[sdo72]

I don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer. But I do have doubt in vaccines especially mRNA vaccines nowadays, and I wish these studies do more than just this.

I have 4 kids, and 3 of them got vaccinated for the covid (1 is a baby 2 years old) for the very first time with Delta. They struggle for weeks to recover, they get tired, they seem to have heart related symptoms. Eventually, those went away after months. The baby has never had covid (no vaccine). I then have never covid vaccinated them, and they have never been sick with covid even though my wife and I caught covid after our 3rd vaccine shots. We didn't do any isolation, we share things and direct contacts with them. They might have had Covid but very mild, the quick tests never showed positive.

My wife got blood clot issue that I saw blood coming out from her skin.

I struggled many months with the vaccines with weird fatigues (I'm normally very healthy in my late 30s). My gut biome seemed to change and I became quite sensitive to some food (milk proteins mostly, not just lactose intolerance)

My mom who lived in a different country got 3 shots and she struggled with heart condition for more than a year, Drs couldn't find the reason why. It was difficult for her to do anything with strength. She finally recovered after 1+ year.

There're many real and true stories like mine, I really have no idea what these studies saying anymore.

[y-c-o-m-b]

I'm having a hard time following your second paragraph, but I don't see where you're questioning the cause of these issues to be covid itself instead of the vaccines?

That's my biggest problem with the "I now have X problem after the vaccine" crowd; quick to blame the vaccine, but they never question whether it was the virus itself that caused it.

My dad is one of these people and it infuriates me to no end that he defaults to "vaccine bad" and not his irresponsible behavior during the height of the pandemic which caused him to get very sick from the virus itself. Nor the fact that he had a very visible lyme disease rash 20 years ago and refused to get treatment because "MDs bad". He's quick to blame his neurological disease on the covid vaccine though, so frustrating.

[sdo72]

We all started getting weird symptoms after the vaccines, not after having covid, you got it backward.

I am not quick to blame the vaccine. If you take the vaccine and immediately after you start develop symptoms, then the chances that the vaccine are doing something strange to the body are very likely, not the virus infection.

And these don't get diagnosed with Covid or having Covid symptoms before, it must be something related to the vaccine. That's evidence, not just observation.

I went to UCI, SoCal Kaiser hospitals and cardiologists 6-7 times, a bunch of tests, no doctors could explain why.

I took the vaccines myself, I am no anti-vaxxer, and when it comes to this situation, I don't see there's conclusive studies about the vaccines.

[blackqueeriroh]

Are you aware that to this day, 30% of all Covid cases are asymptomatic, aka you CANNOT tell that you have had it?

Until, of course, you start to have all of the exact things you’re sharing right now.

[sdo72]

so you think that we suddenly have symptoms after the vaccines because of covid infection and the real symptoms started appearing instead of asymptomatic symptoms .

[jibal]

> I don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer.

But you write anti-vax comments filled with the usual anti-vax post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

[HaZeust]

>"post hoc ergo propter hoc"

Appealing to an informal fallacy, and not even using it right. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy hinges on the fact that one's argument assumes that just because one event happened chronologically first, it must have caused the one(s) that chronologically came after.

GP did more than that and didn't simply say "X happened first, so I think it's responsible for Y." He gave correlative observations and suspected a possibility of causation OUTSIDE of chronological timeline. Regardless of whether I agree with him, it's easy to see this comment having more than fallacy.

[jibal]

> Appealing to an informal fallacy

I didn't appeal to one, I pointed one out. And there's something wrong now with pointing out fallacies just because they are informal? Apparently you don't understand what "informal" means in logic. (Or there's bad faith--a good case can be made here.)

> it's easy to see this comment having more than fallacy.

And yet you failed to point out a single one. You say that I used post hoc ergo propter hoc incorrectly, which I disagree with, but even if I did, that isn't a fallacy, it would simply be an error of fact. But remarkably you find multiple unnamed fallacies (formal, or informal?) in my one sentence.

I won't respond further.

[HaZeust]

>"Or there's bad faith--a good case can be made here."

>"I won't respond further."

The jokes write themselves. Best of luck in life with that approach.