Valid Reasons To Not Get Vaccinated

Updated:   Published

how-effective-covid-vaccines.jpg.96ffa92aaf7f3699ea2c91d50c4cb9c2.jpg

Whether you're in support of the COVID vaccine, against it,  or on the fence please use this particular thread to cite credible, evidence-based sources to share with everyone so we can engage in a discussion that revolves around LEARNING.  

I'll start:

The primary concerns I've shared with others have to do with how effective the vaccine is for those who have already been infected.  I've reviewed studies and reports in that regard.  There are medical professionals I've listened to that, in my personal opinion,  don't offer a definitive answer. 

Here are some links to 2 different, I'll start with just 2:

Cleveland Clinic Statement on Previous COVID-19 Infection Research

Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021

Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
10 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I'm not sure where you got the idea I agree with the autism hypothesis. I never implied that. My point was it took such a longtime for any link to be established (which interestingly was found to not be conclusive). I wasn't citing a study. I'm aware of that. I was citing an interesting quote. I'm not writing a research paper here. This is a message forum. My point remains. We don't know if a vaccine is safe for a very long time (you may have missed my original post). This is a valid concern for a new vaccine. The evidence is mainly how long it took to even determine a potential link. Just cause it's not a published peer reviewed article on a specific journal doesn't mean it's invalid. I mean do you always dismiss everything unless it's peer reviewed? Are you familiar with that peer reviewed article about hydroxychloroquin published in the lancet a few years back? They shut down major studies because it was peer reviewed. And it was found to be bunk. But I will admit I didn't go very deep into it. And I'll take that criticism. It wasn't supposed to be exhaustive. This is a message board. 

You cited the above as “evidence against vaccination”. There was/is no link between autism and vaccination so to say your point was/is that “it took a long time for a link to be established” makes zero sense. 
 

If your point is that “we don’t know is a vaccine is safe for a very long time” please cite any study that demonstrates a major adverse effect of vaccination that presents years (or even months) after vaccination in the entire history of vaccination. Or even a plausible hypothesis on how this might happen?

A stated position doesn’t need to be peer-reviewed  to be valid but it needs to have valid evidence to support it before we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it is valid. This is the most basic tenant of the scientific process. Peer review is the golF standard in validating scientific evidence, but it is not perfect and it does often assume the authors professional credibility/ethics. The recent study on ivermectin and Covid proved that (a medical student discovered that the data was fabricated).

This is a message board and not a scientific journal, but by making statements and citing what appears to be a scientific journal article, you are participating in dissemination of misinformation.

In frankness, I don’t think you truly understood that what you were citing was not “evidence” and that’s OK. If you knew that and it it anyways, that’s a concern. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Adult Internal Medicine.
28 minutes ago, subee said:

Doesn't this article scream crazy?  Some way submitted an article years back on "cello scrotum" and it got printed as a serious piece.  

Not an article and was not printed. It is just an online response to a legitimate article. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
8 minutes ago, BostonFNP said:

You cited the above as “evidence against vaccination”. There was/is no link between autism and vaccination so to say your point was/is that “it took a long time for a link to be established” makes zero sense. 
 

If your point is that “we don’t know is a vaccine is safe for a very long time” please cite any study that demonstrates a major adverse effect of vaccination that presents years (or even months) after vaccination in the entire history of vaccination. Or even a plausible hypothesis on how this might happen?

A stated position doesn’t need to be peer-reviewed  to be valid but it needs to have valid evidence to support it before we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it is valid. This is the most basic tenant of the scientific process. Peer review is the golF standard in validating scientific evidence, but it is not perfect and it does often assume the authors professional credibility/ethics. The recent study on ivermectin and Covid proved that (a medical student discovered that the data was fabricated).

This is a message board and not a scientific journal, but by making statements and citing what appears to be a scientific journal article, you are participating in dissemination of misinformation.

In frankness, I don’t think you truly understood that what you were citing was not “evidence” and that’s OK. If you knew that and it it anyways, that’s a concern. 

Your frankness is well received, you do make good points. You're correct I didn't go deep into the....article? Letter? Whatever it is. LOL. My commentary on it (not the source itself) in my original post highlighted how long it took to find a link (again, I now realize the link was subsequently found to be non conclusive) and I felt the point of how long it takes to discover actual safety data is a valid concern. I still consider this a valid concern but thinking back, I didn't find what I thought was legitimate evidence. 

I think I was too eager to throw it in there before giving it due diligence as it seemed to be legitimate. My mistake and I appreciate your looking into it.

Ugh! I hate being wrong. But I was. You are completely right. Thanks for being gentle! ?

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
42 minutes ago, SmilingBluEyes said:

We don't need to fight. An intelligent and respectful discourse should always be the goal. Emotions get in the way of that. And the same may be said of you. I believe YOU are your own worst enemy.

Have a good night/day!

I totally agree with you. I AM my own enemy sometimes!? You have a good night as well.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
On 8/24/2021 at 7:16 AM, Horseshoe said:

Your understanding of vaccines is wrong. The PRIMARY purpose of vaccines is to save lives. Secondary is to reduce morbidity. "Oh it's just a  mild case" IS acceptable. That's why we don't develop vaccines for mild illnesses like the common cold. 

