You won't.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?
- Thread starter gaiusmarius
- Start date
Just to keep the conversation going I'd like to report my wife and I both got the Moderna bivalent booster yesterday morning. I went to a basketball game last night. This morning I awoke with a sore injection site and a headache. 2 Tylenol and all is well.
We voted about 30 minutes ago at a very busy precinct. Busiest I have seen in the 30+ years living here.
PS: Coach Hamilton has his work cut out for him this season.
We voted about 30 minutes ago at a very busy precinct. Busiest I have seen in the 30+ years living here.
PS: Coach Hamilton has his work cut out for him this season.
Nope research was flawed.The 95% efficacy was a hoax.
Journal Runs Editorial Fraught With COVID Misinformation
— Epidemiologist calls its conjecture "bizarre" and "astonishingly unscientific"
by Amanda D'Ambrosio, Enterprise & Investigative Writer, MedPage Today May 26, 2022Last Updated June 2, 2022
A peer-reviewed neurosurgery journal published an article peddling false statements about the pandemic -- without any evidence to support its claims, an expert said.
The editorial by Russell Blaylock, MD, in Surgical Neurology International, stating that the COVID-19 pandemic was "one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history."
The piece, entitled "COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?" claims that the pandemic was characterized by lies from government officials and medical societies. It claims that the media is orchestrating cover-ups, under the control of pharmaceutical companies. And it claims that "hundreds of thousands" have been killed by mRNA vaccines, and many times more have been injured.
But although the editorial is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it provides no solid scientific evidence to back up its claims, only unfiltered conjecture from its author, according to Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, PhD, an epidemiologist with the University of Wollongong in Australia.
Meyerowitz-Katz wrote a Twitter thread outlining his concerns with the editorial, calling the piece "bizarre" and "astonishingly unscientific." The epidemiologist told MedPage Today that many of the papers cited in the editorial actually disagree with the points made in the editorial.
Additionally, Meyerowitz-Katz noted that the most frequently cited reference in the editorial is anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health – a source he deemed "obviously not reliable."
Blaylock also links to conspiracy theory blogs, Meyerowitz-Katz said. One quotes Ryan Cole, MD, a pathologist in Idaho under fire for spreading COVID misinformation, as seeing a "dramatic spike" in aggressive cancers among vaccinated individuals but provides no data to support that claim.
Several other references in Blaylock's article are to items by physicians infamous for spreading COVID misinformation, being active in political movements, and speaking at conservative rallies, such as Peter McCullough, MD, Pierre Kory, MD, Meryl Nass, MD, and Joseph Mercola, DO, to name a few.
"While Dr. Blaylock is, of course, entitled to his opinion, this is supported in the article largely by low-quality sources that completely lack credibility or simply do not support his argument," Meyerowitz-Katz said. "Much of the editorial is supported by no references at all and simply represents the author's own views."
In an email to MedPage Today, Blaylock said that he has never seen such a "blatant demand from a group of doctors" to end free speech and debate. "The pandemic is over, so there is no justification for continuing this totalitarian suppression of dissenting views," he stated.
James Ausman, MD, PhD, the emeritus editor-in-chief of Surgical Neurology International, said in a statement to MedPage Today that the journal "is open to comments from any reader as long as the comments are factual and free of personal comments."
Blaylock has a history of spreading misinformation in the nutrition world, claiming that certain food additives are "excitotoxic" to the brain in normal doses. Many have credited the former neurosurgeon for starting the health scare around monosodium glutamate (MSG), after he wrote in his 1994 book, Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills, that it could be linked to brain damage and neurodegenerative diseases.
The physician has also historically opposed vaccines, notably stating that the swine flu was a human-made virus, and promoting cold showers as a remedy to counter the "dangerous effects" of the H1N1 vaccine.
Blaylock currently sells supplements called "Brain Repair Formula" and writes for the conservative news outlet Newsmax. He also serves as associate editor of the neuroinflammation section of Surgical Neurology International.
That journal is an "independent publication that is not affiliated with any society or organization," according to the journal website. It was established in 2010, and is published by Scientific Scholar.
