10 ms·

There are many reasons people choose not to get the vaccine. What evidence do you have that the main issue is a distrust of authority? The main authority on t

There are many reasons people choose not to get the vaccine. What evidence do you have that the main issue is a distrust of authority? The main authority on this, the FDA has not even officially approved the vaccine and likely won't for quite awhile. For some people it is logical to ask why other vaccines require 10year+ trials and for this a few months was sufficient. While personally, I think the risk of the virus greatly outweighs the risk of getting the vaccine, I do not think we should force that choice on everyone. Either the FDA is ridiculously over-conservative in their other trials, or this one is extremely rushed. Can't have it both ways.

bamboozled 5y ago
Thanks for writing this, I'm still on the fence about taking it for this reason, it was rushed and the longer term implications are certainly still not fully understood. Edit: Again with the downvotes, it's a fact. No one has had this vaccine for 3,5 or 10 years. The long term effects cannot be fully understood until such time has lapsed and studies have been completed. Here, the creator of mRNA vaccines discusses the topic [1]. I'm not saying people shouldn't take it, but there are certain realities that don't have to be ignored. [1] https://www.bitchute.com/video/ukx8L3lh5CA7/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/ukx8L3lh5CA7/
- petre 5y ago
  You are worried about the long term effects of a mRNA vaccine that has passed clinical trials and was already tested on >10M people, but not about viral RNA spreading in your community? I guess we'll se the effects of the vaccines in 3…10y. Until then I'm getting a third shot if I must, because I'd really want to be there maybe having this conversation in the next decade.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    You can be worried about both, it doesn't have to be one or the other. I think Covid19 escaped from a lab and is probably engineered (to some degree), so I imagine it's also insanely messed up stuff.
- aeternum 5y ago
  Here's the thing to consider though: The vaccine codes only for the spike proteins of the virus. You can look up the RNA strands within the vaccines and their translation to protein, it's a relatively short segment of RNA. RNA has a very short lifetime itself. If you do get exposed to Covid, your cells will be exposed to those very same spike proteins and more. Thus the vaccine should theoretically be much safer than being exposed to Covid itself.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    Yeah, it's pretty well covered in the link I posted, and there is more data too.
- driverdan 5y ago
  You're being downvoted because vaccination is not a new thing. mRNA vaccines are new but take 10 min to learn how they work. There is literally nothing left in your system that could impact you in "3,5 or 10 years."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  This guy is the self-proclaimed "creator of mRNA vaccines," in the same way that there is a certain self-proclaimed "inventor of email" with whom we're all familiar. His role in the development of the technology that eventually became mRNA vaccines appears, however, to be relatively minor, and it lies decades in the past.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    It would be fair to say he would have a pretty solid grasp on the basic concepts behind the medicine, probably more than most people in the comments sections of the internet :)
- oezi 5y ago
  I listened to an interview with the head of the German regulatory body overseeing recommendations for vaccinations. He said that we have never seen side effects of all vaccinations beyond 2 to 3 months. Compare with sinuous venous trombosis risk which was uncovered despite being a 1 in 100,000 risk.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    In the short amount of time people have been taking these vaccines, how much more data than a few months could they really be looking at, seriously ?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      They're looking at a century's worth of other vaccines and noting that the side effects present early on, not years later. The stuff in vaccines gets broken down or excreted by the body; it doesn't linger in your system for years. mRNA, for example, breaks down in minutes/hours.
      - bamboozled 5y ago
        All it tells us if that in the very short term, it seems safe. Great. When we know more about the long term, then people will be more happy to take it?
        evgen 5y ago
        No, it is far more likely at that point that you will just trot out some other excuse.
        bamboozled 5y ago
        No. I really hope that it’s safe, I can take it without fear and never look back. If you think I’m really against vaccines you’re wrong.
- omegaworks 5y ago
  The vaccine is new, but the mRNA delivery system has been in the pipeline for decades, with other treatments actively undergoing the normal, slow FDA process[1]. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-...
