also exclude any "research" being funded by the manufacturer of the product and the government and related bodies which is funded by the manufacturer of the product.
Well, that's discrediting the organizations doing the research? (For some good reasons, but it's the same thing - you're excluding all government research, so what's left?)
then we need to compare arguments and counterarguments.
Absolutely agree with this. This is what I do - mostly reading papers when I have enough energy and dissecting them to the best of my ability. Like you said, you can't read conclusions but have to download supplementary data if it's present, look at conclusions not drawn, and so forth. It's exhausting and I hate it.
Doctors and public health leaders were supposed do this for us, and they failed completely. I don't want to check who manufactures or cleans the pitot tubes before getting on an airplane, and I trust the airline or manufacturer has figured this out for me.
One of the best original vaccine advocates who gradually realized what was going on at the FDA and CDC, changed his views, is Dr. Vinay Prasad at UCSF. His videos are excellent and he has kept his job.
Prasad is great when questioning shoddy vaccine research and the lack of data on long term harm from them, but then he also thinks Long Covid is BS and just a boogieman created by big bad public health to justify nonexistent mask mandates, and that most COVID deaths were probably lockdown deaths anyways.
Here's some Prasad about Long Covid.
- Fear-mongering about Long COVID in kids is not justified b/c they will all get it anyway, and many will suffer symptoms of long covid, but the two have nothing to do with each other.
- The reason people inaccurately covered long COVID is that they needed to have it— they needed it to be scary— to justify continued restrictions in young populations.
Or a Youtube: "Pre-existing Psychiatric Disorders and Long COVID -- Is there a link? What does it Mean?"
Or a Tweet ridiculing Long Covid: "Haha double long covid. Just like double IPA!"
(Just the first three Google searchers, so in all fairness maybe he thinks something different now.)
So my point is just that Campbell is great when questioning the efficacy of vaccines - rigorous and careful and questions our shoddy biased official numbers and methods. Then he'll look at another study showing excess deaths and say, "Well, we know it's not COVID anymore because official numbers are down, so what could it be?? Wink wink." Ummm, you just rightly questioned all those BS numbers, but now you're accepting them when you want to imply that all excess deaths are vaccine and none are COVID.
I've watched Campbell and Prasad and Weinstein and others. No such thing as independent scientists. Even with no financial motives, they will all fight to the death to protect their dogmatic views (Weinstein and Campbell less so early on, but both solidified). From Wessely to Prasad to Fauci to whoever.
So we all have to be vigilant, because no one is trustworthy on all topics.
My personal view - the vaccines are harming many people, and likely have helped many people. I have no idea what the long term risks or rewards will be from them, because the data collection is very biased. I think COVID is causing long term harm as well, as EBV has done or many other illnesses. What this will look like long term, I have no idea. Mild polio infections apparently led to PPS years later and we still have no idea why. I don't expect that to change any time soon.
Hopefully I didn't swing things too political. I think everyone is full of it, so I have no political affiliations when it comes to health. I want to be healthy, that's really all I care about. If I have to swear allegiance to Cthulu, I'm good with that.
