While I want to believe the vaccines to be safe, Gendlin's litany tells me that it's more important that whether they actually are and the ability to change one's mind is a key feature of a rationalist. Another thread links to a discussion on the Dark Horse Podcast between Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein about issues with vaccine safety. My prior for Steve Kirsch before that video was that he was one of the people in the world who thought most effectively about how to deal with COVID-19 in 2020. I hold that belief because of his project, the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund.
The Fund describes it's guiding principles as:
The world has to take a multipronged approach to tackling COVID-19. We should work to identify effective repurposed drugs, validate experimental drugs, develop new drugs, test early treatments, test late treatments, try convalescent serums and invest in vaccines. We must do all of this in parallel to end the pandemic.
The guiding principles document goes into more detail about their principles and is well worth reading. When I first read it I thought, this is actually a sensible plan compared to what governments are doing. It seemed to me also better than what various EA groups managed to come up with. When someone who run a non-profit that tells the world that it's important to invest in vaccines in its guiding principles tells you about vaccine side-effects and who managed to put their money into a sane COVID-19 response, that's to be taken a lot more seriously than most other possible people who might say something about vaccine side-effects.
If the thesis is true, it's very important to know as soon as possible, because the thesis is about issues that are particular to the spike protein. If the thesis is true a step that's as simple as putting domains of the spike protein seperately into a vaccine or targeting a different protein for the third vaccination shoot might completely mitigate the side-effects.
Given that many rationalists are vaccinated and the thesis of Kirsch is that adverse effects to the vaccine are common, we would expect that if the thesis is true there are rationalists who face significant side-effects. While that still isn't a full proof of the thesis, it would increase our knowledge to know whether that's the case.
For a definition of significant side-effects where significant side-effects means effects that don't disappear after 3 days, who here thinks they faced significant side-effects? If you feel uncomfortable about attaching your identity publically to your report, you can message me about it and I will post answers anonymously.