Perspective on Vaccines

aggierogue

10:19a, 9/14/21

Thought this was interesting and worth sharing for both sides of the vaccine issue. For some background, Eric Weinstein is the brother of Bret Weinstein who has been one of the major proponents of Ivermectin. Eric has a large following as well, and he's vaccinated. Here are some clips of a recent podcast where he discusses his brother, Ivermectin, vaccines, and public mistrust.

Starts at clip 10 and continues through clip 16. Great listen.

Podcast

Zobel

11:49a, 9/14/21

I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?

aggierogue

12:07p, 9/14/21

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?

I know. You only like to listen to people who share your narrative. Not everyone shares your POV. I like to hear both sides.

spoiler alert, he points out why people don't trust Fauci, the MSM, or the government, and there are good reasons why.

The point of this thread was to give people like you some perspective on the other side and why people are hesitant to get this vaccine. But instead of listening to a different perspective, you want to police every thread that isn't pro-vax and say, "WHY AREN'T PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED?"

Duncan Idaho

12:09p, 9/14/21

Made it as far as him lamenting that he is a F list celebrity.

aggierogue

12:13p, 9/14/21

In reply to Duncan Idaho

Duncan Idaho said:
Made it as far as him lamenting that he is a F list celebrity.

Shocking. Another loud Texags pro-vaxxer can't give it 10-15 minutes.

Zobel

12:14p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

When you say listening to people who share my narrative, does that also apply to the small nexus of podcasts you're zeroed in on - that is to say, Joe Rogan, DarkHorse, and DarkHorse's Bother?

On the other hand there have been thousands of papers published during this pandemic by doctors and researchers from all over the world and from hundreds of different institutions. Why should I spend time with this view which by your description is largely political? Why do you bring up Fauci, the MSM, or the government? Do they have anything to do with having an informed position on whether the vaccines are "riskier than claimed"? I can't see how, honestly.

I don't view this as a "side" thing. And if there are "sides" there are certainly more than two. When you get out of politics reality is rarely binary. I haven't policed any threads, and I haven't asked why people aren't getting vaccinated. I'm simply sharing why I'm uninterested in participating in the podcast tribalism you're offering.

petebaker

12:17p, 9/14/21

A new study suggests that almost half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic cases, @davidzweig reports. https://t.co/CjVR8iUUpE
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) September 14, 2021

Duncan Idaho

12:18p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

aggierogue said:
Duncan Idaho said:
Made it as far as him lamenting that he is a F list celebrity.
Shocking. Another loud Texags pro-vaxxer can't give it 10-15 minutes.

If you think that I will take being called a pro-vaxxer as anything other than a compliment, you are more confused than I can imagine.

aggierogue

12:24p, 9/14/21

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:
When you say listening to people who share my narrative, does that also apply to the small nexus of podcasts you're zeroed in on - that is to say, Joe Rogan, DarkHorse, and DarkHorse's Bother?

On the other hand there have been thousands of papers published during this pandemic by doctors and researchers from all over the world and from hundreds of different institutions. Why should I spend time with this view which by your description is largely political? Why do you bring up Fauci, the MSM, or the government? Do they have anything to do with having an informed position on whether the vaccines are "riskier than claimed"? I can't see how, honestly.

I don't view this as a "side" thing. And if there are "sides" there are certainly more than two. When you get out of politics reality is rarely binary. I haven't policed any threads, and I haven't asked why people aren't getting vaccinated. I'm simply sharing why I'm uninterested in participating in the podcast tribalism you're offering.

I never said it was largely political. I said there are reasons why people don't trust the forces pushing the "Vaccine is safe" narrative. Me offering these few clips was never about changing the mind of a person like you. It was about offering perspective. Instead of simply ignoring the thread, you chose to take shots and further push your pro-vax agenda, which you clearly have. Doing so while pointing out this isn't even worth your time. Yet you're going to spend time trying to discredit it.

And my description of you policing threads is exactly what you do. At least be honest. This thread is exhibit A for countless others that would require multiple trips through the alphabet.

Jabin

12:25p, 9/14/21

In reply to petebaker

Interesting. Thanks for posting. Just out of curiosity, do you agree with this from the study described?