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Yes, but why is it okay to approve this mRNA delivery system in a matter of months while the approval for these others require decades of test? There's clearly inconsistency by the FDA here.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      Why is it okay to destroy someone's house with axes and water when it's on fire but otherwise it's illegal? There's clearly inconsistency by the fire department here. Seriously, what other course of events do you propose should have happened? Vaccines couldn't have been developed before Covid-19 existed. Should we have just pretended that mRNA technology didn't exist, in favor of traditional approaches of making vaccines, and then rushed approval on those? It seems like that alternative has actually been explored by other countries and they're nowhere near as effective.
      - aeternum 5y ago
        I think the FDA's normal process is extremely flawed and would like to see more expedited trails that allow early-opt-in and continually expanding test groups that ramp up in size as efficacy and safety is proven. It's criminal that the FDA has effectively sat on mRNA tech for decades while watching people who could have benefit from it die. The FDA deemed mRNA tech unsafe to give to much smaller groups of people already directly affected with various mRNA treatable diseases yet now after a few months of testing they have amazingly deemed it safe to give to to the entire world. The risk calculus just isn't consistent.
        5y ago
- bigcorp-slave 5y ago
  This guy is not the creator of mRNA vaccines, he’s just a guy who did something slightly related with mRNA forty years ago, and is now trying to ride the wave to money. I think it’s fair to say the vaccine was rushed, but that’s because we have been having the second largest pandemic of the century. More Americans are dead from this than died in WW2. I didn’t downvote you. I do wish we had a longer trial period, and I don’t like taking something that hasn’t been through the full duration trials. Here is what convinced me: - we now have more than a billion vaccinations done globally, with no mass surge of negative side effects. - virtually every politician in every party has gotten vaccinated. Including most of the people telling you not to get vaccinated. - the vaccine produces way fewer antibody targets than the actual virus, so I would expect that if there was a long term negative effect from the spike produced by the vaccine, we would get that or worse from the virus. - the virus is really contagious and seems to be mutating toward being more contagious over time. - thus, you’re probably going to get it, which means one way or the other you’re probably going to make a lot of antibodies to spike protein no matter how you slice it.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    Don’t attack people, it just weakens your comment. You’ve not really added anything useful to the discussion unfortunately. Saying someone speaks to right wing people means nothing to me.
    - bigcorp-slave 5y ago
      There’s nothing in there that’s an attack, but wow, you are an asshole. There is a good faith engagement and persuasion in there, and you respond with this? Fuck off, you’re what’s wrong with society.
      - bamboozled 5y ago
        > This guy is not the creator of mRNA vaccines, he’s just a guy who did something slightly related with mRNA forty years ago, and is now trying to ride the wave to money. He seems to give plenty of time to people who don't seem to have any money to offer. I don't know what evidence you have to support any of your claims. For all you know he is a really good, concerned person, why assassinate someone's character like that? If one can't attack the arguments, it's easier to attack the person I guess?
- mindslight 5y ago
  You're getting downvoted because your post is the standard antivax trope of "just asking questions", which is ultimately FUD. What you're actually doing is completely discounting possible long term effects from the choice to do nothing. Nobody has been a Covid-19 survivor for 3, 5 or 10 years, nor do we know the big picture epidemiological impact of unchecked Covid for 3, 5, or 10 years. The only data we have is necessarily from the present. And here and now, it seems to indicate that getting vaccinated is a prudent thing to do.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    Maybe neither option is great? Have you ever considered that possibility? It's funny because your post really offers nothing new, just another opinion of your own. I've said before, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I've taken vaccines before and if the Pfizer vaccine proves safe longer term, we know more about reported heart problems in younger males, I won't need to mix and match vaccines and have booster shots and all that type of rot, then yeah, I'll likely participate. I'm just not prepared to jump right in because Internets tell me they feel it's safe to do so. What's actually wrong with that? I don't see the issue?
