> Some people might not agree they are conspiracy theories
Some people believe in a flat earth, that doesn't mean we pander to them.
The study presented the most extreme interpretation of each of trope. It didn't ask if one believes vaccines can cause harm. It asked if their harm is being "covered up by governments and pharmaceutical companies," and if "COVID-19 'vaccines' contain microchips to monitor and control people." That's chemtrail-calibre nonsense. (Which, of course, they include.)
As a thought experiment, if it was discovered tomorrow that that Covid vaccines had some terrible side effects, do you think that information would be made public given that the people that developed the vaccine and pushed for its rollout are mostly still in post?
> if it was discovered tomorrow that that Covid vaccines had some terrible side effects, do you think that information would be made public given that the people that developed the vaccine and pushed for its rollout are mostly still in post?
Yes. There is an incredibly motivated political constituency putting tremendous political capital on the table for anyone who can show this.
Secrets hide in banality. The stuff that gets covered up is more usually a chemical or treatment you and I have never heard of, because it's so, so, so fucking boring that even if you had terrible information about it, there is no ready constituency who would care.
I think things tend towards disclosure. We had coverups in the UK of rape gangs operating in northern towns which was eventually came to light after many years. I think if there are significant vaccine harms they will come to light. I don't know that if those harms exist they would have come to light by now.
The more people are involved, the most likely it is that it will be leaked shortly after. Intentionally harmful vaccines would incredibly hard to pull off.
But here, you're not in a conspiracy theory (or conspiracy myth as some would say). You have a falsifiable theory, "This specific vaccine have harmful side effects", you're not the only one. In France, we thought the HB vaccine increased SLS risks for a decade+: it was further enhanced by allergic reactions to some bad dosage, and some double vaccination during the 93 campaign (my mother was double vaccinated and reacted poorly the second time).
I know several people who waited for the non-RNA vaccine because they wanted to wait for more data before using new techniques, it isn't a conspiracy theory, just prudence. I disagree but i certainly respect the choice.
The basically undeniable lab leak hypothesis is included with a minor tweak that renders the claim incorrect. The thing about fluoride differs from reality only because it has incorrect claims about people's motives. If it said "Fluoride concentration is negatively correlated with IQ" it would just be a fact. "Vaccine harm coverup" is untrue but one could be forgiven for mistakenly believing in it after an endless stream of lies about vaccine efficacy and other sorts of covid misinformation from the CDC and WHO. For a specific example of this sort of thing, in April of 2022, at the height of big tech censorship of "covid misinformation," you could search for "is covid airborne" on Google and get a summary of this article[0] above all the search results, informing you that it's totally not airborne.