Quote:
One of the important implications of the study, these experts say, is that the introduction of vaccines strongly correlates with a greater share of COVID hospital patients having mild or asymptomatic disease. "It's underreported how well the vaccine makes your life better, how much less sick you are likely to be, and less sick even if hospitalized," Snyder said. "That's the gem in this study."

aggierogue

12:27p, 9/14/21

In reply to Duncan Idaho

Duncan Idaho said:
aggierogue said:
Duncan Idaho said:
Made it as far as him lamenting that he is a F list celebrity.
Shocking. Another loud Texags pro-vaxxer can't give it 10-15 minutes.

If you think that I will take being called a pro-vaxxer as anything other than a compliment, you are more confused than I can imagine.

Confused? I would have never believed you would have taken it any other way.

Drip99

12:28p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

aggierogue said:
Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?
I know. You only like to listen to people who share your narrative. Not everyone shares your POV. I like to hear both sides.

spoiler alert, he points out why people don't trust Fauci, the MSM, or the government, and there are good reasons why.

The point of this thread was to give people like you some perspective on the other side and why people are hesitant to get this vaccine. But instead of listening to a different perspective, you want to police every thread that isn't pro-vax and say, "WHY AREN'T PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED?"

Why do people look to the MSM, random podcasts or the government for personal healthcare advice? What happened to visiting your doctor?

Charpie

12:30p, 9/14/21

In reply to Jabin

Not to mention that its full of the word, "may."

My favorite thing that folks are glancing over is the fact that this before delta took off.

We live in a headline based society. I almost want to create an article with a bunch of bs in it with a favorable headline in either direction to see how long it would take off

tysker

12:30p, 9/14/21

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?

An impressively aggressive ****post for someone that doesn't care

Jabin

12:31p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

aggierogue said:
Duncan Idaho said:
aggierogue said:
Duncan Idaho said:
Made it as far as him lamenting that he is a F list celebrity.
Shocking. Another loud Texags pro-vaxxer can't give it 10-15 minutes.

If you think that I will take being called a pro-vaxxer as anything other than a compliment, you are more confused than I can imagine.
Confused? I would have never believed you would have taken it any other way.

You seem to be missing the point, aggierogue. If you presented hard data, I'd be surprised if Zobel didn't consider it. If it was sufficient hard data, he might even change his mind.

But just presenting some "guy" with his opinion is not worth spending time on. You know what they say about opinions and rear ends.

Zobel

12:34p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

And I never said you did. I said your description is largely political, and it is.

I haven't taken a shot at anyone. I gave you a reason why I wasn't personally inclined to listen to this podcast, and asking you to explain why I should listen to this person in particular. You've responded by suggesting I "only like to listen to people who share [my] narrative". You could have given a good reason. Maybe something like "this is a good insight into why people are hesitant."

Since the podcast is titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed" and you've now demonstrated that it is indeed more about "claims" than about vaccine risks - a topic beaten to death five million times over on this board and f16, you've confirmed by choice to not listen. I appreciate that.

If discussing an OP is thread policing, I'm not sure who can respond. Sorry for not listening to your podcast.

Duncan Idaho

12:35p, 9/14/21

In reply to Drip99

JesusQuintana said:
aggierogue said:
Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?
I know. You only like to listen to people who share your narrative. Not everyone shares your POV. I like to hear both sides.

spoiler alert, he points out why people don't trust Fauci, the MSM, or the government, and there are good reasons why.

The point of this thread was to give people like you some perspective on the other side and why people are hesitant to get this vaccine. But instead of listening to a different perspective, you want to police every thread that isn't pro-vax and say, "WHY AREN'T PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED?"
Why do people look to the MSM, random podcasts or the government for personal healthcare advice? What happened to visiting your doctor?

They tend to fall in two groups
1) they believe they know better.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3208546

2)are youngish adults who havent a regular health care provider since they aged out of pediatrics.

aggierogue

12:35p, 9/14/21

In reply to Drip99

JesusQuintana said:
aggierogue said:
Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?
I know. You only like to listen to people who share your narrative. Not everyone shares your POV. I like to hear both sides.

spoiler alert, he points out why people don't trust Fauci, the MSM, or the government, and there are good reasons why.