    - mindslight 5y ago
      I don't know how I've implied that any option was "great" ? My post is pointing out that your previous framing is discounting the possible effects from doing nothing, while emphasizing the possible effects from doing something. This is not scientific. In general you seem to be attaching a high weighting to not taking the vaccine, including repeating common logical fallacies. Most likely you've gotten that from the "Internets", so it's fallacious to invoke it as if it's some singular party instructing you to do something. The Internet is generally malicious noise, it's up to you to pull signal out of it. At the basic level, there is no "all that type of rot". I got two shots, had cold symptoms for a day on the first one, and was otherwise fine. It has allowed me to reduce my Covid precautions substantially, and has drastically increased my quality of life. If there end up being variants that require boosters, then I can make another decision to get those or not. I wasn't chomping at the bit for the vaccine since it was announced, rather I too figured I'd wait and see what the larger scale effects were. But by the time spring rolled around I had considered 6 months enough time to shake out most unknown unknowns at scale.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  > it was rushed and the longer term implications are certainly still not fully understood. It was not rushed. We have 250 years of experience with vaccinations and when their side effects happen. And longer with viruses and their autoimmune effects. After a day or three the vaccine is completely gone from your system, all that remains is the immune effects, the possible side effects are all autoimmune conditions. Those autoimmune conditions will either manifest in 90 days or they will not. There's nothing that hangs around in your body for 3 years and then randomly pops up. By running a trail for 6 months post-injection you will be guaranteed to capture all the side effects from a vaccine study. This is the same with virus triggered autoimmune effects which either pop up in 3 months or they don't (and I've actually had viral pericarditis that affected me about 4-6 weeks after I recovered from a bad cold). Most of them will run longer, because they don't have a massive worldwide pandemic and they need to prove efficacy so they need enough people in the control group to get infected and that takes time. They were able to speed run the efficacy side of things because so many people were getting infected (we were worried at one point that the virus would largely disappear in Summer 2020 and negatively affect the vaccine trials). https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-what-are-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-3-things-to-know https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-...
  - didjathinkmess 5y ago
    >Those autoimmune conditions will either manifest in 90 days or they will not. Source? For the long term autoimmune effects of these vaccines, that is. No? Well that's because that information is unavailable because it hasn't been studied long term hence it can't be known. There are no long term studies. Hence the reluctance of many to get vaccinated. So that quoted statement can probably be banished to the world of pseudoscience for now. Or post your sources from subjects unrelated to the COVID vaccine that make you think that.
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      > Source? The link I supplied was literally a source: https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-what-are-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-3-things-to-know https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-... > 2. Vaccine side effects show up within weeks if at all > That is not to say that there have never been safety issues with vaccines. But in each instance, these have appeared soon after widespread use of the vaccine began. "The side effects that we see occur early on and that's it," Goepfert said. In virtually all cases, vaccine side effects are seen within the first two months after rollout. That is citing the director of the University's Vaccine Research Clinic.
motohagiography 5y ago
The FDA is ridiculously over conservative because of litigation, settlement, and insurance costs. They're not doing another thalidomide. My premise is that the facts we choose for our opinions are for support of an underlying belief, and that this underlying belief is that the people running things are full of shit, if not deceptive. I can't change someones mind about that (and wouldn't try), but I'm addressing that concern directly vs. getting a shot.
- murgindrag 5y ago
  Having been through an FDA process in a prior startup (although far from central at it; my role was at the outskirts), I can say the FDA is not ridiculously over-conservative. We did human pilots in another country, which was less bureaucratic. The processes there were both faster and more conservative in terms of safety. Doctors would look over our data and protocols and make reasonable decisions. The FDA process took a long time, but wasn't all that effective at guaranteeing safety either. There was a ton of process. I think you're attributing far too much rationality to an administrative government process.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > They're not doing another thalidomide. I'd note that the FDA didn't do the first thalidomide. Thalidomide is one of the first big FDA success stories; it was rejected, despite being approved by numerous other countries and pressure from the manufacturer and politicians at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
- bamboozled 5y ago
  They're supposed to be conservative though?
