have our own positions and thoughts. Interestingly though, I am not name calling anyone on the other side, or calling them down. Hell I am not even saying I am right. I am presenting an alternative, and pointing out why, potentially, it could be the correct version of events. The emotional level of the responses to my theory, frankly, adds strength to it. If I said the response to Covid was brought about by beagles I would be ignored, that I have not been is highly suggestive that people believe me, and that makes them nervous.

"there are none so blind as those who will not see"

My theory is that a few far left liberal billionaires (referred to as "they") have manipulated the right to avoid vaccines in order to kill them and strengthen the left. . A true Trump supporter would see through this and vax themselves silly so they'll live longer (or at least to the mid-term elections).

The beauty of conspiracy theories is that they require no evidence and the more malicious and ridiculous the motive you can concoct, the more followers you get.

To the OP, yes, anti-vax is wrong. The tapering of covid related deaths hasn't happened because covid got tired of being a dick, but because science stopped it.

This puts me in mind of the various threads on Wittgenstein's response to scepticism; it's not at all unreasonable to doubt this or that, but it is quite unreasonable to doubt everything.

You are suggesting that something sinister happened to the Canadian Chief medical officers such that a meeting with the PM obliged them to change their advice. Now we might enter into a discussion of that particular circumstance, and iron out the pros and cons of a con having occurred.

But it's not just that one incident, is it - your narrative is that there is a widespread conspiracy, only apparent to yourself after having spent 100 hrs (not all that long, really) in browsing the web...

my own reading of publishers - including, for example, ABC News, the Conversation, the Lancet, Nature - has provided me with nothing that would cast a general doubt on the 'dominant narrative'.

It's reasonable to question the motives of the Chief medical officers; it's not reasonable to mix this with scepticism towards all the many government, corporate and academic institutions across the entire world who overwhelmingly support he use of vaccine.

Combine this with a disdain I have developed from reading your posts in various other threads across the forums, and I have pretty much no reason to take your opinion seriously.

This post () has the air of martyrdom about it, which is common in psychoceramics.

Anti-vaccination sentiment (as it relates to COVID19) is tied to suspicions about the origins of the disease and the profitability of vaccines, as well as fears about it's safety.

But now that the Astra-Zeneca vaccine is being put on hold, at least one arm if opposition seems to have been vindicated.

What about the notion that the vaccine is a tool for extracting money from the population? How suspicious are you?

Astrazeneca vaccine wasn't put on hold because of safety concerns or lack of efficacy, there was just a production error. They mixed up ingredients at the facility. Irregardless its efficacy is lower than Pfizer and Moderna, so if I were you I'd go with one of those.

Astrazeneca vaccine wasn't put on hold because of safety concerns — aporiap

It's on hold in some European countries due to coagulation issues.

Irregardless its efficacy is lower than Pfizer and Moderna, so if I were you I'd go with one of those. — aporiap

The high efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines reflects when their testing took place. All the vaccines are highly effective regarding severe illness or death from COVID 19.

I was vaccinated the day before Christmas. I'm in a study looking at how long the antibodies last.

'Irregardless' is incorrect English btw.

The vaccines have not been Approved by the US FDA; they are merely (politically) Authorized For Emergency Use. I'm not terminal/end-stage anything and have a proven alternative (masks, etc) – which mostly prevents the spread (re: none of the available vaccines have been shown to do this effectively) – to volunteering to be a guinea pig for Pfizer, Moderna, etc in mass-experiment public trials. I'm in no way anti-vaxx and not anti-science either; the public health exigencies are obvious, but I'll take my chances until 6-9 months more data comes in.

EUA is not just a political stamp, it involves rigorous safety, manufacturing, and efficacy standards. The difference is in follow up safety requirement. FDA approval requires safety monitoring for at least 6 months post vaccination, EUA requires at least 2 month post vaccination safety monitoring. Both EUA and FDA approval involve the same efficacy requirement. Pfizer and moderna vaccines, have excellent safety profiles compared to other vaccines per data on thousands of vaccinated individuals. Pfizer just actually finished analyzing their 6 month monitoring results and are planning to apply for full BLA licensure soon. The risk at this point for taking the pfizer vaccine is demonstrably minimal; I figure it will be the same for Modernas given their safety profile in phase III.

