The blod clots are not a rumour, they're there. It's not certain the vaccine caused them, but that doesn't make this a rumour. And the events do seem to be unusual enough that they certainly need investigation.

Doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe, the events seem to be still very rare, even if they are caused by the vaccine, so the benefits still outweigh the risks. But the events are very serious, so this does need to be monitored closely and needs to be taken seriously. Downplaying potential side effects is not the way to create trust in the vaccine.

What matters is that the concerns the general populace may have are addressed, and usually they are. A GP who takes the time to get to know their patients and allay any concerns about vaccination in general is much more important to be able to reach the people who may have read weird things on social media, but are not in full-out wappie-teritory.

A very divisive term which will only increase the divide between the "believers" and "nonbelievers". Please treat people who don't share your ideas & ideals with respect and don't use blanket statements to demonize groups.

Read up on the Sackler family for a good overview of horrible practices that is just the tip of an enormous iceberg.

The fact that a group of idiots exists doesn't mean one should talk about "big pharma" like it's fantasy.

It's corporate lobbying, and it exists in all industries. And it's often pretty bad.

I find it incredible that people on a "hacker" forum has become so incredibly authoritarian and uniform, and call even the slightest sceptic all kinds of names. Even if some of them are dumb people.

All of these companies incentives is : profit. Like always.

There has been a myriad of medical scandals over the last 100 years where profit has trumped safety.

Why should anything be different now suddenly?

One should handle everything with extreme scrutiny especially in vaccines tested way less than normal.

This should not be "controversial" to say for any science minded person.

Many people dislike the way big pharma works. I do. I hate how medicine for rare deceases is frequently treated as a bargaining tool by large pharmaceutical companies to put pressure on national governments to choose between paying the outrageous prices that have no bearing on cost or even healthy profits at all, or else explain to a nation why that medicine can no longer be covered by insurance.

But that's not quite the same as thinking Bill Gates is putting 5G nanochips in the corana-vaccines, or outright denying that covid even exists. We're not talking concerned medical professionals or other science minded people acting as whistle-blower, but yoga teachers with dubious real estate holdings who are calling the recent elections fraudulent because their spur-of-the-moment political party didn't win any seats (to allude to one infamous Dutch example).

Some people have standpoints that are not only absurd, but harmful. Pretending that these people may have a point and offering them a platform is harmful.

I'm not sure they are that big of a threat though, seems like a small minority to me amplified by social media.

I know there is a heavy focus on "killing the fringes" atm. but i don't know if i agree.

The focus must be on good education, and generally better and more research journalism which is sorely missing, leaving large parts of politics / economics / lobbyism / tech-policy making in the darkness creating a landscape where people speculate from correct "hunches" that sadly quickly becomes fantasy and community for these people that for the most part are searching for some grounding in a large chaotic world.

You are being disingenuous here. The vast majority of skeptics in this case are people who have been thoroughly vaccinated against other things and are simply concerned about the accelerated testing schedule of these particular vaccines.

I completely disagree. I think part of why this anti-science attitude is prevalent is because people acknowledge it an try to respond to it. You should not engage in a conversation about whether vaccines cause autism or whether the earth is flat. You simply enact policies that enforce the right thing. Because this shouldn't be a discussion.

Responding to those people only validates their stance.

That's a very naïve view of how science (and the world) works. Who gets to decide what "the right thing" is? What if they're later proven wrong, do their good intentions undo whatever damage is caused?

Enforcing the "right thing" will alienate these people even more than they already are. They won't feel listened to and fall back into their echo-chambers even more.