murgindrag 5y ago
Anecdotally, my experience is that the main reason is distrust of authority. It's usually warranted distrust too. Authorities aren't trustworthy. To answer your question: (1) Most vaccines don't have 10+ year trials. A year is not even the fastest; the flu on 1957-1958 has a vaccine developed in 4 months. (2) Most medical trials are slower since everything is done sequentially, since there is no rush. You can do an animal trial, a first-in-man, a small group, then a medium group, and so on. It's a better way to go. (3) This vaccine has had over 3 billion doses administered. It's far better studied and validated at this point than the vast, vast majority of medical trials. If you believe "the risk of the vaccine greatly outweighs the risk of getting the virus," can you provide any back-of-the-envelope numbers to back up that statement? From my perspective, the virus already killed half a million Americans, and likely brain-damaged millions. We have enough data on the vaccine to know it doesn't do that.
- aeternum 5y ago
  I meant to say risk of virus greatly outweighs the risk of the vaccine. But I still disagree that we should force that choice on everyone. 1) Did that 1957-58 vaccine use existing tech? My understanding is that other RNA vaccines and therapies were already under FDA trials with ~10 year time-frames since the method is new. 2) Why is sequential better, because it is considered safer? 3) Yes, short-term we know it is extremely safe. But there are zero people that have had the vaccine much over 1 year. Long-term effects are unlikely but it's just not scientifically correct to say that this vaccine is better studied than any other just because of the number of doses administered. Duration matters a lot.
  - murgindrag 5y ago
    > 1) Did that 1957-58 vaccine use existing tech? My understanding is that other RNA vaccines and therapies were already under FDA trials with ~10 year time-frames since the method is new. Our scientific knowledge in 1957 was limited at best. The double-helix was discovered just a half-decade before. Today, we understand in-depth most of the mechanisms of action involved. There just isn't a comparison here. The COVID19 vaccine is far safer than what we put together in 1957, no question. > 2) Why is sequential better, because it is considered safer? It's safer to the original research subjects, but not to the general public. For general safety, you don't find out more by going slowly. You generally learn strictly more from a human study than an animal one, and you learn more from a large study than from a small one. The point of an animal study before first-in-man is to not endanger a human subject. Small groups come before big ones to pick off things which might e.g. harm 10% of subjects. And so on. The decision was made to skip that step, slightly raising the risk of the subjects, in order to save millions of lives. Part of that is we had pretty darned good reason to believe the vaccine was safe, and part of that was the grave risk. > 3) Yes, short-term we know it is extremely safe. But there are zero people that have had the vaccine much over 1 year. Long-term effects are unlikely but it's just not scientifically correct to say that this vaccine is better studied than any other just because of the number of doses administered. Duration matters a lot. Not so much: - We have historical evidence. Do you know of any vaccine in the history of mankind which had long-term effects not visible the first few months? I don't. - We understand mechanisms of action pretty well at this point. Your body gets all sorts of junk thrown at it all the time -- random polens, plastics from your water bottle, randomly mutating cold viruses, and so on. There just isn't any reason to believe a new vaccine is any more dangerous than a random bug bite. Indeed, we understand the stuff going into the vaccine a lot better than we do a random bug.

bamboozled 5y ago

Thanks for writing this, I'm still on the fence about taking it for this reason, it was rushed and the longer term implications are certainly still not fully understood. Edit: Again with the downvotes, it's a fact. No one has had this vaccine for 3,5 or 10 years. The long term effects cannot be fully understood until such time has lapsed and studies have been completed. Here, the creator of mRNA vaccines discusses the topic [1]. I'm not saying people shouldn't take it, but there are certain realities that don't have to be ignored. [1] https://www.bitchute.com/video/ukx8L3lh5CA7/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/ukx8L3lh5CA7/

petre 5y ago
You are worried about the long term effects of a mRNA vaccine that has passed clinical trials and was already tested on >10M people, but not about viral RNA spreading in your community? I guess we'll se the effects of the vaccines in 3…10y. Until then I'm getting a third shot if I must, because I'd really want to be there maybe having this conversation in the next decade.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  You can be worried about both, it doesn't have to be one or the other. I think Covid19 escaped from a lab and is probably engineered (to some degree), so I imagine it's also insanely messed up stuff.
