Where do you go when you don't trust official data sources?

[10GaugeNeedles]

Been engaged in alot of discussion under the COVID heading. Got me thinking. I find myself not trusting published data. There's so much politicization of everything. The government agencies are simply not independent and they are the source of most information. They want compliance. Period. Why wouldn't they change the data to fit? They certainly could and they have before. They constantly put out demands and conflicting information over and over again. Masks are BS. They don't protect anything. they stop a cough. GREAT! But they push masks like they are vital to life. People are wearing their masks while jogging in the woods. seriously? What the foxtrot!!? 

I hear all colors of reports about anecdotal stories of people being hurt by the vaccines. Those stories don't even exist as far as official sources are concerned. Do I risk the vaccine hurting me or COVID hurting me? Neither is a good option. COVID is a crap shoot. but taking the vaccine is a conscious choice. People come out of COVID without a problem. people take the vaccine without a problem. Both sides are valid in my mind. but now they are forcing the vaccine by law. This isn't a clear situation. It's very muddy. vaccinated still get infected but the narrative is the vaccine is totally safe, effective, and mandatory and will save the world. How do we know the vaccine isn't driving mutation? If I can't trust the source, how the hell can I make an informed decision? The drug companies have a massive profit motive to avoid any bad press. did they really disclose all their data?

Every single positive case is counted as a case. Are vaccine injuries treated the same? How many people harmed by the vaccine are taken into account? There's no way to know. Positive case: Always assume regardless of symptoms. Vaccine injury claim: PROVE IT WITH AN AUTOPSY!! IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE VACCINE!! ITS PROBABLY SOMETHING ELSE!! HERE'S A REFERRAL NOW GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!! (Yes I'm being hyperbolic). Its a double standard and there's no way we can get a clear picture with a double standard like that. This whole thing is a mess. 

Does anyone else feel like they have found an unbiased source of information that someone who doesn't trust CDC, FDA, government bodies can turn to to make an informed decision? I'm tired of all the fighting and politicization. I just want unbiased information. If you are like me, what did you do to get a clear picture of this mess and come to a conclusion about vax vs avoid? I'm seriously frustrated. I don't want to add to the problem. But I also don't want to get vaccination injury which can be just as bad as anything I can get from (yes liberals, vaccine injury happens. deal with it). Sigh....tired. I hope this makes sense. Does anyone else feel like this? I hope I'm not the only one. 

[JKL33]

Personally I prefer to read discussions in places primarily frequented by mainline physicians--not as my sole or first place to gather info, but to take note of the sentiments being expressed in response to the situation, the anecdotal reports of what is going on around the country (which helps confirm main news sources) and the published research and the statements coming from official sources.

They don't tend to freak out and immediately attack inquiry unless it is clearly nefarious/disingenuous. They don't seem to shy away from questions solely due to optics. The questions asked are usually intelligent and reasonable and even if they represent a mistake in thinking this is pointed out in a straightforward and neutral manner. They seem to realize that things can be discussed without injecting belittlement and snark into every single point of discussion.

On 8/27/2021 at 8:50 AM, SansNom said:

It's much harder for an organization like the CDC to get away with flat out lying about information

I agree. But....that hasn't stopped them from making some very bad choices. I'm especially thinking of some of their PPE recommendations. They essentially gave healthcare organizations carte blanche to put every healthcare worker at GRAVE risk with impunity -- and they surely knew that would ensue at the time they gave the recommendations. Along with knowing in real time that (some of) their specific recommendations were not scientific.

Nevertheless they are still a go-to source of information for me personally. I just also happen to think that few sources of information are bias-free and that there is nothing wrong with evaluating every single bit of information with this in mind.

On 8/27/2021 at 2:58 AM, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I hear all colors of reports about anecdotal stories of people being hurt by the vaccines. Those stories don't even exist as far as official sources are concerned.

In order to process anecdotal reports you need to have a very good understanding of lay-person human nature as it relates to healthcare. Think of the innumerable instances of people insisting that they must have z-pak for their cold/viral illness, for example. They think the z-pak made them better, even though they improved in the time-frame they would be expected to improve without z-pak. Or, as a second example, how many, many times have we as nurses bemoaned patients' allergy lists which have historically been full of notations that do not represent allergic reaction? Surely you have first-hand knowledge of the pitfalls of anecdotes.

People don't have a medical education. They do not need to form differential diagnoses and the come to a logical conclusion testing their personal hypotheses. Instead they rely on superficial aspects of what they think they know. And, well...that being the case they frequently and routinely mistake correlation for causation.

Regardless, there is, just the same, an official repository of people's vaccine-related anecdotes and reports. VAERS. So your belief that there is no record of such is mistaken. Reports are collected despite their pitfalls so that researchers can work with that data set and gain insights that may be important. In that regard no one is trying to suppress people's free reports of things that happened to them following vaccination.

It should be noted, though, that VAERS reports are just that: Things that happened sometime after someone was vaccinated. The raw reports should not be taken as more than that.

