Injecting code that causes all of your cells to mass produce spike protines to train your body to fight the spike proteins that your cells are producing just seems really questionable and the VAERS db seems to support my skepticism.

When I started reading the details of how this vaccine worked from the pro-mrna sites, my engineer side started ringing alarm bells and noped right out of it.

When google and others started silencing alternative viewpoints and major govt related employers mandated it, I dusted off my tinfoil hat.

They should have just let the information be free (bad or good) and not pushed so hard. Now they have created distrust.

Not to throw ad hominem back at the above poster, which I'm of course doing, but I have hard time trusting ability to understand information and do correct deductions from said information by anyone calling others "an idiot". Now I'm not saying that they are "idiot" themselves, which I don't think they are, but it's revealing in my view how the ways they reach any conclusions in life may be flawed.

Here's few thoughts:

1. Single decision like this in such a short timeframe of these vaccines being available does not make or imply anyone to be an idiot. You have no clue about their circumstances someone may be in or what they've seen.

2. Medication/vaccines have trade-offs, even if these are 10,000,000:1 ratio.

3. I believe current studies show vaccines have a lot more potential downsides than mainstream media is letting on. Which makes it hard to trust anything mainstream media is saying right now.

4. While anecdotal reports are not scientific evidence, they are definitely cause for alarm at present time. Looking at VAERS and similar European adverse reporting sites, I don't think there can be a good explanation why the reports are so high compared to other vaccines, except the fact that these vaccines are actually causing so many issues.

5. Above poster doesn't know your age, gender, existing conditions, allergy risks, behaviour - maybe you live alone and never go outside, etc.

6. Despite whatever anyone likes to repeated, that mRNA tech has been studied for decades, which I don't even necessarily think is the issue here, the spike protein might be the issue here for instance, we don't know what the long term issues are, e.g. recent study showing that it may impair DNA repairs. There's so many hints everywhere, and we haven't had time to investigate all of this.

7. Despite what people like to claim, it is possible to avoid Covid19 by staying inside, and make chances of getting it reasonably low, 1% per year possibly, if you can work from home and order everything in. Only see family when infections in you area are really low. In this case you are also doing more for your society than an average vaccinated person, since your R is definitely below 1. If everyone behaved like you without vaccines, the virus would die out.

8. More and more data coming out about adverse effects and wading efficacy.

9. Issues with Pfizer trials, and trial participants with adverse effects being excluded, gaslighted etc.

10. If you do get vaccine damage, there's no compensation and you might just get gaslighted like has happened to thousands of people. In fact to my knowledge at least 6 people committed suicide because they had vaccine injuries and nobody believed them.

Vaccinations are generally a public health benefit, no doubt about it, but there's also much we don't understand about how the immune system works. It's not completely, entirely, 100% irrational to desire to avoid messing with something you don't fully understand. The more science you learn, sometimes, the more you learn how little we really know and understand about the complexities of our own bodies. With enough science, that can turn around and reinforce rationality; but I don't think we're there yet as a society in either the body of science available, nor the prevalence of good science education in the population.

I used to be in the same camp as the author. My mom is what I'd call a rational anti-vaxxer, and I hated her for it. She's a trained biologist. She vaccinated where she could see all the science and the benefit, but treated each vaccine as an independent entity, requiring new proof and new science and understanding of how it functioned and how effective it was and the cost/benefit to society before making the decision. When I turned 18, she turned the reins over to me and told me to make my own decisions based on all the data available. She trusted me with the science.

I took this to heart as an adult. I feel it is an excellent way to approach the problem, and in fact is more scientific than blindly accepting recommendations that have dozens of conflicting influences outside simple public health. This became particularly apparent to me as I now battle a chronic GI immune condition that has made my life extremely difficult over the past year. It took a full year to actually diagnose, and even then, what was the best doctors could tell me? "We have no idea what causes it, but we know it doesn't correlate to cancer. Here's some steroids. Good luck." I am not saying any vaccination causes this—I simply don't know—but it's that kind of doubt in the field that makes people doubt blanket statements on all vaccinations, whether that be right or wrong.

