I told my son I was going to take a vaccine, and he sent me this, which is a well argued, well documented case against.

https://www.deconstructingconvention...-covid-vaccine

To my mind, people can do what they want, without me. It's interesting, nevertheless.

Very nice read but I'm not sure about100% agree with the comments on censorship and "the science is settled".

He also covered the totally scandalously outsourced "gain-of-function" research sponsored by the US Govt.

His point I think was that the long-lived vaccination antibodies are going to be used every time we get any coronavirus, whereas our natural immune reactions (of shorter-lived antibodies) will be suppressed by our own immune systems. This will render us more susceptible to many diseases in the future.

The video in point #17 of that article with long time vaccine maker Geert Van Den Bossche who is pro-vaccines and has impeccable vaccine credentials but is dead set against this one I found particularly educational and compelling. It shows "The scientists" who we all (and Governments) trust actually don't know the science at all.

I never fully got the sense of that gain-of-function issue, but what I did get wasn't nice.

As I said, I registered for a vaccine last Saturday. I went to pursue it on the web, but the site went belly up, perhaps because my GP's practise is changing hands. Now I don't want any vaccine.

I'm still glad I've had mine. I've been vaccinated in my time against smallpox (twice), diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, TB, flu (multiple times), anthrax and shingles. Why make a fuss about one more?

That article compares vaccines made pre 1970 to today's mRNA vaccines and they are worlds apart. When we consider that even as primitive as those were, many of us, even some posting here and now, would not even be here were it not for Polio Vaccine among a few others. I have little frame of reference to know exactly how much corporations think they must keep data proprietary in order to break even and finally profit from the R&D it took to rapidly develop a decent vaccine but surely some and repeatedly that article sates "no data" which considering the many millions of doses in use is patently absurd if not outright FUD.

Van Den Bossche was relatively unknown outside of Belgium until his Chicken Little freak out. Maybe he genuinely believes that bacteria behave like virii, that super strains even can let alone likely develop but there can be no doubt that he is aware that he would make a news splash with his alarm bell concerns. I suppose we shall see, but it seems the die are already cast and Bossche is betting extremely long odds "against the house". However his risk is small since there really is very little bad publicity. He will most likely make money off this whether fame or notoriety.

I think this distrust in actual medical Science is another symptom of of the general distrust in both authoritative experts and Science itself that has led to unimaginably absurd views like Flat Earth and Moon Landing Hoax. Beware of "Rabbit Holes". If you fall in one, the odds are you are many times more likely to fall in many more.

The posted link in my humble opinion is nothing more then an opinion from a personal trainer. It might appear to be well argued but there is lots of misinformation and falsehoods backed by anti-vaccine, conspiracy theorists and crackpots.

The authors overall conclusion that herd or natural immunity is the best method has overlooked the fact the black death and smallpox killed something like 1/3 of the worlds population and the Spanish flu killed around 50 million people. There is lots of evidence that masks and social distancing 100 years ago prevented many deaths just like we are currently doing for COVID19. In addition Polio at its peak would paralyze or kill over half a million people worldwide every year.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/co...vanden-bossche

I really didn't want this.

I have no objection to unbiased good science advancing knowledge, But I have been involved enough to know that that is a small percentage of all research done. The majority is sponsored to find a particular outcome. I know how things are talked up and down; I've done talking up myself.

I had a final year project that couldn't be built in house because College had basically no SMT equipment, couldn't be repaired in house because the techie was scared; there was insufficient static protection, so it blew; and where no lecturer who knew anything would assist, because it ran too fast at 250Mhz. So I was left to my own devices with a lecturer who supposedly was "assisting" me was actually learning from me. I had to twist my report to make the College look good, because those papers are read by external examiners.

So I'd say two things

1. Don't shoot the messenger. I linked the article, I didn't advocate a view
2. Don't talk down to me about how I should believe this or that viewpoint. Sadly, these papers are open to being advertising documents, not "Science."

Is any of that vaccine 'science' going to point up good reasons not to take the vaccine? Rather than the usual ad-hominem attacks painting black any who disagree with a particular view (thank you enorbet), I would be much more convinced by someone who refuted the detail of the reasoning which seems very well informed. Van Den Bossche has been involved at a high level in development of several of the leading vaccines used today, and his vaccine credentials are impeccable. When he now risks his career to decry what is currently being done, he deserves to be heard. It seems odd that discussion is being shouted down in a forum, as if I was not being allowed to think or post that viewpoint.

Did any of you from the Excited States notice that you can't sue the vaccine manufacturers? They are immune. What onus is there on them to be diligent, when they are laughing all the way to the bank? And they all have paid out big time over dud vaccines in the past. These things are going out to the entire world.

@michaelk: What I got out of that was not an overall conclusion, but an education why the system being run by many Governments lacks insight into the real issues. With Science, KISS is not good because edited science becomes propeganda.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I treat each one on a case by case basis as a risk/benefit analysis. The risks have just got higher, and the benefit is low, as I'm unlikely to catch covid anyhow.

Yes, manufactures are immune but this is true for all vaccines. Unfortunately, there is always going to be someone that has an adverse reaction a vaccine. If you look at percentages for COVID19 it is a very small number but it does not matter if something bad happens to you. This is not a good argument.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...s-fact-fiction

Van Den Bossche credentials may be impeccable but if you believe the articles he has not done much since 1995 and his recent theories have been debunked by other virologists.

All I took from the blog was a personal reason not to take the vaccine with much of it based on FUD. In another blog the author is suggesting taking huge amounts of vitamin D and iodine (50mg I hope that it was a typo and should be mcg) to ward off colds and the flu. That would be endangering the uninformed if thinking that taking more is better. This makes his credibility IMHO zero.

Just FTR, businesskid, I have no interest in "shooting the messenger" or even talking down to you. I completely respect that you are free to make your own decisions as only you should since you know yourself far better than anyone on the internet can know you. I'm just trying to poke holes in what appears to be possible, if not likely, irresponsible opinions by experts who are expert in a different field. Bacteria is not the same as virii. An expert in antibiotics is not necessarily an expert in vaccines any more than the Wright Brothers were expert in jet engines. I'm simply hoping that whatever decision you make, it is not based on fear or confirmation bias, that you have expert information that actually applies.

While not on the same level to me as discovering my Son, or an old High School buddy got Covid because they refused vaccine, I would be saddened to discover you got it. Whatever else, I wish everyone here good health. Internet relationships are at least that real.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/19/covi...e-rollout.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-fac...8845433?page=1

https://www.jpost.com/health-science...-zoster-665632

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...e-for-covid-19

It's very poorly argued, IMO.
These aren't false exactly, but they're not really arguments against
vaccinations. Rather, they're ad hominems against vaccine makers.

Yes, we have to make decisions before all the data has come in, but
based on places that achieved widespread vaccination (Israel, UK for
example), the vaccines are looking pretty good.

There's also no long-term safety testing for covid.

It's kind of sad that a lot of government officials are pushing this
line, I guess in the name of keeping social distancing going for
longer. But really, it's pretty clear by now that vaccines do stop
transmission (not 100% of the time, of course).

This is true, because the vaccines are not 100% effective. Nothing is
100% effective. Natural immunity is also not 100% effective. I've seen some estimates that it's around 80-90%. So about the same as vaccination, but possibly a lot worse for older people.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/study...b6f93a1d04a8d4
We don't have accurate numbers for death rate from covid nor from the
vaccine. Both numbers might be too high or too low. Pretending the
errors are only going in one direction is not a good argument.

Also, he confuses reports of deaths/adverse reactions in VAERS as caused by vaccines, whereas it just lists any occurrences following vaccination. This famously includes a lightning strike during the phase 3 trials. https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/18/covid...tion-13774498/

This is true, but not a good argument against vaccinating.
Vaccination reduces the amount of virus replicating in humans, and
therefore reduces the amount of mutations.

It would be nice to have rational debate in public yes. This is not actually an argument against vaccination though.

enorbet and michaelk covered this one.

This is an okay argument for this person in particular (although note again that natural immunity isn't 100% effective). The article is titled "18 Reasons I Won't Be Getting a Covid Vaccine" after all. But it doesn't really apply to people who haven't had covid yet.

It really isn't accurate to place all vaccines in the same group. China's old school vaccine for example is apparently a little over 50% effective, while Moderna and Pfizer are roughly 90%. Astra Zeneca has high rates, too, but I don't recall the exact percentage. Moderna and Pfizer require 2 doses for that level of effectiveness as was predicted with trials data and has borne out en masse but for almost double the effectiveness, so what?

Absence of adequate testing, though it raises ethical problems, doesn't necessarily mean that a vaccine will prove inefficient. The Russian Sputnik vaccine was rushed into use for political reasons before it was properly tested but it has turned out to be an excellent vaccine with one of the highest protection rates of any. The worst of the current vaccines in use is the Chinese one. It hardly scores better than chance.

All points noted. I believe it is a personal decision, and would criticize nobody who decided differently.

As I understood it. Van Den Bossche's role in recent years has been administrative rather than hands-on. I found Van Den Bossche's analysis of the Government's handling of this insightful, and his reasoning powerful. His points impact on what has been said here, but so many want to shout down. In Ireland, we have doctors with impeccable credentials who disagree strongly with the lockdown/release strategy that the Governments are pursuing. I'm not arguing either side, but I hope I have given people food for thought.

It's also easy from the comments to see who brought their set-in-cement view to this discussion and approached that article (which wasn't great, imho) solely with a view of debunking it to those who considered the evidence openly. We all admit media bias, but do we all spot every instance in our own media and adjust accordingly?

My son has for years championed what I might call "Alternative opinions." He feels the need for protein is inflated wildly, meat is a harmful food, dairy is worse, and cheese worst of all. I largely ignored him. In 2015, he went so far as to predict an imminent stroke for me. I ignored him. A week later, I had the stroke, and permanent damage. He is educational because he can cogently and convincingly argue these alternative opinions, and that link was one of many he offered me of a similar vein.

It disturbs some people to meet 'heretical' viewpoints. But that's censorship, isn't it? Considering them openly is when you learn something.

It's internet attention-seeking guff, pure and simple.

I know a lot of medics, they have all taken it. Some are virologists. If they think it's fine, it's fine for me.