It's great you are not in a risk group, your risk of symptomatic illness without vaccine is still higher than with vaccine. It is true masking and distancing reduces your transmission risk, but the risk is still elevated if you were to become symptomatic and in close quarters with family, friends and strangers so in aggregate I'd say it would be a better choice to take the vaccine now with respect to reducing risk.

It's on hold in some European countries due to coagulation issues.

Thanks I wasn't aware. I've read some more now, and it looks like there was a statement issued on the 18th of March by the EMA safety committee: there is still no causal link between the vaccines and the clots and the frequency of clots in the study population is not more than one would expect in the general population. They still conclude the benefits outweigh the risks.

I still think the concern over one vaccine shouldn't generalize to concern over all. Each one has gone through independent clinical trial process and as I mentioned before the data is very robust for pfizer and moderna.

The high efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines reflects when their testing took place. All the vaccines are highly effective regarding severe illness or death from COVID 19.

What do you mean by the bold? Regarding second sentence, that's correct. Pfizer has also demonstrated efficacy against COVID infection [80-90% range].

I was vaccinated the day before Christmas. I'm in a study looking at how long the antibodies last.

That's great. That doesn't preclude the existing robust data on safety and efficacy up to 90 days.

Thanks I wasn't aware. I've read some more now, and it looks like there was a statement issued on the 18th of March by the EMA safety committee: there is still no causal link between the vaccines and the clots and the frequency of clots in the study population is not more than one would expect in the general population. They still conclude the benefits outweigh the risks. — aporiap

Both German and Norwegian scientists have identified a mechanism by which the Astra-Zeneca vaccine triggers an autoimmune response which can be fatal. In Norway 1 in 20,000 had serious side effects attributed to the vaccine.

It's a north american colloquialism and I'm not in an english class so I don't see the point of this unsolicited comment. — aporiap

Just in case you didn't know it's incorrect, like if I unsolicitedly tell you there's spinach in your teeth. I'm being helpful.

I can't speak for the scientists, but I wonder if maybe some of them feel an urgency, combined with a cynical but often justified perception of most people being stupid. As one possible example of many, I will refer to Dr. Fauci and an oft cited, alleged inconsistency. (I say "alleged" because I do not know the facts.)

Anyway, apparently, early on he was poo-pooing the mask, only to later become a great champion of it. This, the conservative, "hoax" crowd will point to as proof the whole Covid thing is BS. I, however, assume that Fauci was simply looking around and seeing the moronic run on butt-wipe and thinking "Gee, if these knuckle-draggers are going to scoop up all the toilet paper, maybe they'll snag all those N-95s in Home Depot and True Value, when they should better go to Doctors and Nurses. I could tell the truth, and explain it to the public, but they have already demonstrated their inconsiderate, selfish and stupid nature, so maybe it would be more effective for me to down-play the idea that masks will do them any good."

Of course, if true, it came back to haunt him. One should always err on the side brutal honesty when dealing with Americans (or maybe anyone?).

When this is combined with the very nature of the scientific profession, constant changes, and fluctuations, it may be why the "word from on high" keeps changing, and is therefor unsettling for people who need consistency and stability to feel safe. Most folks are not comfortable with uncertainty. I personally have always taken it as a challenge to not be like people. So, while the conservative likes to think he's a rebel, a renegade, an independent thinker, who finally has an opportunity to "defy the man", I roll the other way.

Science may be all over the place, but if you wait to get a consensus, security, safety, then you may get none of that. Roll the dice.

Both German and Norwegian scientists have identified a mechanism by which the Astra-Zeneca vaccine triggers an autoimmune response which can be fatal. In Norway 1 in 20,000 had serious side effects attributed to the vaccine.

It's possible and was discussed in the March 31st EMA update. We are still talking about a very low risk; in the 11 million AZ vaccinations across Europe assessed by EMA, there were 469 reports, only 26 of which were associated with low platelets [an essential feature of the VIPIT syndrome mediating the mechanism the Norwegian scientists were concerned about]. This risk is still orders of magnitude lower than one's risk of clotting with COVID.

Again, however, there is no worry about this sort of risk for the mRNA vaccines moderna and pfizer. Those vaccines work by different mechanism than the AstraZeneca vaccine. I don't think a worry about one vaccine should generalize to a worry about COVID vaccines generally.

I think it is also reassuring that these concerns are being taken by appropriate regulatory bodies. The hold placed on AZ implies the governments are looking out for the safety interest of their citizens.

Just in case you didn't know it's incorrect, like if I unsolicitedly tell you there's spinach in your teeth. I'm being helpful.