I think you can process legitimate covid-related information. I know it is becoming tiresome and burdensome to sift through it all, but I'll bet that I haven't written anything here that you really disagree with. You know what is right.

Lots of people are tired of arguing, we're tired of trying to convince people, we're tired of the talking heads, were tired of the vitriol and hateful fighting, etc., etc., etc. But it's still crucial that you do not get bogged down with it.

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

On 8/27/2021 at 6:12 PM, JKL33 said:

Personally I prefer to read discussions in places primarily frequented by mainline physicians--not as my sole or first place to gather info, but to take note of the sentiments being expressed in response to the situation, the anecdotal reports of what is going on around the country (which helps confirm main news sources) and the published research and the statements coming from official sources.

They don't tend to freak out and immediately attack inquiry unless it is clearly nefarious/disingenuous. They don't seem to shy away from questions solely due to optics. The questions asked are usually intelligent and reasonable and even if they represent a mistake in thinking this is pointed out in a straightforward and neutral manner. They seem to realize that things can be discussed without injecting belittlement and snark into every single point of discussion.

I agree. But....that hasn't stopped them from making some very bad choices. I'm especially thinking of some of their PPE recommendations. They essentially gave healthcare organizations carte blanche to put every healthcare worker at GRAVE risk with impunity -- and they surely knew that would ensue at the time they gave the recommendations. Along with knowing in real time that (some of) their specific recommendations were not scientific.

Nevertheless they are still a go-to source of information for me personally. I just also happen to think that few sources of information are bias-free and that there is nothing wrong with evaluating every single bit of information with this in mind.

In order to process anecdotal reports you need to have a very good understanding of lay-person human nature as it relates to healthcare. Think of the innumerable instances of people insisting that they must have z-pak for their cold/viral illness, for example. They think the z-pak made them better, even though they improved in the time-frame they would be expected to improve without z-pak. Or, as a second example, how many, many times have we as nurses bemoaned patients' allergy lists which have historically been full of notations that do not represent allergic reaction? Surely you have first-hand knowledge of the pitfalls of anecdotes.

People don't have a medical education. They do not need to form differential diagnoses and the come to a logical conclusion through testing and gathering further information about themselves. Instead they rely on superficial aspects of what they think they know. And, well...that being the case they frequently and routinely mistake correlation for causation.

Regardless, there is, just the same, an official repository of people's vaccine-related anecdotes and reports. VAERS. So your belief that there is no record of such is mistaken. Reports are collected despite their pitfalls so that researchers can work with that data set and gain insights that may be important. In that regard no one is trying to suppress people's free reports of things that happened to them following vaccination.

It should be noted, though, that VAERS reports are just that: Things that happened sometime after someone was vaccinated. The raw reports should not be taken as more than that.

I think you can process legitimate covid-related information. I know it is becoming tiresome and burdensome to sift through it all, but I'll bet that I haven't written anything here that you really disagree with. You know what is right.

Lots of people are tired of arguing, we're tired of trying to convince people, we're tired of the talking heads, were tired of the vitriol and hateful fighting, etc., etc., etc. But it's still crucial that you do not get bogged down with it.

This was an excellent comment imo. You're right, I can't disagree with anything you said. I hadn't thought of physician message boards. I didn't know those existed. You know any?

A thing about the VAERS data. I've checked summary statements published by CDC. Every time I bring it up it's discounted immediately as entirely invalid. I'm sure it's not reliable compared to other sources but, I have yet to see anything else concerning vaccine injury (nothing that can't easily be questioned as potentially manipulated anyway). I don't take VAERS as gospel but, at least if the CDC itself reports the numbers, one should be able to expect some level of credibility, however small.

In any case I'm finding studies that infection meditated immunity appears to be fairly robust. Separate from the vaccine debate, I hope that spells good news for this pandemic as a whole. 

[toomuchbaloney]

On 8/27/2021 at 6:30 PM, 10GaugeNeedles said:

In any case I'm finding studies that infection meditated immunity appears to be fairly robust. Separate from the vaccine debate, I hope that spells good news for this pandemic as a whole. 

What are the odds, that an unvaccinated person who is infected will be sick enough to be hospitalized, experience long term disability or death before they achieve that immunity? How does that illness affect our communities and hospitals? Do you think that all of these Americans currently infected represent good news? 

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

21 hours ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

This was an excellent comment imo. You're right, I can't disagree with anything you said. I hadn't thought of physician message boards. I didn't know those existed. You know any?

A thing about the VAERS data. I've checked summary statements published by CDC. Every time I bring it up it's discounted immediately as entirely invalid. I'm sure it's not reliable compared to other sources but, I have yet to see anything else concerning vaccine injury (nothing that can't easily be questioned as potentially manipulated anyway). I don't take VAERS as gospel but, at least if the CDC itself reports the numbers, one should be able to expect some level of credibility, however small.

In any case I'm finding studies that infection meditated immunity appears to be fairly robust. Separate from the vaccine debate, I hope that spells good news for this pandemic as a whole. 

