6 ms·

Yes. Most of these vaccines are live virus or toxoids. All COVID vaccines are mRNA or chimeric replication incompetent viruses that don't have the same risks.

spadez 5y ago
Does not make sense to me. It might not have the "same" risks, but it could have entirely different risks, which we don't know. So does not make sense to exclude them (in law) from being reported.
- boredprograming 5y ago
  A vaccine that cant replicate is as risky as one thats a weakened version of the live virus? Or an injection of the toxin that causes symptoms? Not every vaccine is on this list you know. Only the ones deemed risky. They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough to be on the list. If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision there's no point debating you. "We don't know" should be "I don't know". There's been hundreds of studies on mRNA vaccines and chimeric viruses. You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. It's just a way to collect incidents of adverse effects in vaccines with known dangers
  - spadez 5y ago
    >They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough Sounds like circular reasoning to me. They have't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky, because they don't have the data from population wide use. And they don't have the data, because they don't consider them to be risky. >If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision I surely don't want to believe these hypothetical scientists who are afraid of data.
    - boredprograming 5y ago
      It's really not. It's like mandatory reporting for diseases like whooping cough and west Nile virus. Something only gets on the list if it has known risks. Afraid of what data? Should we start collecting data on every time anyone gets the sniffles? To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks
      - spadez 5y ago
        >To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks Please provide citation for this claim.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        > To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks If that's true, it seems backwards. It should be that they should be on the list by default until they are proven to not have risks. But then again, every medical treatment has risks, so they should probably be on the list.
  - spadez 5y ago
    >You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. Quite frankly, that is not the case. In almost all communication that try to promote covid vaccines, they include a statement that amounts to "All healthcare professionals are required by law to report adverse events...". And this table kind of prove that to be a lie, and you also seem to agree, at least with respect to that point.
    - boredprograming 5y ago
      Where does it say that? I've never seen it. And if it's required, does it have to be on this list? I don't see why it matters if vaccine is on some random list or not. How is it a lie if they have to report adverse effects and it's not on the list? There's plenty of things they have to report that aren't on any lists
      - spadez 5y ago
        >"The Reportable Events Table (RET) reflects what is reportable by law" >Where does it say that? I've never seen it. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/covid-19-vaccine-safety-surveillance https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availabi... >In the current pandemic, these reports are being used to monitor the occurrence of both known adverse events, as providers of COVID-19 vaccines are required to report serious adverse events to VAERS. By the way, this also blows your main argument out of the water.
        boredprograming 5y ago
        And I found it on the VAERS FAQ https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html > Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], It's not on the pdf because it's either outdated or because COVID vaccines are on emergency authorization. There's not a giant conspiracy because something isn't on a random pdf, like I was saying
        5y ago
pr_nik2 5y ago
Please look at the VAERS data yourself: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html. The combined number of adverse reactions for all vaccines under the sun in 2019 is 48,444. The same number in '21 is 316,929. The difference is due to COVID-19 vaccines. I'm getting it, because the benefits outweigh the risks, but let's be real about both sides of the equation.

spadez 5y ago

Does not make sense to me. It might not have the "same" risks, but it could have entirely different risks, which we don't know. So does not make sense to exclude them (in law) from being reported.

boredprograming 5y ago
A vaccine that cant replicate is as risky as one thats a weakened version of the live virus? Or an injection of the toxin that causes symptoms? Not every vaccine is on this list you know. Only the ones deemed risky. They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough to be on the list. If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision there's no point debating you. "We don't know" should be "I don't know". There's been hundreds of studies on mRNA vaccines and chimeric viruses. You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. It's just a way to collect incidents of adverse effects in vaccines with known dangers
- spadez 5y ago
  >They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough Sounds like circular reasoning to me. They have't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky, because they don't have the data from population wide use. And they don't have the data, because they don't consider them to be risky. >If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision I surely don't want to believe these hypothetical scientists who are afraid of data.
  - boredprograming 5y ago
    It's really not. It's like mandatory reporting for diseases like whooping cough and west Nile virus. Something only gets on the list if it has known risks. Afraid of what data? Should we start collecting data on every time anyone gets the sniffles? To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks
    - spadez 5y ago
      >To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks Please provide citation for this claim.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      > To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks If that's true, it seems backwards. It should be that they should be on the list by default until they are proven to not have risks. But then again, every medical treatment has risks, so they should probably be on the list.
- spadez 5y ago
  >You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. Quite frankly, that is not the case. In almost all communication that try to promote covid vaccines, they include a statement that amounts to "All healthcare professionals are required by law to report adverse events...". And this table kind of prove that to be a lie, and you also seem to agree, at least with respect to that point.
  - boredprograming 5y ago
    Where does it say that? I've never seen it. And if it's required, does it have to be on this list? I don't see why it matters if vaccine is on some random list or not. How is it a lie if they have to report adverse effects and it's not on the list? There's plenty of things they have to report that aren't on any lists
    - spadez 5y ago
      >"The Reportable Events Table (RET) reflects what is reportable by law" >Where does it say that? I've never seen it. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/covid-19-vaccine-safety-surveillance https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availabi... >In the current pandemic, these reports are being used to monitor the occurrence of both known adverse events, as providers of COVID-19 vaccines are required to report serious adverse events to VAERS. By the way, this also blows your main argument out of the water.
      - boredprograming 5y ago
        And I found it on the VAERS FAQ https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html > Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], It's not on the pdf because it's either outdated or because COVID vaccines are on emergency authorization. There's not a giant conspiracy because something isn't on a random pdf, like I was saying
        5y ago

pr_nik2 5y ago

Please look at the VAERS data yourself: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html. The combined number of adverse reactions for all vaccines under the sun in 2019 is 48,444. The same number in '21 is 316,929. The difference is due to COVID-19 vaccines. I'm getting it, because the benefits outweigh the risks, but let's be real about both sides of the equation.