New‐onset autoimmune phenomena post‐Covid‐19 vaccination

If you read the paper it discusses causal mechanisms extensively. Reality is you can't get a paper about vaccine side effects out, or keep it out, unless you grovel in the intro and state that vaccines are wonderful, safe and everyone should take them. Skip the obligatory morality disclaimer at the start and you'll see lots of case studies where causality is obvious, along with discussions of how it works, e.g.

"A 67-year-old patient from Hispanic had petechial rashes on her legs and chest 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech). Then, she received the second dose of the vaccine two days prior to developed bleeding in her gums, a rapid rash covering her body and a subconjunctival haemorrhage in the right eye"

...

"There are several putative mechanisms by which COVID-19 vaccine triggers immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (ITT). First, Greinacher and colleagues considered that COVID-19 vaccination causes a rare ITT mediated by activation of antibodies against PF4 that stimulate platelets through their Fcγ receptors"

...

"First, an interval of 1–3 weeks between vaccination and the onset of symptoms supports a temporary causal relationship"

...

"For instance, a 30-year-old man, without family history of kidney disease, developed fevers, headache and brown-coloured urine, coupled with new-onset haematuria and proteinuria 1 day after vaccination, eventually diagnosed with IgA nephropathy"

Surely we can deduce whether there are meaningful numbers of serious side effects by looking at past years in population data - especially in populations that have high vaccination rates. If rates have increased markedly, then there's obviously something to investigate. But as noted elsewhere, the rates seem to be 'in line' with pre-vaccine rates for a fair few side effects in a given population. They just get more press now because of the focus on health issues in the media and the hysteria around "vaccine injuries"

You'll get no argument from me that reporting standards leave a bit to be desired. The trials are the trials - they could be improved, sure - but side effect reporting didn't end with trials. Plenty of governments kept tabs on side effects post vaccine once they were being widely administered

If you would of made this comment in the 70's or 80's you would have been called a commie bastard. You manage in just two sentences to conflate 3 different notions into one single "bad thing ™": science, capitalism and democracy.

Democracy does not equal/result in/require/corelate with/mean the same as/etc. capitalism. Before Marx, the very vast majority of non-democratic regimes have been capitalist.

There is no such thing as "the science" to people engaged in doing science. "The science" is only a concept for people who stay away from scientific pursuit. There is a thing called scientific consensus that means the collection of knowledge scientists widely agree best describes reality at a given moment in time.

The scientific consensus is not controlled by commercial interests for many reasons. Among those reasons here are just two: plenty of science is publicly funded and the scientific consensus is global therefore being beyond the capabilities of any single entity to direct. Individual scientists may be biased, but that bias is not coherent in the population of scientists.

In the case of Covid vaccines, even if "the science" was controlled by commercial interests, that would still not result in a conspiracy. There are 20+ vaccines and each manufacturers commercial interest would be to discredit competitors and sell more of their own.

The scientific consensus is pro-vaccine because vaccines have been prooven repeatedly in the past 100+ years to result in higher quality and longer duration of life. There is no consensus on which vaccine is better (for various definitions of better). But there is consensus that covid vaccines are the best tools humanity has for the foreseeable future to fight against the pandemic. And there is consensus that they are orders of magnitude safer than the disease.

Also, there is no blind single mindedness. The very reason you know about all of the side effects that have surfaced so far is because science was done. If "the science" was controlled, the featured article would not exist. We have known about the existence of side effects of vaccines since the start. Side effects were predicted and expected since before the vaccines existed, because all medication has side effects. They have been measured, and continue to be measured. This study is just one step on our quest to ever more precisely measure those side effects. So, yes, the impact of the side effects has been sufficiently determined to conclude that at the very least vaccination against covid is orders of magnitude safer than the risk of covid itself.

The the confusion you display by corelating such different notions in your comment, shows you have bought a narrative peddled by some grifters, hook, line and sinker. The same as all the people deceived to believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Be sincere with yourself and admit that, at this point in time, the only studies you will consider unbiased are those that will confirm your own bias, namely that you consider the side effects of covid vaccines to be too risky.

> You are weaseling out.

Thanks for telling me what I meant. But I did not mean that, and the square quotes were intentional. It’s a way of speaking that’s quite widely accepted, and referring to a phenomenon rather than individuals. Surely this is not new to you? Like when someone criticises an authority’s decision, the blame is on the decision makers, not the line workers.

Not much to respond to the rest of your comment - I wasn’t telling people to not get the vaccine, and I’m fully vaccinated myself. I’m emphasising the value of skepticism and questioning authority. Cheers!

What are you talking about? You consider "the science" to be e phenomenon? What does that even mean?

Also, plenty of people who are (voluntarily or involuntarily) spreading FUD are not directly telling others to do or not do something. They are just asking questions. And keep asking the same questions even after they have received answers repeatedly. It is still spreading FUD.

Skepticism and questioning authority is good, spreading FUD is not.