The utility of VAERS is in its ability to bring to the attention of researchers potential problems. When patterns are detected, it creates the impetus to further scrutinize a given vaccine for these reported adverse effects using the scientific method. That's it. It is completely inappropriate for any educated healthcare professional to make statements of cause and effect based on VAERS reports. The VAERS web site itself makes this case very strongly-it states outright that one cannot make any conclusions about cause and effect or rates of occurrence of specific adverse effects. There is absolutely no way to determine if a vaccine caused a specific effect using VAERS data. That is determined by scientific studies. 

And yet, people claiming to be nurses or other healthcare professionals on this forum misuse the VAERS data every single day as if they are citing a properly conducted scientific research study with a very large representative sample that has lived up to peer scrutiny and has been replicated in other scientific studies.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

Serious question--where is all the V-Safe data being compiled and analyzed? I haven't seen any reports on this, and I believe this has been in use since at least January. 

[toomuchbaloney]

16 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

Serious question--where is all the V-Safe data being compiled and analyzed? I haven't seen any reports on this, and I believe this has been in use since at least January. 

The CDC.

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2021/02/19/mmwr-02-19-21

Quote

The v-safe system enrolled 1,602,065 vaccine recipients (median age 46; range 16 to 110 years) who completed at least one smartphone-based web survey. Injection site pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia and chills were the most frequently reported local and systemic reactions for first doses of either vaccine. Reactions were more frequently reported the day after vaccination, and reactions were more frequently reported after the second Pfizer dose than the first.

There were 1,106,656 women enrolled in v-safe; 10,825 (0.68%) of female enrollees reported that they were pregnant at the time of vaccination. “V-safe will be able to provide information on vaccination during pregnancy through follow-up in the v-safe pregnancy registry,” authors wrote.

At a COVID-19 Response Team briefing today, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, M.D., M.P.H., said she anticipates additional reports by CDC researchers on COVID-19 safety monitoring data, adding that the vaccine safety monitoring system in place is the most comprehensive in U.S. history.

 

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

22 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

What are the odds, that an unvaccinated person who is infected will be sick enough to be hospitalized, experience long term disability or death before they achieve that immunity? How does that illness affect our communities and hospitals? Do you think that all of these Americans currently infected represent good news? 

I guess you'd prefer those previously infected to have no protection? What is your point? I don't care about your view on vaccines. That's your opinion. I'm entitled to my own. Regardless, It is still good news that natural immunity seems to provide robust protection. What don't you get about that?

[JKL33]

33 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

Serious question--where is all the V-Safe data being compiled and analyzed? I haven't seen any reports on this, and I believe this has been in use since at least January. 

https://www.CDC.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/V-safe-Protocol-508.pdf

[toomuchbaloney]

7 minutes ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

I guess you'd prefer those previously infected to have no protection? What is your point? I don't care about your view on vaccines. That's your opinion. I'm entitled to my own. Regardless, It is still good news that natural immunity seems to provide robust protection. What don't you get about that?

What I don't get is that the gamble on natural immunity after infection has a much much higher cost in terms of human suffering, death, stress on the health system and economy.  We are currently living the reality that lots and lots more people are going to suffer and die if our population remains unvaccinated to this degree. This is a crisis, a national public health emergency that will not get better until enough people are vaccinated to bring hospitalizations down to a manageable level across the country. 

What don't you get about that?

[10GaugeNeedles, BSN]

Heres an example of what I've been hearing about:https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/woman-suffers-life-altering-injuries-after-covid-vaccine-teams-up-with-utah-senator-to-demand-answers/

We love to focus on population data. It has its place. But if people like this woman are numerous and ignored in that data, how can we say the risk is as low as they say? Now they say there's no link to neuro damage. People say "lay person no know." That's like us deciding a person's pain complaint is invalid. Pain is supposed to be what the pt says it is right? Do we know vaccine injuries numbers are inclusive and accurate? What criteria is it decided that a person complaining of sudden, new, and severe neurologic symptoms after vaccination excluded from the count?

Anecdote is one case, can't extrapolate. But many anecdotes collectively is what a trend is made of. How many anecdotes are being ignored? How many anecdotes does it take to consider The possibility that we don't know the actual vaccine injury risk?

[emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B]

23 hours ago, 10GaugeNeedles said:

This was an excellent comment imo. You're right, I can't disagree with anything you said. I hadn't thought of physician message boards. I didn't know those existed. You know any?

I belong to & follow the emergency nurse’s association & the society of critical care medicine forums. These are members only, you log in with your real name so no hiding behind an anonymous handle.

And guess how many discussions exist that question the efficacy of the vaccine and/or whether or not to get vaccinated? Yep, none. There is a lot of hard science tho……

Check this one out - student doctors forum. Not a while lot of anti-vax hysteria but they do note how many nurses are anti-vax. https://forums.studentdoctor.net/forums/-/list

[toomuchbaloney]

Concern and fear based upon "what if" musings while ignoring the evidence and expert recommendation to the contrary is not really the territory of evidenced based practice or critical thought.