I appreciate that, sometimes unsolicited corrections can be interpreted as a slight. I'll take your word on your helpful intention.

What's trail data? — frank

I meant trial data. As if that wasn't obvious...

They tested it the same way the always test vaccines. You said it was lacking normal safety precautions. — frank

Right. I've given the data I have in previous threads from reputable journals like the BMJ and STAT. I'm asking you for the data you're basing your view on. What trial data are you using and what 'normal statistical methods' are you comparing them too. I've read, in several places, that special measures have been put in place, specifically, as I've cited twice now, that trials were smaller and more homogeneous than usual and that peer statistical review was shorter and less well staffed than usual. If I'm wrong about that it would be good to know so that I don't keep repeating the same error (errors criticising health narratives are basically conversational suicide), but I'm obviously not just going to take the word of some random internet poster, so I'm asking for your sources.

It's a damning sign of the state of debate about this that I just had to explain that. "What are your sources?" really should not be a confusing request on a topic as technical as this.

False equivalence. — tim wood

I don't know what you might mean by 'false equivalence'.

This the best I can do here. — tim wood

Really? This is a highly technical subject and the best you can do is a Penn and Teller YouTube clip? Whatever point you're trying to get across it should not be too hard to lay your hands on the source for it. I can't think what's given you the impression that I need my information dumbed down by TV celebrities, and if that's the actual source of your information...

[Pharmaceutical companies] are incorporated to make money for their shareholders. — Isaac

This doesn't make the COVID-19 vaccine 'a tool for extracting money from the population' (as it was described in the OP) - unless the same description is applied to absolutely everything that is sold for profit, in which case it is barely a criticism of the vaccine, so much as of capitalism as a whole.

:ok:

This doesn't make the COVID-19 vaccine 'a tool for extracting money from the population' — Wayfarer

It literally makes it a tool for extracting money from the population. That may or may not be a bad thing depending on whether that tool happens to be useful. Sometimes its utility is the best way of making money out of a product, other times not. The point is that the company considered the development and sale of it to be profitable. The point of the economic analysis in the paper I cited is that lobbying for a product (regardless of efficacy) is a better return on investment than research to ensure an effective one.

And yes, it's a criticism of capitalism as a whole. Anyone who thinks that private corporations through the mechanisms of a capitalist economy are the go-to method of dealing with a global health crisis have a seriously blinkered view of the role such corporations and economic systems have had in society.

I'm over 50, diabetic, heavy drinker for decades, daily contact with the public through work, living in an anti-science trumpy Republican backwater (Georgia) where public health measures are "optional". Risk factors as far as I can tell.

And yes, it's a criticism of capitalism as a whole — Isaac

Thank you. Just so long as that is clear. It may be true that capitalism doesn’t have the best way of responding to this crisis, but what alternatives are there. There is no alternative to go to. Besides, what I was calling out was the anti-science undertone of the OP, which God knows had been an enormous impediment to an effective response under the Orange Emperor.

EMA update. We are still talking about a very low risk; in the 11 million AZ vaccinations across Europe assessed by EMA, there were 469 reports, only 26 of which were associated with low platelets [an essential feature of the VIPIT syndrome mediating the mechanism the Norwegian scientists were concerned about]. This risk is still orders of magnitude lower than one's risk of clotting with COVID. — aporiap

I think you need to read that info a little more closely. Some people developed low platelets, some had thrombosis.

This isn't the kind of thing we just brush aside. If we proceed with the AZ vaccine in some populations, we need to be able to tell people what the risks are and what signs to look for post treatment.

Right. I've given the data I have in previous threads from reputable journals like the BMJ and STA — Isaac

I was genuinely interested in your statement that normal safety measures weren't taken. I remember the articles you cited, so I'm disregarding your comment.

It may be true that capitalism doesn’t have the best way of responding to this crisis, but what alternatives are there. — Wayfarer

Well, there's socialism...

Seriously. There are, unarguably, a number of factors which help prevent the impact and spread of this, and future, pandemics...

1. The general health of the population - yet no additional action at all is being taken on junk food, excessive sugar and salt, sugary drink advertising, sedentary working conditions, community health and fitness facilities, atmospheric pollutants, overcrowding, poor housing conditions... I could go on.

