4 ms·

These shots are not FDA approved yet. Usually that's compelling enough to look for and consider alternatives. Especially existing cheap off patent drugs that ha

These shots are not FDA approved yet. Usually that's compelling enough to look for and consider alternatives. Especially existing cheap off patent drugs that have been used billions of times over the course of decades and recently won the Nobel Prize. If that plus many doctors and small trials indicate promise with Covid-19, we should take that seriously. That's all. "The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and may prevent you from getting COVID-19. There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19." https://www.fda.gov/media/144638/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144638/download None of this is to say that the vaccines aren't safe or shouldn't be used. They should be, especially for those at risk. The vaccines may well be better than Ivermectin and so far it appears that way. But there is some nuance here and it's valid if people want an alternative until the shots are FDA approved and have long term data. Many are not engaging in critical thinking when it comes to this issue and suddenly have complete trust of big pharma. Which I find bizarre.

khuey 5y ago
When the FDA finally grants full approval to the vaccines the goalposts will just move again to something else.
exmadscientist 5y ago
> Many are not engaging in critical thinking when it comes to this issue and suddenly have complete trust of big pharma. I wasn't first in line to get any of these vaccines. Distrust of anything new is pretty rational! But hundreds of millions of doses delivered, with a complication rate significantly less than the disease itself... that's pretty powerful evidence, no? Especially compared against drugs that have yet to convincingly beat placebos in any large trial? Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone can weight those two sets of evidence so differently.
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  Yes, but you also have to weigh the fact that we don't know what the long term effects may be. Some people would rather trust their immune system, with or without drugs that have been in use for decades. That's not my personal calculation, but I can see why others would net out that way. Particularly women who are concerned about the possible effects on fertility.
- forcry 5y ago
  >But hundreds of millions of doses delivered, with a complication rate significantly less than the disease itself... that's pretty powerful evidence, no? Yes. But there is a problem. This implies an unrestricted flow of information. If there is censorship (self and imposed) going on, then you cannot take this perception for granted. Is there censorship going on regarding these issue. Absolutely, there is. I think we can all agree on that. So how much is the ongoing censorship skewing the issue? We have no idea. May be the censorship is done in good faith for noble ends, but may be it is not, again we don't know. Also as seen in Vioxx issue, even a 100000 additional heart attacks can go un-noticed in a country, even without explicit censorship. We know smoking causes cancer now. But decades ago, people have been smoking for a long time without actually noticing the problem on large enough scale. This why we do systematic research based on data collected in large scales. Also one have to wonder why the systems such as VAERS depend on voluntarily reporting, that gives very little credibility to the data collected. Why is not made mandatory to report on adverse events? If you go to the VAERS cdc page, the covid vaccines are not even included in the list of vaccines to include for VAERS reportable events as prescribed by law. So according to some studies, less than 1% of actual events in reported in VAERS. Even with such a low amount of reporting, we know that reports of blood clots and heart inflammation is concerning. So what is the true picture? So the point that I am trying to make is that, "We have used these things, or have been using these things for a while without problems", is a poor proof of safety.
mcguire 5y ago
"...recently won the Nobel Prize..." William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the Nobel Prize "for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites". Not viral respiratory system infections.

khuey 5y ago

When the FDA finally grants full approval to the vaccines the goalposts will just move again to something else.

exmadscientist 5y ago

> Many are not engaging in critical thinking when it comes to this issue and suddenly have complete trust of big pharma. I wasn't first in line to get any of these vaccines. Distrust of anything new is pretty rational! But hundreds of millions of doses delivered, with a complication rate significantly less than the disease itself... that's pretty powerful evidence, no? Especially compared against drugs that have yet to convincingly beat placebos in any large trial? Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone can weight those two sets of evidence so differently.

seriousquestion 5y ago
Yes, but you also have to weigh the fact that we don't know what the long term effects may be. Some people would rather trust their immune system, with or without drugs that have been in use for decades. That's not my personal calculation, but I can see why others would net out that way. Particularly women who are concerned about the possible effects on fertility.
forcry 5y ago
>But hundreds of millions of doses delivered, with a complication rate significantly less than the disease itself... that's pretty powerful evidence, no? Yes. But there is a problem. This implies an unrestricted flow of information. If there is censorship (self and imposed) going on, then you cannot take this perception for granted. Is there censorship going on regarding these issue. Absolutely, there is. I think we can all agree on that. So how much is the ongoing censorship skewing the issue? We have no idea. May be the censorship is done in good faith for noble ends, but may be it is not, again we don't know. Also as seen in Vioxx issue, even a 100000 additional heart attacks can go un-noticed in a country, even without explicit censorship. We know smoking causes cancer now. But decades ago, people have been smoking for a long time without actually noticing the problem on large enough scale. This why we do systematic research based on data collected in large scales. Also one have to wonder why the systems such as VAERS depend on voluntarily reporting, that gives very little credibility to the data collected. Why is not made mandatory to report on adverse events? If you go to the VAERS cdc page, the covid vaccines are not even included in the list of vaccines to include for VAERS reportable events as prescribed by law. So according to some studies, less than 1% of actual events in reported in VAERS. Even with such a low amount of reporting, we know that reports of blood clots and heart inflammation is concerning. So what is the true picture? So the point that I am trying to make is that, "We have used these things, or have been using these things for a while without problems", is a poor proof of safety.

mcguire 5y ago

"...recently won the Nobel Prize..." William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the Nobel Prize "for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites". Not viral respiratory system infections.