Since it was found, the journal states, it has remained "apolitical," noting that it does not discriminate against authors based on political, religious, racial, geographical, or sexual characteristics.
The journal states that the articles it publishes must be "fact-based," but added that it "understands that facts may be interpreted differently by different readers."
Journal Runs Editorial Fraught With COVID Misinformation
Epidemiologist calls its conjecture 'bizarre' and 'astonishingly unscientific'
www.medpagetoday.com
ah, the venerable "alternative facts" again...got it. typical snake-oil salesman.
Almost everything you post is flawed; a hoax, lies and misinformation.
for like 2+ frickin years too,pretty sad/pitiful to waste that much time posting about one topic on a friggin pot growing website
Probably is this for you misinformation too.Everything which does not follow the narrative of your government is in your eyes misinformation.
The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study
Myocarditis and pericarditis are potential post-acute cardiac sequelae of COVID-19 infection, arising from adaptive immune responses. We aimed to study the incidence of post-acute COVID-19 myocarditis and pericarditis. Retrospective cohort study of 196,992 ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.
yeah, after 2 years, i've pretty much given up. too bad, for you guys, cause you are missing the real show while you stare off into the distance watching the crowd wandering around in the street - like cattle waiting to be milked or barbequed.
mmmmmm,bbq
Yet there are so many studies that do in fact say that Covid causes heart problems. (note the reference list).Probably is this for you misinformation too.Everything which does not follow the narrative of your government is in your eyes misinformation.
The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study
Myocarditis and pericarditis are potential post-acute cardiac sequelae of COVID-19 infection, arising from adaptive immune responses. We aimed to study the incidence of post-acute COVID-19 myocarditis and pericarditis. Retrospective cohort study of 196,992 ...
Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.
Can COVID-19 cause myocarditis?
FLEG: Myocarditis is an uncommon complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We don’t know exactly how often this happens, but one study estimated that myocarditis affects about 40 people out of every 1,000,000 people who test positive for COVID-19.3 However, myocarditis is much more common in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 (226 per 100,000).Some groups have a higher risk of developing myocarditis from COVID-19. An analysis of 51 patients with possible or confirmed myocarditis showed that 70% were male, and the average age was 56. Most had other health conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity, that raised their risk for serious COVID-19 illness.4
Can COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis?
FLEG: Yes, but this is rare, and the symptoms are usually mild. Most people recover fully with rest and a few days of supportive treatment while being monitored in a hospital.Men and boys between the ages of 16 and 29 have been most often affected by COVID-19–vaccine-related myocarditis, usually a few days after their second dose.5 Myocarditis may be due to their strong immune response to the vaccine.
It’s important to remember that any vaccine can cause side effects. These are normal signs that your body is making protective antibodies. Side effects of COVID-19 vaccination are generally mild — discomfort at the injection site, fatigue, and muscle aches — and go away in a few days. Many people have no side effects at all. Serious side effects are very uncommon. Myocarditis has been linked with other vaccines, such as those that prevent influenza (flu), smallpox, and shingles.6
Q&A: COVID-19, Vaccines, and Myocarditis
Benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh a very small risk of heart complications
he said "cattle" not "smoked pork"! pull yourself together, man...gracious! 
confirmation bias, much? have you even tried to find one paper that refutes your Kool-Aid viewpoint? or is everything that is not "consensus science" to be ignored?Yet there are so many studies that do in fact say that Covid causes heart problems. (note the reference list).
Can COVID-19 cause myocarditis?
FLEG: Myocarditis is an uncommon complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We don’t know exactly how often this happens, but one study estimated that myocarditis affects about 40 people out of every 1,000,000 people who test positive for COVID-19.3 However, myocarditis is much more common in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 (226 per 100,000).
Some groups have a higher risk of developing myocarditis from COVID-19. An analysis of 51 patients with possible or confirmed myocarditis showed that 70% were male, and the average age was 56. Most had other health conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity, that raised their risk for serious COVID-19 illness.4
Can COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis?
FLEG: Yes, but this is rare, and the symptoms are usually mild. Most people recover fully with rest and a few days of supportive treatment while being monitored in a hospital.
Men and boys between the ages of 16 and 29 have been most often affected by COVID-19–vaccine-related myocarditis, usually a few days after their second dose.5 Myocarditis may be due to their strong immune response to the vaccine.
It’s important to remember that any vaccine can cause side effects. These are normal signs that your body is making protective antibodies. Side effects of COVID-19 vaccination are generally mild — discomfort at the injection site, fatigue, and muscle aches — and go away in a few days. Many people have no side effects at all. Serious side effects are very uncommon. Myocarditis has been linked with other vaccines, such as those that prevent influenza (flu), smallpox, and shingles.6
Q&A: COVID-19, Vaccines, and Myocarditis
Benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh a very small risk of heart complicationscovid19.nih.gov
Interesting article on dangers of covid and difficulties of studying the issue.
Adapted from Yukon Haughton by Nik Spencer/Nature
In December 2020, a week before cardiologist Stuart Katz was scheduled to receive his first COVID-19 vaccine, he came down with a fever. He spent the next two weeks wracked with a cough, body aches and chills. After months of helping others to weather the pandemic, Katz, who works at New York University, was having his own first-hand experience of COVID-19.
On Christmas Day, Katz’s acute illness finally subsided. But many symptoms lingered, including some related to the organ he’s built his career around: the heart. Walking up two flights of stairs would leave him breathless, with his heart racing at 120 beats per minute. Over the next several months, he began to feel better, and he’s now back to his normal routine of walking and cycling. But reports about COVID-19’s effects on the cardiovascular system have made him concerned about his long-term health. “I say to myself, ‘Well, is it really over?’” Katz says.
In one study1 this year, researchers used records from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to estimate how often COVID-19 leads to cardiovascular problems. They found that people who had had the disease faced substantially increased risks for 20 cardiovascular conditions — including potentially catastrophic problems such as heart attacks and strokes — in the year after infection with the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Researchers say that these complications can happen even in people who seem to have completely recovered from a mild infection.
Some smaller studies have mirrored these findings, but others find lower rates of complications. With millions or perhaps even billions of people having been infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians are wondering whether the pandemic will be followed by a cardiovascular aftershock. Meanwhile, researchers are trying to understand who is most at risk of these heart-related problems, how long the risk persists and what causes these symptoms.
It’s a gaping hole in an important area of public health, says Katz. “We don’t understand if this changes the lifelong trajectory for risk of a heart attack or stroke or other cardiac events — we just don’t know that.” Here, Nature looks at the questions that scientists are asking and the answers they’ve uncovered so far.
People who had been admitted to intensive care with acute infections had a drastically higher risk of cardiovascular problems during the next year (see ‘Cardiac concerns’). For some conditions, such as swelling of the heart and blood clots in the lungs, the risk shot up at least 20-fold compared with that in uninfected peers. But even people who had not been hospitalized had increased risks of many conditions, ranging from an 8% increase in the rate of heart attacks to a 247% increase in the rate of heart inflammation.
Source: Ref. 1
For Al-Aly, the study added to the growing body of evidence that a bout of COVID-19 can permanently alter some people’s health. These kinds of change fall under the category of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, which covers problems that emerge after an initial infection. This disorder includes — and overlaps with — the persistent condition known as long COVID, a term that has many definitions.
Studies indicate that the coronavirus is associated with a wide range of lasting problems, such as diabetes2, persistent lung damage3 and even brain damage4. As with these conditions, Al-Aly says that the cardiovascular issues that occur after a SARS-CoV-2 infection can decrease a person’s quality of life over the long term. Treatments do exist for these problems, “but they are not curable conditions”, he adds.
Despite its large size, the VA study does come with caveats, say researchers. The study is observational, meaning that it reuses data that were collected for other purposes — a method that can introduce biases. For example, the study considers only veterans, meaning that the data are skewed towards white men. “We don’t really have any study like it that goes into more diverse and a younger population,” says Eric Topol, a genomicist at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California. He thinks that more research is needed before scientists can truly quantify the frequency at which cardiovascular problems strike.