aeternum 5y ago
Here's the thing to consider though: The vaccine codes only for the spike proteins of the virus. You can look up the RNA strands within the vaccines and their translation to protein, it's a relatively short segment of RNA. RNA has a very short lifetime itself. If you do get exposed to Covid, your cells will be exposed to those very same spike proteins and more. Thus the vaccine should theoretically be much safer than being exposed to Covid itself.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Yeah, it's pretty well covered in the link I posted, and there is more data too.
driverdan 5y ago
You're being downvoted because vaccination is not a new thing. mRNA vaccines are new but take 10 min to learn how they work. There is literally nothing left in your system that could impact you in "3,5 or 10 years."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
This guy is the self-proclaimed "creator of mRNA vaccines," in the same way that there is a certain self-proclaimed "inventor of email" with whom we're all familiar. His role in the development of the technology that eventually became mRNA vaccines appears, however, to be relatively minor, and it lies decades in the past.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  It would be fair to say he would have a pretty solid grasp on the basic concepts behind the medicine, probably more than most people in the comments sections of the internet :)
oezi 5y ago
I listened to an interview with the head of the German regulatory body overseeing recommendations for vaccinations. He said that we have never seen side effects of all vaccinations beyond 2 to 3 months. Compare with sinuous venous trombosis risk which was uncovered despite being a 1 in 100,000 risk.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  In the short amount of time people have been taking these vaccines, how much more data than a few months could they really be looking at, seriously ?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    They're looking at a century's worth of other vaccines and noting that the side effects present early on, not years later. The stuff in vaccines gets broken down or excreted by the body; it doesn't linger in your system for years. mRNA, for example, breaks down in minutes/hours.
    - bamboozled 5y ago
      All it tells us if that in the very short term, it seems safe. Great. When we know more about the long term, then people will be more happy to take it?
      - evgen 5y ago
        No, it is far more likely at that point that you will just trot out some other excuse.
        bamboozled 5y ago
        No. I really hope that it’s safe, I can take it without fear and never look back. If you think I’m really against vaccines you’re wrong.
omegaworks 5y ago
The vaccine is new, but the mRNA delivery system has been in the pipeline for decades, with other treatments actively undergoing the normal, slow FDA process[1]. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-...
- aeternum 5y ago
  Yes, but why is it okay to approve this mRNA delivery system in a matter of months while the approval for these others require decades of test? There's clearly inconsistency by the FDA here.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    Why is it okay to destroy someone's house with axes and water when it's on fire but otherwise it's illegal? There's clearly inconsistency by the fire department here. Seriously, what other course of events do you propose should have happened? Vaccines couldn't have been developed before Covid-19 existed. Should we have just pretended that mRNA technology didn't exist, in favor of traditional approaches of making vaccines, and then rushed approval on those? It seems like that alternative has actually been explored by other countries and they're nowhere near as effective.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      I think the FDA's normal process is extremely flawed and would like to see more expedited trails that allow early-opt-in and continually expanding test groups that ramp up in size as efficacy and safety is proven. It's criminal that the FDA has effectively sat on mRNA tech for decades while watching people who could have benefit from it die. The FDA deemed mRNA tech unsafe to give to much smaller groups of people already directly affected with various mRNA treatable diseases yet now after a few months of testing they have amazingly deemed it safe to give to to the entire world. The risk calculus just isn't consistent.