I agree with the author of this piece: we need more empathy, more understanding, and much less confrontation. But we also need more science, and a better understanding of science, and a more nuanced, honest discussion of vaccines in medicine and society. In a complex world, when a scientist hears "All X are good," they are right to be skeptical of it. We need to recognize that we live in a world where no one is allowed to have a conversation on vaccines based on reality. Instead, any discussion that doesn't qualify itself with the greatness of vaccines and the wrongness of anti-vaxxers instantly labels you an anti-vaxxer yourself, and loses you all credibility.

This article, too, succumbs to that mental virus. I refuse to. He says, "my point isn't that the anti-vaxxers might be right. They're not." With that attitude, we'll never be able to understand the problem scientifically as a populace, and that's what's wrong with our response to anti-vaxxers—not that they're wrong and delusional. If you want real empathy, stop calling people wrong all the time, and start trying to understand their fear instead of dismissing it and strategically trying to quell it.

I saw a news clip of a woman getting vaccinated saying she trusts the vaccine because she "likes science." The vaccines appear to be mostly safe, but because you "like science" isn't a reason to trust them. What she means is she likes Mythbusters and thinks that's science.

IMO, your attitude is even more harmful than the typical vaccine conspiracy theories, because those are typically easily disproved!

But disguising a dogmatic attitude in the language of science is poisonous for discourse and misuses science itself.

Looking at the benefits and drawbacks of a new vaccine is the most normal thing in the world. And thanks to those that didn’t allow themselves to be bullied by misguided do-gooders is why we have a better understanding of the vaccines and doctors can explain to patients if the vaccine makes sense to them.

I'm hoping with enough good arguments and data I can sway her view, but I also know the human mind is incredibly bad at rational thought and interpreting statistics.

Of course, vaccine studies are probably way more rigorous and easier to control than figuring out the complexities of nutrition, but it is a little unsettling how easily doubt can metastasize. There's really no solution here other than trying to spread scientific literacy and helping people understand the rigorous testing of modern medicine, while also encouraging them to think twice about the sensationalized studies they read.

I agree that it is unseemly and unfair (and counter-productive) to ridicule people who are genuinely confused (a position I hold regardless of whether the issue is scientific or not), but the preposterous claims, arguments and actions of those who are deliberately sowing confusion are fair game IMHO. In the case of vaccination, moreover, there is strong empirical evidence that it is both effective and safe for almost everybody, so this is not a case you can use to claim that science is making unjustified claims of infallibility (or even anything close.)

It is especially not clear to me why the issue of relatives with strongly differing views over this particular issue should be off-limits.

We can do better than guilt by association. It's a very weak argument, and turns more people away from potential vaccination. In fact insulting the remaining audience is worse than preaching to the choir, because it even turns away people who were previously 100% on one's side.

also, as cool as "facts" are it really bothers me when people take their opinion and present it as fact or as truth. you see: the truth is something abstract and usually, not always, but usually there is a matter of interpretation and a gradient of the truth. I'm not speaking of well researched things that have mountains of evidence behind them. I'm speaking about people having really strong opinions without understanding the evidence behind it and without understanding the nuances of what applies when. It's really fashionable to shit all over other people when they don't agree to a T with what you are saying but IMHO it's the wrong thing to do - being curious and actually unpacking what they are trying to say if they can have a civilized discussion and logic actually works with them is the way to go.

My dad gets the flu shot each year. He’s not an anti-vaxxer. The COVID shot seems different though.

My dad still refuses to get a vaccine because all he hears is mis- and disinformation. He’s recently changed to “leaning toward getting the shot,” which is great, but he wants to drive another family member around this weekend who is currently suffering from COVID-19.

Being open and honest with him, I told him the most likely outcome for him, and even held back on how grim his particular prognosis would likely be given his risk factors. But people don’t want to hear the reality.

That reality is that these vaccines are, statistically, safe and effective for the vast majority of the population. (I know that you weren’t asserting otherwise, and that you aren’t in that majority.) There comes a point when refusal to engage with that reality in typical circumstances becomes a dividing line. It might be fear driven for those who don’t have a contraindicated condition, but it’s hard not think of refusal by people in medically typical circumstances, at this point, to be precious and selfish.

Or do you just hate people who do not vaccinate?