Daniel Tancredi, a medical statistician at the University of California, Davis, points out another potential source of bias. One of the control groups in the VA study had to get through more than a year without catching SARS-CoV-2 to be included in the study. There could be physiological differences that made the control group less likely to contract the disease, which could also affect their susceptibility to cardiovascular problems. Still, Tancredi thinks the study was well designed and that any bias is likely to be minimal. “I wouldn’t say that these numbers are exactly right, but they’re definitely in the ballpark,” he says. He hopes future prospective studies will fine-tune Al-Aly’s estimates.
Some other studies do point in the same direction. Data from the England’s health-care system5, for example, show that people who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 were about three times more likely than uninfected people to face major cardiovascular problems within eight months of their hospitalization. A second study6 found that, in the 4 months after infection, people who had had COVID-19 had a roughly 2.5-fold increased risk of congestive heart failure compared with those who had not been infected.
Health modeller Sarah Wulf Hanson at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle used Al-Aly’s data to estimate how many heart attacks and strokes COVID-19 has been associated with. Her unpublished work suggests that, in 2020, complications after COVID-19 caused 12,000 extra strokes and 44,000 extra heart attacks in the United States, numbers that jumped up to 18,000 strokes and 66,000 heart attacks in 2021. This means that COVID-19 could have increased the rates of heart attack by about 8% and of stroke by about 2%. “It is sobering,” Wulf Hanson says.
Indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as missed medical appointments, stress and the sedentary nature of isolating at home probably further contributed to the cardiovascular burden for many people, scientists suggest.
These numbers don’t match what some researchers have seen in the clinic, however. In a small study7 of 52 people, Gerry McCann, a cardiac-imaging specialist at the University of Leicester, UK, and his colleagues found that people who had recovered after being hospitalized with COVID-19 had no greater rate of heart disease than did a group of people who had similar underlying conditions but remained uninfected. The trial was orders of magnitude smaller than Al-Aly’s, but McCann and his colleagues are working on a larger study with around 1,200 participants. The results have yet to be published, but McCann says “the more data we’re acquiring, the less impressed we are with the degree of, let’s say, myocardial injury”, or heart problems.
Despite having an incomplete picture of COVID-19’s cardiovascular effects, doctors recommend caution. An expert panel convened by the American College of Cardiology advises doctors to test people who have had COVID-19 for cardiovascular problems if they have risk factors such as being older or immunosuppressed8.
www.nature.com
- 02 August 2022
Heart disease after COVID: what the data say
Some studies suggest that the risk of cardiovascular problems, such as a heart attack or stroke, remains high even many months after a SARS-CoV-2 infection clears up. Researchers are starting to pin down the frequency of these issues and what is causing the damage.Adapted from Yukon Haughton by Nik Spencer/Nature
In December 2020, a week before cardiologist Stuart Katz was scheduled to receive his first COVID-19 vaccine, he came down with a fever. He spent the next two weeks wracked with a cough, body aches and chills. After months of helping others to weather the pandemic, Katz, who works at New York University, was having his own first-hand experience of COVID-19.
On Christmas Day, Katz’s acute illness finally subsided. But many symptoms lingered, including some related to the organ he’s built his career around: the heart. Walking up two flights of stairs would leave him breathless, with his heart racing at 120 beats per minute. Over the next several months, he began to feel better, and he’s now back to his normal routine of walking and cycling. But reports about COVID-19’s effects on the cardiovascular system have made him concerned about his long-term health. “I say to myself, ‘Well, is it really over?’” Katz says.
In one study1 this year, researchers used records from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to estimate how often COVID-19 leads to cardiovascular problems. They found that people who had had the disease faced substantially increased risks for 20 cardiovascular conditions — including potentially catastrophic problems such as heart attacks and strokes — in the year after infection with the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Researchers say that these complications can happen even in people who seem to have completely recovered from a mild infection.