      - 5y ago
bigcorp-slave 5y ago
This guy is not the creator of mRNA vaccines, he’s just a guy who did something slightly related with mRNA forty years ago, and is now trying to ride the wave to money. I think it’s fair to say the vaccine was rushed, but that’s because we have been having the second largest pandemic of the century. More Americans are dead from this than died in WW2. I didn’t downvote you. I do wish we had a longer trial period, and I don’t like taking something that hasn’t been through the full duration trials. Here is what convinced me: - we now have more than a billion vaccinations done globally, with no mass surge of negative side effects. - virtually every politician in every party has gotten vaccinated. Including most of the people telling you not to get vaccinated. - the vaccine produces way fewer antibody targets than the actual virus, so I would expect that if there was a long term negative effect from the spike produced by the vaccine, we would get that or worse from the virus. - the virus is really contagious and seems to be mutating toward being more contagious over time. - thus, you’re probably going to get it, which means one way or the other you’re probably going to make a lot of antibodies to spike protein no matter how you slice it.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Don’t attack people, it just weakens your comment. You’ve not really added anything useful to the discussion unfortunately. Saying someone speaks to right wing people means nothing to me.
  - bigcorp-slave 5y ago
    There’s nothing in there that’s an attack, but wow, you are an asshole. There is a good faith engagement and persuasion in there, and you respond with this? Fuck off, you’re what’s wrong with society.
    - bamboozled 5y ago
      > This guy is not the creator of mRNA vaccines, he’s just a guy who did something slightly related with mRNA forty years ago, and is now trying to ride the wave to money. He seems to give plenty of time to people who don't seem to have any money to offer. I don't know what evidence you have to support any of your claims. For all you know he is a really good, concerned person, why assassinate someone's character like that? If one can't attack the arguments, it's easier to attack the person I guess?
mindslight 5y ago
You're getting downvoted because your post is the standard antivax trope of "just asking questions", which is ultimately FUD. What you're actually doing is completely discounting possible long term effects from the choice to do nothing. Nobody has been a Covid-19 survivor for 3, 5 or 10 years, nor do we know the big picture epidemiological impact of unchecked Covid for 3, 5, or 10 years. The only data we have is necessarily from the present. And here and now, it seems to indicate that getting vaccinated is a prudent thing to do.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Maybe neither option is great? Have you ever considered that possibility? It's funny because your post really offers nothing new, just another opinion of your own. I've said before, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I've taken vaccines before and if the Pfizer vaccine proves safe longer term, we know more about reported heart problems in younger males, I won't need to mix and match vaccines and have booster shots and all that type of rot, then yeah, I'll likely participate. I'm just not prepared to jump right in because Internets tell me they feel it's safe to do so. What's actually wrong with that? I don't see the issue?
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I don't know how I've implied that any option was "great" ? My post is pointing out that your previous framing is discounting the possible effects from doing nothing, while emphasizing the possible effects from doing something. This is not scientific. In general you seem to be attaching a high weighting to not taking the vaccine, including repeating common logical fallacies. Most likely you've gotten that from the "Internets", so it's fallacious to invoke it as if it's some singular party instructing you to do something. The Internet is generally malicious noise, it's up to you to pull signal out of it. At the basic level, there is no "all that type of rot". I got two shots, had cold symptoms for a day on the first one, and was otherwise fine. It has allowed me to reduce my Covid precautions substantially, and has drastically increased my quality of life. If there end up being variants that require boosters, then I can make another decision to get those or not. I wasn't chomping at the bit for the vaccine since it was announced, rather I too figured I'd wait and see what the larger scale effects were. But by the time spring rolled around I had considered 6 months enough time to shake out most unknown unknowns at scale.
lamontcg 5y ago
> it was rushed and the longer term implications are certainly still not fully understood. It was not rushed. We have 250 years of experience with vaccinations and when their side effects happen. And longer with viruses and their autoimmune effects. After a day or three the vaccine is completely gone from your system, all that remains is the immune effects, the possible side effects are all autoimmune conditions. Those autoimmune conditions will either manifest in 90 days or they will not. There's nothing that hangs around in your body for 3 years and then randomly pops up. By running a trail for 6 months post-injection you will be guaranteed to capture all the side effects from a vaccine study. This is the same with virus triggered autoimmune effects which either pop up in 3 months or they don't (and I've actually had viral pericarditis that affected me about 4-6 weeks after I recovered from a bad cold). Most of them will run longer, because they don't have a massive worldwide pandemic and they need to prove efficacy so they need enough people in the control group to get infected and that takes time. They were able to speed run the efficacy side of things because so many people were getting infected (we were worried at one point that the virus would largely disappear in Summer 2020 and negatively affect the vaccine trials). https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-what-are-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-3-things-to-know https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-...
