Having had a scientific education myself, I really dislike this 'dyor' mantra that is going around. As it presupposes you should not trust the research (the real, peer-reviewed scientific research) done by people who actually know what they are talking about.
one thing i discovered when "doing my own research" on covid was that i actually knew jack shit about it. i have no degree in virology or epidemiology and such.
so i trust people who do have some expertise in the medical field. and those are MDs that i worked with and MDs that i entrust my care to (about a dozen). all recommended the vaccine and have taken it themselves.
I agree with these sentiments a lot. I haven't dedicated years of my to the study of medicine, virology and epidemiology, and most of the public haven't either. This leads a lot of people to believe in lots of conspiracy theories from dubious and unreliable sources, rather than from trusted and peer-reviewed. From misinterpreting biology to misrepresenting various statistical data, alas it leads to the spread of a lot of misinformation. I therefore realise this isn't a case of "don't trust, verify", because it becomes almost impossible to verify information provided without in-depth experience in numerous fields. Personally I've been waiting patiently for the results to come in from this vaccine roll-out, in order to be peer-reviewed by third-party experts in these fields. Numerous experts have now raised their serious concerns over various practices taken place, somewhat as anticipated given how quickly this vaccine was approved.
It's therefore no surprise there are numerous sceptical doctors and scientists out there who are "vaccine hesitant" as they say, because they are the exact people who are able to verify, in order to trust, but haven't been able to verify many claims currently circulated. As some of you may know, the
British Medical Journal have published their peer-reviewed concerns of data integrity issues based on a variety of evidence provided, that the FDA ignored. For anyone unfamiliar with the world of medicine, especially in the UK, the BMJ is the world's oldest general medical journals, and widely well-respected. It'd be a lie to say they aren't biased, as it's published by the British Medical Association (BMA) trade union, therefore the current mandates on NHS staff should be taken into consideration here. Simply put, it's similar to the CDC having a bias for being government based, being it's a national public healthy agency of the US, so far from independent.
What's even more concerning here, is Facebook claimed
"Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people." regarding this article being shared. Like, seriously? A social media platform that's been around for 20 years are suddenly medical and trial experts, compared to the BMJ that have been around for 150 years researching and publishing these topics? Have Facebook been given copies of the evidence provided to BMJ, if not, how would they be able to know that the information provided is untrue? The
BMJ even wrote to Facebook claiming
"We find the "fact check" performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.". For me this is terrifying, the fact that peer-reviewed information published by a leading scientific journal is being censored by social media giants, with little no so scientific reasoning or experience no doubt.
This clearly means that
if there were serious risks of the vaccine, either past or present, they'd almost certainly be censored. Note how also mainstream media completely failed to report these concerns to the public, who clearly deserve to know, no doubt because it would increase "vaccine hesitancy", even if in reality it help would to explain this hesitancy within the medical community much better, by a vaccinated expert ironically. Apparently, we can't even trust these experts anymore. This obviously isn't the first time peer-reviewed science by experts published in a respected medical journal has been treated as "misinformation" by the media either, it's worth noting. This low toleration towards independent media, especially by experts, is unfortunately one of the terrifying traits of a dictatorship. I therefore refuse to trust social media and mainstream media to be the scientific experts, overriding the importance of peer-reviewed science, especially from third-party, well-respected and independent sources.
Personally, I'll continue to trust the experts. Ignore the conspiracy theories and poorly sourced articles, stick with the independent peer-reviewed medical journals, as well as leading experts in these fields. I'd love for any pro-vaxxers to tell me, from their non-expert scientific background, exactly why and how these types of experts are wrong here. To demand transparency for peer review, as well as reporting on evidence of poor data integrity. I guess to some it may seem like BMJ are trying to "stir shit up" as they say, but in reality they have a duty of care, with little to nothing to gain, unlike social media or mainstream media. If there are legitimate concerns of poor medical practices based on sufficient evidence, they have a duty to report them. Fortunately enough doctors, many of whom are vaccinated, are beginning to shed light on these data integrity issues. Because they can't be ignored now they have been brought to light.
Then there is the case of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) withholding the Pfizer vaccine safety data (post roll-out) after an FOI request by a
Public Health and Medical Professionals transparency group, claiming it would take 55 years to release the data for peer review. Fortunately a Judge overruled that, and the first 3 months of data (December 2020 to February 2021) was released, 7 months after submitting the FOI, then leaked as there is a legal disclaimer about it not being revealed to the public. Despite regarding public safety ironically. Notably the FDA themselves rejected Pfizer's first submission, as the cumulative analysis was non-existent and the subsequent submission
wasn't that much better either (lack of a better source for now). It shouldn't even be an issue demanding transparency from Pfizer and the FDA, after all the vaccine is perfectly safe right, so what do they have to hide? Turns out, more than enough.
I've read and analysed enough studies to know that when there is no "total numbers" to compare data with, it makes it a piss poor study. This is one area of statistics that you don't need to be an expert at. Ie out of 1200+ deaths
(Pfizer's own numbers, no conspiracy) from this period post vaccine, it's impossible to know how many people you'd expect to die during that period, regardless of taking the vaccine, in order to know if the deaths could be related or not. The 3:1 ratio of cases regarding females vs males also requires some explanation, up to 4:1 for certain side effects, despite Pfizer considering it irrelevant. The median risk is now confirmed as 31-50
(again Pfizer's own numbers), which as someone in this age bracket naturally makes the vaccine less appealing, for obvious risk reasons. I had also naively believed that Pfizer was engaging in active data collection, at least during the initial roll-out of the vaccine, but alas it was only passive, again reducing the reliability of this study.
No doubt it'll take many more months for this data to be analysed in-depth by experts in field, as well as for more of these safety reports to be released, hopefully not 55 years. Ideally I'd like to take this vaccine with a year or two, not sure I'll make it to 2076 before this data finally get's the peer-review it deserves. Ideally there will be less missing information declared in future safety reports released. I'm otherwise not surprised the FDA tried to withhold this information to the public, given the liability they could face for approving a vaccine without good enough data analysis. Unlike Pfizer, as they are already immune from this legally speaking. For many pro-vaxxers this report was a real setback it seems, the transparency group is a good mix of those wanting proof of safety, while others are looking for proof of danger. Unfortunately, it hasn't settled many debates, and only generated further cause for concern it seems.
For now I remain pro-vaxxer as well as pro-choice. Everyone should have the opportunity to take this vaccine, especially those who are at high risk. But people should be aware of the risks, even if they are minimal, or extremely low, as well as data integrity issues. Knowing that the practices of the Pfizer trial were piss-poor (as experts in this field have reported), and the safety data during the roll-out doesn't look much better, personally I'm struggling to see enough evidence that this vaccine is safe or not. I'll remain open-minded, follow the experts, as well as consider their bias'. Many people, such as myself, simply want transparency surrounding this vaccine and it's data, and so far, this hasn't been possible to gain.