The point of this thread was to give people like you some perspective on the other side and why people are hesitant to get this vaccine. But instead of listening to a different perspective, you want to police every thread that isn't pro-vax and say, "WHY AREN'T PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED?"
Why do people look to the MSM, random podcasts or the government for personal healthcare advice? What happened to visiting your doctor?

1. Many people do not regularly visit a doctor. Many don't even have what would be considered a GP or family practitioner. Not everyone has insurance and visits a doctor regularly.

2. I have already visited my GP, and is was not much of a roadmap on this issue. He was unvaccinated as of 3 weeks ago and may still be. His reasoning was that he already had Covid but was planning on probably getting the Pfizer vaccine in the near future. He didn't even know which of the two were MRNA vaccines. True story. But that's not surprising to me considering people put far more trust in doctors than they should imo. You could visit 5 different doctors and get 5 different opinions on many medical issues.

That's just a start, but I could go on and on about their general lack of knowledge on nutrition and diet.

aggierogue

12:37p, 9/14/21

In reply to Jabin

Jabin said:
aggierogue said:
Duncan Idaho said:
aggierogue said:
Duncan Idaho said:
Made it as far as him lamenting that he is a F list celebrity.
Shocking. Another loud Texags pro-vaxxer can't give it 10-15 minutes.

If you think that I will take being called a pro-vaxxer as anything other than a compliment, you are more confused than I can imagine.
Confused? I would have never believed you would have taken it any other way.
You seem to be missing the point, aggierogue. If you presented hard data, I'd be surprised if Zobel didn't consider it. If it was sufficient hard data, he might even change his mind.

But just presenting some "guy" with his opinion is not worth spending time on. You know what they say about opinions and rear ends.

Then he is free to ignore the thread...which he didn't...a point you seemed to have missed.

aggierogue

12:39p, 9/14/21

In reply to Duncan Idaho

Duncan Idaho said:
JesusQuintana said:
aggierogue said:
Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?
I know. You only like to listen to people who share your narrative. Not everyone shares your POV. I like to hear both sides.

spoiler alert, he points out why people don't trust Fauci, the MSM, or the government, and there are good reasons why.

The point of this thread was to give people like you some perspective on the other side and why people are hesitant to get this vaccine. But instead of listening to a different perspective, you want to police every thread that isn't pro-vax and say, "WHY AREN'T PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED?"
Why do people look to the MSM, random podcasts or the government for personal healthcare advice? What happened to visiting your doctor?

They tend to fall in two groups
1) they believe they know better.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3208546

2)are youngish adults who havent a regular health care provider since they aged out of pediatrics.

You act as if every family with children has a pediatrician or everyone over the age of 30 has insurance or a regular doctor.

Jabin

12:43p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

That's true and good point.

Diggity

12:44p, 9/14/21

wild assumptions for college educated folks...I know.

Duncan Idaho

12:46p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

aggierogue said:
Duncan Idaho said:
JesusQuintana said:
aggierogue said:
Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?
I know. You only like to listen to people who share your narrative. Not everyone shares your POV. I like to hear both sides.

spoiler alert, he points out why people don't trust Fauci, the MSM, or the government, and there are good reasons why.

The point of this thread was to give people like you some perspective on the other side and why people are hesitant to get this vaccine. But instead of listening to a different perspective, you want to police every thread that isn't pro-vax and say, "WHY AREN'T PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED?"
Why do people look to the MSM, random podcasts or the government for personal healthcare advice? What happened to visiting your doctor?

They tend to fall in two groups
1) they believe they know better.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3208546

2)are youngish adults who havent a regular health care provider since they aged out of pediatrics.
You act as if every1 family with children has a pediatrician or everyone over the age of 30 has insurance or a regular doctor2.

With the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated on the response, you have proven that you aren't worth engaging.

1. I said "tend to fall in two groups" so no I don't think every family.

2. I clearly said that a lot of adults don't have a regular health care provider.

aggierogue

12:47p, 9/14/21

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:
And I never said you did. I said your description is largely political, and it is.

I haven't taken a shot at anyone. I gave you a reason why I wasn't personally inclined to listen to this podcast, and asking you to explain why I should listen to this person in particular. You've responded by suggesting I "only like to listen to people who share [my] narrative" - facts not in evidence.