Some smaller studies have mirrored these findings, but others find lower rates of complications. With millions or perhaps even billions of people having been infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians are wondering whether the pandemic will be followed by a cardiovascular aftershock. Meanwhile, researchers are trying to understand who is most at risk of these heart-related problems, how long the risk persists and what causes these symptoms.
It’s a gaping hole in an important area of public health, says Katz. “We don’t understand if this changes the lifelong trajectory for risk of a heart attack or stroke or other cardiac events — we just don’t know that.” Here, Nature looks at the questions that scientists are asking and the answers they’ve uncovered so far.
How many people are at risk?
Doctors have reported cardiovascular problems related to COVID-19 throughout the pandemic, but concerns over this issue surged after the results of the VA study came out earlier this year. The analysis by Ziyad Al-Aly, an epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and his colleagues is one of the most extensive efforts to characterize what happens to the heart and circulatory system after the acute phase of COVID-19. The researchers compared more than 150,000 veterans who had recovered from acute COVID-19 with their uninfected peers, as well as with a pre-pandemic control group1.People who had been admitted to intensive care with acute infections had a drastically higher risk of cardiovascular problems during the next year (see ‘Cardiac concerns’). For some conditions, such as swelling of the heart and blood clots in the lungs, the risk shot up at least 20-fold compared with that in uninfected peers. But even people who had not been hospitalized had increased risks of many conditions, ranging from an 8% increase in the rate of heart attacks to a 247% increase in the rate of heart inflammation.
Source: Ref. 1
For Al-Aly, the study added to the growing body of evidence that a bout of COVID-19 can permanently alter some people’s health. These kinds of change fall under the category of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, which covers problems that emerge after an initial infection. This disorder includes — and overlaps with — the persistent condition known as long COVID, a term that has many definitions.
Studies indicate that the coronavirus is associated with a wide range of lasting problems, such as diabetes2, persistent lung damage3 and even brain damage4. As with these conditions, Al-Aly says that the cardiovascular issues that occur after a SARS-CoV-2 infection can decrease a person’s quality of life over the long term. Treatments do exist for these problems, “but they are not curable conditions”, he adds.
Despite its large size, the VA study does come with caveats, say researchers. The study is observational, meaning that it reuses data that were collected for other purposes — a method that can introduce biases. For example, the study considers only veterans, meaning that the data are skewed towards white men. “We don’t really have any study like it that goes into more diverse and a younger population,” says Eric Topol, a genomicist at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California. He thinks that more research is needed before scientists can truly quantify the frequency at which cardiovascular problems strike.
Daniel Tancredi, a medical statistician at the University of California, Davis, points out another potential source of bias. One of the control groups in the VA study had to get through more than a year without catching SARS-CoV-2 to be included in the study. There could be physiological differences that made the control group less likely to contract the disease, which could also affect their susceptibility to cardiovascular problems. Still, Tancredi thinks the study was well designed and that any bias is likely to be minimal. “I wouldn’t say that these numbers are exactly right, but they’re definitely in the ballpark,” he says. He hopes future prospective studies will fine-tune Al-Aly’s estimates.
Some other studies do point in the same direction. Data from the England’s health-care system5, for example, show that people who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 were about three times more likely than uninfected people to face major cardiovascular problems within eight months of their hospitalization. A second study6 found that, in the 4 months after infection, people who had had COVID-19 had a roughly 2.5-fold increased risk of congestive heart failure compared with those who had not been infected.
Health modeller Sarah Wulf Hanson at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle used Al-Aly’s data to estimate how many heart attacks and strokes COVID-19 has been associated with. Her unpublished work suggests that, in 2020, complications after COVID-19 caused 12,000 extra strokes and 44,000 extra heart attacks in the United States, numbers that jumped up to 18,000 strokes and 66,000 heart attacks in 2021. This means that COVID-19 could have increased the rates of heart attack by about 8% and of stroke by about 2%. “It is sobering,” Wulf Hanson says.
Indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as missed medical appointments, stress and the sedentary nature of isolating at home probably further contributed to the cardiovascular burden for many people, scientists suggest.
These numbers don’t match what some researchers have seen in the clinic, however. In a small study7 of 52 people, Gerry McCann, a cardiac-imaging specialist at the University of Leicester, UK, and his colleagues found that people who had recovered after being hospitalized with COVID-19 had no greater rate of heart disease than did a group of people who had similar underlying conditions but remained uninfected. The trial was orders of magnitude smaller than Al-Aly’s, but McCann and his colleagues are working on a larger study with around 1,200 participants. The results have yet to be published, but McCann says “the more data we’re acquiring, the less impressed we are with the degree of, let’s say, myocardial injury”, or heart problems.
Despite having an incomplete picture of COVID-19’s cardiovascular effects, doctors recommend caution. An expert panel convened by the American College of Cardiology advises doctors to test people who have had COVID-19 for cardiovascular problems if they have risk factors such as being older or immunosuppressed8.
Heart disease after COVID: what the data say
Some studies suggest that the risk of cardiovascular problems, such as a heart attack or stroke, remains high even many months after a SARS-CoV-2 infection clears up. Researchers are starting to pin down the frequency of these issues and what is causing the damage.
www.nature.com
Read the above article; it seems pretty balanced. Confirmation bias is exactly what most of the anti vax stuff I read here reeks of. You don't trust the mainstream so automatically assume the opposite is true, and then search for it.
No, I'm not searching for anything that refutes the consensus, however if it comes up I look at it. I read Mex's paper for example. Interpreting stats is something I am trained in and interested in, although I have no medical training.
no, that is not how i operate. i study the science - read real peer viewed studies and articles - then see how the information is portrayed in mainstream media. then, the agenda becomes very blatant.
i believe very little of everything i read - including the peer reviewed junk. i accumulate enough data until a testable truth emerges. then i see how it goes. and research and adjust as needed. there is very little systems thinking in pharma-medical - generally the focus is too narrow to get it right, to get much right. but bits and pieces may be right.
i think i failed my statistics course at MIT. i just could not grok the fundamental concepts - my math intuition ran out of gas going up that mountain of understanding. i never figured out how to ask for help - except toward the last year.
i will read your article. i am desperate to find information that says what i current believe (about covid and vaccinations) is wrong. but the biology is pretty clear at this point. it is all just a convenient narrative device.
next time the jab is mandated with no escape, i be looking for the cherry flavored carfentanil - peach would be okay, too.
have you looked into hydrogels? there are like 400,000 patents. must be a promising avenue of research - i.e. lots of grant money. it looks akin to gain of function research. what are they thinking???????
dramamine
Well-known member
The scientific method involves trying to disprove one's theory to see if it holds up.
We are no doubt coming at this from different perspectives, and disciplines.
I believe I have a healthy scepticism of media, however that doesn't mean I don't believe a lot of what I read. Rather I try and look at biases in media sources. If I believed everything I read I would not be growing or using cannabis.
There is some media I trust more than others, and some science journalists I trust to give good overview. I also mostly trust organisations like WHO. I understand Americans distrust a lot of their institutions like the CDC, however I trust the Health Department in my country (and what they say is replicated in other countries). They are an independent authority. All over the world govt health organisations are coming to the same conclusions. Either they are right, or it is some huge conspiracy involving a mind boggling number of people, governments, independent institutions. I tend toward mostly the most obvious is likely to be true. However, science is about testing a hypothesis and retesting.
I also take the view that although I am educated, I cannot possibly have the understanding of someone who studies this full time. So although I read scientific papers and have a basic understanding, what means more to me are big stats, such as x number of unvaccinated people have x number of issues compared with vaccinated. When I look at stats like this it seems obvious to me. Of course in any academic research there are differing opinions. I do check them out, but often find that the author has some agenda to push, or that their world view is rooted in such a way as to cloud the issue.
Anyway, at least you are logically looking at this, which is more than I can say about some in this thread.
Look at all of the citation and reference links.
