I am not an #AntiVaxxer by any means, and I have had both doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. But I also do not dismiss the concerns of those who are skeptical, especially given that we have no information on any long term effects, because the vaccines haven’t even been around for a year yet.

The left try to dismiss such concerns as simply those of the uneducated, or as the lovely Amanda Marcotte tried to do, blame it on Republicans.

But when The Wall Street Journal starts to take notice of vaccine side effects, it’s no longer just the evil reich wing Republicans:

Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?

There are concerning trends on blood clots and low platelets, not that the authorities will tell you.

By Joseph A. Ladapo and Harvey A. Risch^[1]Dr. Ladapo is an associate professor of medicine at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. Dr. Risch is a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health. | June 22, 2021 | 1:09 PM EDT

One remarkable aspect of the Covid-19 pandemic has been how often unpopular scientific ideas, from the lab-leak theory to the efficacy of masks, were initially dismissed, even ridiculed, only to resurface later in mainstream thinking. Differences of opinion have sometimes been rooted in disagreement over the underlying science. But the more common motivation has been political.

Another reversal in thinking may be imminent. Some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated. But the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking—for now.

It wasn’t that long ago that vaccination wasn’t political. But in 2006, the approval of a vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) led to politics. Because the vaccine was most effective when administered before a person becomes sexually active, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that it be given routinely to girls at 11 or 12 years of age. Many saw that as encouraging, or giving permission to, younger girls to begin sex at those ages. People concerned with sexual morality — which should be everyone, given that children that young cannot legally consent to sex — were displeased, to say no more, while the left seemed to want to use compulsory HPV vaccinations as a wedge issue to separate younger girls from their parents when it came to consenting for sex.

Remember: the left support freedom of choice on only one thing!

Because, alas! reproducing the entire article would violate plagiarism laws, I must omit several paragraphs full of data, and articles in the Journal are hidden behind an expensive paywall. But, if it is the first article that you try to open during a month, you can read the whole thing for free; when the paywall box shows up, click on the X in the upper right hand corner, and you’ll be able to see the whole thing. 🙂

And while you would never know it from listening to public-health officials, not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from Covid-19 vaccination. That this isn’t readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci is an indication of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.

Yeah, that’s kind of important.

There are, however, signs of life for scientific honesty. In May, the Norwegian Medicines Agency reviewed case files for the first 100 reported deaths of nursing-home residents who received the Pfizer vaccine. The agency concluded that the vaccine “likely” contributed to the deaths of 10 of these residents through side effects such as fever and diarrhea, and “possibly” contributed to the deaths of an additional 26. But this type of honesty is rare. And it is rare for any vaccine to be linked to deaths, so this unusual development for mRNA vaccines merits further investigation.

The battle to recover scientific honesty will be an uphill one in the U.S. Anti-Trump politics in the spring of 2020 mushroomed into social-media censorship. News reporting often lacked intellectual curiosity about the appropriateness of public-health guidelines—or why a vocal minority of scientists strongly disagreed with prevailing opinions. Scientists have advocated for or against Covid-19 therapies while having financial relationships with product manufacturers and their foundation benefactors.

LOL! Expecting journolists^[2]The spelling ‘journolist’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term … Continue reading journalists to have “intellectual curiosity,” especially when such could, heaven forfend! go against Teh Narrative? Drs Ladapo and Risch must be joking.

Public-health authorities are making a mistake and risking the public’s trust by not being forthcoming about the possibility of harm from certain vaccine side effects. There will be lasting consequences from mingling political partisanship and science during the management of a public-health crisis.

That’s kind of a blah conclusion, something I’d expect from two physicians, but ‘public health authorities’ are just as much seduced by the word ‘authorities’ as they are by ‘public health.’ Surely no one who has seen the idolization and demonization of Dr Fauxi Fauci cannot have missed just how much the politics of his fame have overwashed and overwhelmed him.

The political left, which used to have much more of an appreciation for individual liberty, have morphed into a strongly group-thing mode, where what they think is right must also be required. The conservatives of today are now the ones with the libertarian — not Libertarian! — philosophy.