Since the podcast is titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed" and you've now demonstrated that it is indeed more about "claims" than about vaccine risks - a topic beaten to death five million times over on this board and f16, you've confirmed by choice to not listen. I appreciate that.

If discussing an OP is thread policing, I'm not sure who can respond. Sorry for not listening to your podcast.

Wow dude. Maybe listen before you decide what the podcast is even about? It was never about "claims" or "facts."

You've demonstrated the stubbornness to argue about a topic that you have zero knowledge about b/c you couldn't take 10 minutes to listen to it. You've provided nothing but noise and have already wasted more time arguing with me than you would have if you simply listened. Take your victory lap for that.

And no reason to apologize for not listening. IDGAF if you listen. I would have rather you simply ignored the thread altogether.

Zobel

12:53p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

Quote:
"Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed"

Quote:
It was never about "claims" or "facts."

kinda confusing tbh

aggierogue

12:57p, 9/14/21

In reply to Duncan Idaho

Duncan Idaho said:
aggierogue said:
Duncan Idaho said:
JesusQuintana said:
aggierogue said:
Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?
I know. You only like to listen to people who share your narrative. Not everyone shares your POV. I like to hear both sides.

spoiler alert, he points out why people don't trust Fauci, the MSM, or the government, and there are good reasons why.

The point of this thread was to give people like you some perspective on the other side and why people are hesitant to get this vaccine. But instead of listening to a different perspective, you want to police every thread that isn't pro-vax and say, "WHY AREN'T PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED?"
Why do people look to the MSM, random podcasts or the government for personal healthcare advice? What happened to visiting your doctor?

They tend to fall in two groups
1) they believe they know better.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3208546

2)are youngish adults who havent a regular health care provider since they aged out of pediatrics.
You act as if every1 family with children has a pediatrician or everyone over the age of 30 has insurance or a regular doctor2.

With the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated on the response, you have proven that you aren't worth engaging.

1. I said "tend to fall in two groups" so no I don't think every family.

2. I clearly said that a lot of adults don't have a regular health care provider.

That hurts.

But seriously reading comprehension guy, they don't "tend to fall in two groups."

a fourth of Americans don't have a primary care provider

aggierogue

1:01p, 9/14/21

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:

Quote:
"Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed"

Quote:
It was never about "claims" or "facts."
kinda confusing tbh

I'll try again. The clips I shared were NEVER about claims. It was a person offering some insight on public mistrust. It was about offering some perspective to this board who continually seems to be flabbergasted at the thought people might not choose to get vaccinated.

You might be happy to know that he is vaccinated, never says that Ivermectin works, and does believe there is benefit to the vaccine. He's a very bright guy, much like his pro-vax friend Sam Harris.

It was an attempt to provide perspective. I'm not sure I can be any clearer on the purpose for me posting it. It's just annoying that you keep making assumptions about the purpose when you dismiss from the get-go.

Romello

1:13p, 9/14/21

Everyone is a badass until they or a loved one gets admitted to the ICU with Covid.

farmrag

1:29p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

Your GP sounds kind of dumb.

Zobel

1:34p, 9/14/21

The "vaccines are riskier than claimed" argument he lays out is a poor one. He says that "vaccines are safe" is what you say when you really mean "vaccines aren't perfectly safe, they do have negative side effects, maybe they have far more than we've ever thought, but that on balance vaccines for a population are safe and we have to spread the risk. So you're taking a risk and we expect you to do it just the way we expect you to be conscribed into an army when there's a war."

I don't think people who say "vaccines are safe" mean the second thing at all. This is an attempt make an unreasonable claim seem reasonable by couching it in a big picture philosophical framework that is true. Yes, the logic behind the lawful or reasonableness of vaccine mandates is an extension of the state police power as he describes. But no, this doesn't justify the hand-wavy description of vaccines as having "far more side effects than we've ever thought." That's a separate thing he presents without support or critique.

Even ignoring that, the argument itself isn't correct. Being conscripted into a war increases your personal risk of death while armies (in theory) reduce the aggregate societal risk. On the contrary, both in the aggregate and in the individual metric vaccines reduce risk. Simply put, people are not being asked to take a personal risk for societal benefit. They are being asked to lower their risk profile while simultaneously lowering collective risk. He didn't do some grand favor to society when he took a vaccine, it wasn't a personal sacrifice. Framing it like that and using that framing to paper over an assertion that public policymakers are "lying" about vaccine safety is just wrong.