Check this out:

https://patents.Google.com/patent/US7151163B2/en?oq=7151163

I sure was hoping people would talk more about the process of patents on isolated virus 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
31 minutes ago, jive turkey said:

Check this out:

https://patents.Google.com/patent/US7151163B2/en?oq=7151163

I sure was hoping people would talk more about the process of patents on isolated virus 

Gee. Why didn't you start a thread about that instead of reasons to remain unvaccinated? There's still time. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×

Just wondering if you saw someone willing to hurt themself really badly, would you conclude that this is a good person to trust with your own life? 

I see antivaxxers in the same light! 

I absolutely don't trust anyone who's willing to cut their nose to spite their face! 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

Did you hear about the nutrition and fitness guru who got really sick with covid? He said that he had an infection with covid in January 2020.

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/08/24/broncos-fitness-nutrition-coach-bill-phillips-covid-vaccination/

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in A variety.
4 hours ago, BostonFNP said:

If your point is that “we don’t know is a vaccine is safe for a very long time” please cite any study that demonstrates a major adverse effect of vaccination that presents years (or even months) after vaccination in the entire history of vaccination. Or even a plausible hypothesis on how this might happen?

A

@BostonFNP

@10GaugeNeedles

These speak to the discussion you two were having

https://www.CDC.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

https://www.ajmc.com/view/review-of-20-years-of-data-concludes-vaccines-are-remarkably-safe

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
10 hours ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I'm not sure where you got the idea I agree with the autism hypothesis. I never implied that. My point was it took such a longtime for any link to be established (which interestingly was found to not be conclusive). I wasn't citing a study. I'm aware of that. I was citing an interesting quote. I'm not writing a research paper here. This is a message forum. My point remains. We don't know if a vaccine is safe for a very long time (you may have missed my original post). This is a valid concern for a new vaccine. The evidence is mainly how long it took to even determine a potential link. Just cause it's not a published peer reviewed article on a specific journal doesn't mean it's invalid. I mean do you always dismiss everything unless it's peer reviewed? Are you familiar with that peer reviewed article about hydroxychloroquin published in the lancet a few years back? They shut down major studies because it was peer reviewed. And it was found to be bunk. But I will admit I didn't go very deep into it. And I'll take that criticism. It wasn't supposed to be exhaustive. This is a message board. 

Spreading random lies from a message board doesn't seem like a productive use of time.  The internet doesn't make truth seeking easy.  I have had the advantage of 6 grad credits in research while most folks here haven't been so lucky (or ambitious, I'm not sure which).  Now I believe that the BMJ is a reliable collection of studies but didn't this just sound like crazy talk to you and not worthy of a scientific publication like the BMJ?  If you aren't sure, you have to actually research the source these days because open sources (like the one you quoted) attract every loon who has time to spread lunacy.  Question everything.  Be very skeptical that anything you are reading is true and proceed from there.  Reading research isn't easy and there are experts whose specialty is research methadology just because it is so darn hard.  One article proving a point is ALWAYS meaningless and that's a good rule to keep in mind.  Sometimes we just have to sit on our hands and wait for further confirmative studies and bite our tongues.  No one knows yet is a perfectly legitimate conclusion:)

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Acute Dialysis.
1 minute ago, subee said:

Spreading random lies from a message board doesn't seem like a productive use of time.  The internet doesn't make truth seeking easy.  I have had the advantage of 6 grad credits in research while most folks here haven't been so lucky (or ambitious, I'm not sure which).  Now I believe that the BMJ is a reliable collection of studies but didn't this just sound like crazy talk to you and not worthy of a scientific publication like the BMJ?  If you aren't sure, you have to actually research the source these days because open sources (like the one you quoted) attract every loon who has time to spread lunacy.  Question everything.  Be very skeptical that anything you are reading is true and proceed from there.  Reading research isn't easy and there are experts whose specialty is research methadology just because it is so darn hard.  One article proving a point is ALWAYS meaningless and that's a good rule to keep in mind.  Sometimes we just have to sit on our hands and wait for further confirmative studies and bite our tongues.  No one knows yet is a perfectly legitimate conclusion:)

God you are so right. How embarrassing. I got corrected HARD earlier. I was all wrapped up in "internet debate mode", throwing punches, ya know...then I read, "hey dude, your source really, really sucks". I go back and look and I'm like, "....oh..... Damn....." Yeah, it really did suck. Definitely a lesson for me to tone down the self confidence a little bit. 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
1 minute ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

God you are so right. How embarrassing. I got corrected HARD earlier. I was all wrapped up in "internet debate mode", throwing punches, ya know...then I read, "hey dude, your source really, really sucks". I go back and look and I'm like, "....oh..... Damn....." Yeah, it really did suck. Definitely a lesson for me to tone down the self confidence a little bit. 

And I TRY to tone down mine.! I think I'll just delete the thread and spend more time finishing a sweater I'm knitting:)  Hey, keep joining in and you will learn a lot about how to argue.  I'm Jewish so it just comes naturally and I've had a long lifetime of training:)  Can't escape it an any family gathering.  Stay here and enjoy while I retire that sweater.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion