My Exchange on Emily Oster's "ParentData" Where She Recently Discussed Vaccines for Babies & Toddlers to her Audience of Concerned Parents. But She's not a Doctor...She's an Economist. (Part 2)
I have a conversation with Gollum, a concerned parent.
From “Gollum” (replying to “Brian O’Shea, P.I.” from Part 1)
“Do your own research” for laypeople basically just means find someone you trust, read what they have to say and believe them. With so much conflicting info out there, those of us without the qualifications to interpret raw data ourselves have to put our faith in some source or other when making decisions about vaccination. Why should I trust your fear mongering “dailyclout” authors and their “VAERS analysis” more than Emily Oster? More than my own physician?
Reply from “Brian O'Shea, P.I.” to “Gollum”:
Gollum, please, there is no reason to use terms like "fear mongering" or to display aggression (if that was aggression). I share what I know because I care about all children. I am a Dad of two, that's why I am up every morning and every night going though these documents with a fine-tooth comb on my own "time and dime". I am not trying to make anyone trust me, hence the comment: "do your own research" (I maybe should have added "if you so choose"). I also do not get paid to examine the data, not even for Daily Clout (which my wife, Naomi Wolf, is the CEO of). Actually, all of their 3000+ researchers are volunteers and none of them get paid.
Ok, now that my disclaimer has been provided, let's discuss the points you brought up. To clarify, Daily Clout is drawing from the same sources that Ms. Oster provided links for: the actual FDA submitted reports (all of the links for those documents are in my previous comment). Even Ms. Oster (very responsibly) provided links to the reports submitted for this age group, such as Pfizer's submission to the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/media/159189/download. But to quote data out of context without providing the footnotes &/or disclaimers in these reports’ fine print is to omit very important details. For example: As I read through the Pfizer report which Ms Oster linked to, I really had a big problem with certain statements in the documents, like this one on page 11:
"In all pediatric age cohorts, there were insufficient COVID-19 cases among participants with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline to reliably estimate VE for this subgroup."
(VE="Vaccine Efficacy"). There's a lot more that alarms me, but it's late and I feel I've done my job as a parent in thoroughly scrutinizing the provided data.
To address your question about who or whom to trust, only you can answer that. I am not nor have I asked for anyone's trust. If you trust me, great! That means I've earned it. If you don't, that's ok, too, as my motivation in coming onto this forum was to share my own findings on the vaccines, not to earn anyone's trust. (I am of the opinion that one should not trust anyone but oneself and one's own ability to read and apply some basic analysis to the provided data).
But I do feel obligated to say that I do NOT trust the blog which Ms Oster (or Professor Oster if she prefers) links to is described by her as "a great 'live blog' of the meeting." (And maybe it is, depending on your definition of "great"…yah, no). The blog she links to is STATNews.com, specifically the link provided takes you to https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/15/tracking-an-fda-advisory-panel-meeting-on-covid-vaccines-in-young-children/. My first impression of Statnews.com was that it looked like a pharmaceutical industry organic or "guerilla" marketing site. Well, my instincts were right! As it turns out, it IS pushing messaging for Pfizer...because Pfizer is one of its featured advertisers! https://www.statnews.com/advertise/.
Sorry, Ms. Oster, I will not be trusting STATNews.com to provide me with objective content about Pfizer.
As far as whether or not to trust your own physician, I have no answer. I don't know your physician. I don't know your physician's qualifications or accomplishments. And besides, that's your physician, not mine. But I would ask your physician if he or she receives additional funds for each vaccine they administer from Health and Human Services or from the company which produced the vaccine they have on hand. Why? Because it’s another question of objectivity in the medical advice doctors are giving. For background, HHS and its sub-agencies, including the CDC and the FDA, were allocated additional funds in the March 2021 "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021" to participate in so-called "vaccine confidence activities" (this is essentially national to community-based marketing campaign for the vaccines. H.R. 1319 [Law No. 117-2, March 11, 2021, "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021", Part 2, Subtitle D-"Public Health," / Sec. 2302. "Funding for vaccine confidence activities." https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text). Summaries here in my March 2021 Tweet: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1371518226769850372.html
This does not necessarily mean that your own doctor gets any part of the initial $1 billion that was allocated, but it would certainly be something I would ask were I even considering this mRNA shot. Many of the 500+ doctors I work with have shared, anecdotally, that this is exactly the case. Does that mean the shot is bad? I don't think anyone can answer that at least for another 18 months to allow an adequate amount of time to pass to evaluate adverse events. But it does raise the question of why so much has gone into pushing this vaccine on the public so aggressively. But if you trust your physician then please, carry on. Again, that's up to you, not me.
So, I'll say it again, it's your choice (that's why I love America...choice). Trust who or whomever you like. My personal rule is to make people earn my trust with facts. But we all live our lives with our own rules, so I would not presume to interfere with yours nor the rules you adhere to.
I do hope this reply clarifies my earlier comments. I am happy to share anything I know or help look up things you may not have time to or to provide some of my research methods and sources. I do love research and I do like to share what I know and even how I go about my research, so feel free to reach out. For now, have a good night and wishing good health to you and those close to you.
If you want to reach out, I am on Twitter @BrianOSheaSPI , Gettr @BrianOShea, and can be contacted privately at brianoshea@centurionintelligence.com. Take care. 👍
Reply from “Gollum” to “Brian O’Shea, P.I.”:
Jun 17·edited Jun 17
Brian, I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I stand by my comment re fear mongering. The Daily Clout article literally opens by mentioning an analysis of VAERS data. The second I see a line like that, the source no longer has credibility for me, and yes, I do consider it fear mongering. The CDC/FDA-run VAERS database is being used by antivaxxers to push their agenda in a way the database simply does not support.
I'm glad you have so much confidence in your research abilities and that of the volunteers who contribute to your wife's publication. I will continue to trust the sources that seem most credible to me, and Emily remains high on the list largely because she HAS received so much criticism for many of her views (child mask mandates, school closures, quarantines, etc), yet hasn't changed them.
Believe it or not, I share your concerns about VE for the under 5 vaccine and am on the fence about vaccinating my two little kids. Not because I'm afraid of the vaccine but because it seems like a lot of trouble to deal with side effects and multiple shots for potentially very little benefit for this low risk age group.
REPLY to “Gollum” from “Brian O'Shea, P.I.”
Well, I disagree but respect your opinion and want to underline the most important thing about this exchange: we just had a respectful conversation. Thank you for your reply, and feel free to reach out anytime👍🏻
All the best,
Brian O’Shea
Reply to “Brian O’Shea, P.I.” from “Gollum”:
Cheers to that!