On the flipside is this is actually an excellent argument against lockdowns. There you have individual burden at a mismatch for societal benefit (most of the downside on the young, most of the upside on the old). But not for vaccines. For vaccines they're well aligned. You could make a case that for a certain subset of the population - for example, potentially those at low risk for covid complications and a high risk for myocarditis - they're not well aligned. And this is precisely where you see some conversation going on. That's the area we should be focusing in on.

If you're going to say something like "there are concerns about the vaccines, its not wrong to be concerned about the vaccines" you need to bring evidence. Saying - correctly - that policymakers aren't trustworthy, or that the Federal government has no legal authority to mandate vaccinations, or that weaponizing OSHA is wrong, and so on, doesn't demonstrate that there is any reasonable, evidence-based, scientifically justifiable basis for being "concerned about the vaccines" or to be afraid (his words) that the vaccines aren't as safe as claimed.

There is a fairly small contingent of people around the DarkHose podcast that have done a huge disservice to this country by fomenting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about these vaccines. The part that is really egregious is that while doing so they have personally profited from tapping into the existing fear from the unknowns of the pandemic and have leveraged that into significantly increased celebrity and success. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone running a podcast which has sat at the top of the Apple podcast charts with millions of listeners is somehow unaware of the breadth of their influence.

Also - sorry for dismissing it out of hand. I should have listened instead of reacting to the title, and I was being a jerk. Apologies.

aggierogue

1:38p, 9/14/21

In reply to farmrag

farmrag said:
Your GP sounds kind of dumb.

I was floored when he asked me if Pfizer was an MRNA vaccine. I've also been seeing this guy for over 20 years, and he is well-respected by the community I live in (Austin area). I've generally really liked him, but it was just another reminder that doctors are just regular people like the rest of us. I find them often to be prescribers of medicine for things that they can easily diagnose. Not a dig at doctors, but I don't believe most of them have the time to stay up to date on research. I found that to be true even at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota when I visited one of their GI doctors who didn't believe in intestinal permeability.

KidDoc

1:49p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

This is why I focused on pediatrics and even that is daunting in the breadth and depth of knowledge we are expected to have mastered. Many FP's are not very adept or comfortable with infectious disease and vaccines as it is not the primary focus of many practices.

I do have serious safety concerns mostly around teens and the myocarditis issues with vaccines. In adults I don't have any significant safety concerns at all with these vaccines, aside from unknown duration of efficacy.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

aggierogue

1:49p, 9/14/21

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:
The "vaccines are riskier than claimed" argument he lays out is a poor one. He says that "vaccines are safe" is what you say when you really mean "vaccines aren't perfectly safe, they do have negative side effects, maybe they have far more than we've ever thought, but that on balance vaccines for a population are safe and we have to spread the risk. So you're taking a risk and we expect you to do it just the way we expect you to be conscribed into an army when there's a war."

I don't think people who say "vaccines are safe" mean the second thing at all. This is an attempt make an unreasonable claim seem reasonable by couching it in a big picture philosophical framework that is true. Yes, the logic behind the lawful or reasonableness of vaccine mandates is an extension of the state police power as he describes. But no, this doesn't justify the hand-wavy description of vaccines as having "far more side effects than we've ever thought." That's a separate thing he presents without support or critique.

Even ignoring that, the argument itself isn't correct. Being conscripted into a war increases your personal risk of death while armies (in theory) reduce the aggregate societal risk. On the contrary, both in the aggregate and in the individual metric vaccines reduce risk. Simply put, people are not being asked to take a personal risk for societal benefit. They are being asked to lower their risk profile while simultaneously lowering collective risk. He didn't do some grand favor to society when he took a vaccine, it wasn't a personal sacrifice. Framing it like that and using that framing to paper over an assertion that public policymakers are "lying" about vaccine safety is just wrong.

On the flipside is this is actually an excellent argument against lockdowns. There you have individual burden at a mismatch for societal benefit (most of the downside on the young, most of the upside on the old). But not for vaccines. For vaccines they're well aligned. You could make a case that for a certain subset of the population - for example, potentially those at low risk for covid complications and a high risk for myocarditis - they're not well aligned. And this is precisely where you see some conversation going on. That's the area we should be focusing in on.