2. Surveillance programs for emerging diseases - yet funding has been and still is actually cut from these programs.

3. Frontline healthcare - proper ICU care cut deaths from Covid by over 60% in one study, yet we've seen no investment in better ICU care, no promises of such, no talk of more access to care for poorer groups. Nothing.

4. Community healthcare - better geriatric care, more access to hospitals and doctors, better delivery systems. All have been shown to minimise damage from pandemics, yet none have received any further investment at all resulting from this one.

5. Community action (handwasting, social distancing, lockdown measures) - action on these has been better but decidedly half-hearted and too late.

6. Tracing contacts - virtually no efforts at all toward this in either England or America.

7. Mass vaccination - the only option on the list that will make billions for the most powerful industry in the world. Also the only option on the list being pursued with any fervour at all.

In (accidentally, I hope) lumping all anti-vaccine sentiment with the nutjob redneck conspiricist, one would be implying that option 7 just coincidentally happens to be the best approach and the fact that the major beneficiaries of it just happen to be the most powerful lobbying industry in the world is entirely irrelevant to the favouring of such an option.

Obviously that's ridiculous. Which leaves us with the only sensible default being that if an industry spends more than four times as much as it's nearest other industry on lobbying (both governments and institutions), that expenditure is going to result in those governments and institutions favouring options which benefit said industry over those which don't.

I'm afraid I'm quite baffled as to why the pronouncements of the medical industry are taken as such gospel truths. We wouldn't treat the oil industry, or arms manufacturers the same way. If any policy favours either of those we're (quite rightly) immediately deeply suspicious. We suspect lobbying pressure, we suspect insider dealing, we suspect backhanders, share deals etc. The pharmaceutical industry spends four, five times more than either of those on lobbying and yet those same suspicions when levied against them are treated as mad conspiracies.

Edit - "baffled" is rhetorical. I'm not baffled at all. We fear death, the medical industry offers us a way to postpone it, we fear rejecting them.

We fear death, the medical industry offers us a way to postpone it, we fear rejecting them. — Isaac

:up:

I'm over 50, diabetic, heavy drinker for decades, daily contact with the public through work, living in an anti-science trumpy Republican backwater (Georgia) where public health measures are "optional". Risk factors as far as I can tell.

From what you're mentioning now, that's a lot of risk being taken compared to vaccinating. It is of course up to you, but from a risk-taking standpoint I'd say it is a better choice to vaccinate in such a situation.

I think you need to read that info a little more closely. Some people developed low platelets, some had thrombosis. — frank

The worrisome mechanism they mention is termed Vaccine induced prothrombic thrombocytopenia. It is counterintuitive, but it is a syndrome characterized simultaneously by low platelets and thrombotic risk. From the EMA article, only 26 cases had thrombotic events with associated low platelets.

This isn't the kind of thing we just brush aside. If we proceed with the AZ vaccine in some populations, we need to be able to tell people what the risks are and what signs to look for post treatment.

I agree about not brushing it aside. It just needs to be taken into context of risk magnitude. To my understanding and as recommended by EMA, the prevalence of these events is very low and not more than one would expect by being a member of the general population and certainly lower than one would expect if actually infected with the virus. Since the frequency of occurrence is known and so low and since the benefits still outweigh the risk per EMA [which takes these and other important safety considerations into account when making such public recommendations], it's still valid to recommend taking the vaccine even as the mechanistic basis of some of these low frequency side effects are being investigated.

the risk of these events is very low and not more than one would expect by being a member of the general population and certainly lower than one would expect if actually infected with the virus. Since the frequency of occurrence is known and so low — aporiap

... confusing prevalence with risk.

So far, so good. I like my chances of holding out until the end of 2021 without succumbing.

The worrisome mechanism they mention is termed Vaccine induced prothrombic thrombocytopenia. It is counterintuitive, but it is a syndrome characterized simultaneously by low platelets and thrombotic risk. From the EMA article, only 26 cases had thrombotic events with associated low platelets. — aporiap

:up:

. To my understanding and as recommended by EMA, the risk of these events is very low and not more than one would expect by being a member of the general population and certainly lower than one would expect if actually infected with the virus. — aporiap

The people who have died from the syndrome so far probably would have done well with a COVID19 infection. They were young, healthy women.

You're basically saying you're fine with those women sacrificing their lives without even knowing they were taking that risk.

Nope.

I meant trial data. As if that wasn't obvious... — Isaac

It wasn't, by the way. I actually googled "trail data". lol

There was a website about national parks.