If you're going to say something like "there are concerns about the vaccines, its not wrong to be concerned about the vaccines" you need to bring evidence. Saying - correctly - that policymakers aren't trustworthy, or that the Federal government has no legal authority to mandate vaccinations, or that weaponizing OSHA is wrong, and so on, doesn't demonstrate that there is any reasonable, evidence-based, scientifically justifiable basis for being "concerned about the vaccines" or to be afraid (his words) that the vaccines aren't as safe as claimed.

There is a fairly small contingent of people around the DarkHose podcast that have done a huge disservice to this country by fomenting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about these vaccines. The part that is really egregious is that while doing so they have personally profited from tapping into the existing fear from the unknowns of the pandemic and have leveraged that into significantly increased celebrity and success. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone running a podcast which has sat at the top of the Apple podcast charts with millions of listeners is somehow unaware of the breadth of their influence.

First, I appreciate that you gave it a listen if you're going to critique my post. It's much easier to have a reasonable discussion over the topic.

Personally, I think he makes some great points about the vaccine without taking either particular side. Throwing him and his brother in the same bag is disingenuous. It's pretty clear that he has differing opinions than his brother who has been pushing the Ivermectin argument. Do you think there is zero personal risk in getting vaccinated? I've seen plenty of data that would suggest that getting vaccinated could be at least a small risk.

As for Darkhorse, this is the information age we are living in. And I see both the benefits and problems that come with it. But there are plenty of truths being masked by MSM and are only exposed by other outlets.

aggierogue

1:56p, 9/14/21

In reply to KidDoc

KidDoc said:
This is why I focused on pediatrics and even that is daunting in the breadth and depth of knowledge we are expected to have mastered. Many FP's are not very adept or comfortable with infectious disease and vaccines as it is not the primary focus of many practices.

I do have serious safety concerns mostly around teens and the myocarditis issues with vaccines. In adults I don't have any significant safety concerns at all with these vaccines, aside from unknown duration of efficacy.

Thank you for the honestly, and I meant no disrespect to doctors in general. As stated, I was surprised when I brought up the topic of MRNA vaccines, and he only thought Moderna was MRNA. I would have thought many patients would have had similar questions. Guess not. He said he recognized many of the ingredients in the Pfizer vaccine and less in Moderna. That was why he suggested Pfizer to me if I were to get vaccinated in the near future.

He also stated that he thought cases were only going to rise as we enter the winter months.

Thanks for all you're doing to provide advice and help on this board.

Drip99

2:03p, 9/14/21

In reply to aggierogue

aggierogue said:
JesusQuintana said:
aggierogue said:
Zobel said:
I'll be honest, I'm not interesting in spending time listening to something titled "Eric Weinstein Thinks COVID-19 Vaccines Are Riskier Than Claimed." It's a clickbait title, and it's an undefeatable argument - what claim, and when, and by whom?

There's a mountain of published research available about these vaccines. When those are available, why should I care what Eric Weinstein thinks?
I know. You only like to listen to people who share your narrative. Not everyone shares your POV. I like to hear both sides.

spoiler alert, he points out why people don't trust Fauci, the MSM, or the government, and there are good reasons why.

The point of this thread was to give people like you some perspective on the other side and why people are hesitant to get this vaccine. But instead of listening to a different perspective, you want to police every thread that isn't pro-vax and say, "WHY AREN'T PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED?"
Why do people look to the MSM, random podcasts or the government for personal healthcare advice? What happened to visiting your doctor?
1. Many people do not regularly visit a doctor. Many don't even have what would be considered a GP or family practitioner. Not everyone has insurance and visits a doctor regularly.

2. I have already visited my GP, and is was not much of a roadmap on this issue. He was unvaccinated as of 3 weeks ago and may still be. His reasoning was that he already had Covid but was planning on probably getting the Pfizer vaccine in the near future. He didn't even know which of the two were MRNA vaccines. True story. But that's not surprising to me considering people put far more trust in doctors than they should imo. You could visit 5 different doctors and get 5 different opinions on many medical issues.

That's just a start, but I could go on and on about their general lack of knowledge on nutrition and diet.

Wait...your doctor does not know what 2 are MRNA? That seems like a red flag