- didjathinkmess 5y ago
  >Those autoimmune conditions will either manifest in 90 days or they will not. Source? For the long term autoimmune effects of these vaccines, that is. No? Well that's because that information is unavailable because it hasn't been studied long term hence it can't be known. There are no long term studies. Hence the reluctance of many to get vaccinated. So that quoted statement can probably be banished to the world of pseudoscience for now. Or post your sources from subjects unrelated to the COVID vaccine that make you think that.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    > Source? The link I supplied was literally a source: https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-what-are-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-3-things-to-know https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-... > 2. Vaccine side effects show up within weeks if at all > That is not to say that there have never been safety issues with vaccines. But in each instance, these have appeared soon after widespread use of the vaccine began. "The side effects that we see occur early on and that's it," Goepfert said. In virtually all cases, vaccine side effects are seen within the first two months after rollout. That is citing the director of the University's Vaccine Research Clinic.

motohagiography 5y ago

The FDA is ridiculously over conservative because of litigation, settlement, and insurance costs. They're not doing another thalidomide. My premise is that the facts we choose for our opinions are for support of an underlying belief, and that this underlying belief is that the people running things are full of shit, if not deceptive. I can't change someones mind about that (and wouldn't try), but I'm addressing that concern directly vs. getting a shot.

murgindrag 5y ago
Having been through an FDA process in a prior startup (although far from central at it; my role was at the outskirts), I can say the FDA is not ridiculously over-conservative. We did human pilots in another country, which was less bureaucratic. The processes there were both faster and more conservative in terms of safety. Doctors would look over our data and protocols and make reasonable decisions. The FDA process took a long time, but wasn't all that effective at guaranteeing safety either. There was a ton of process. I think you're attributing far too much rationality to an administrative government process.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> They're not doing another thalidomide. I'd note that the FDA didn't do the first thalidomide. Thalidomide is one of the first big FDA success stories; it was rejected, despite being approved by numerous other countries and pressure from the manufacturer and politicians at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
bamboozled 5y ago
They're supposed to be conservative though?

murgindrag 5y ago

Anecdotally, my experience is that the main reason is distrust of authority. It's usually warranted distrust too. Authorities aren't trustworthy. To answer your question: (1) Most vaccines don't have 10+ year trials. A year is not even the fastest; the flu on 1957-1958 has a vaccine developed in 4 months. (2) Most medical trials are slower since everything is done sequentially, since there is no rush. You can do an animal trial, a first-in-man, a small group, then a medium group, and so on. It's a better way to go. (3) This vaccine has had over 3 billion doses administered. It's far better studied and validated at this point than the vast, vast majority of medical trials. If you believe "the risk of the vaccine greatly outweighs the risk of getting the virus," can you provide any back-of-the-envelope numbers to back up that statement? From my perspective, the virus already killed half a million Americans, and likely brain-damaged millions. We have enough data on the vaccine to know it doesn't do that.

aeternum 5y ago
I meant to say risk of virus greatly outweighs the risk of the vaccine. But I still disagree that we should force that choice on everyone. 1) Did that 1957-58 vaccine use existing tech? My understanding is that other RNA vaccines and therapies were already under FDA trials with ~10 year time-frames since the method is new. 2) Why is sequential better, because it is considered safer? 3) Yes, short-term we know it is extremely safe. But there are zero people that have had the vaccine much over 1 year. Long-term effects are unlikely but it's just not scientifically correct to say that this vaccine is better studied than any other just because of the number of doses administered. Duration matters a lot.
- murgindrag 5y ago
  > 1) Did that 1957-58 vaccine use existing tech? My understanding is that other RNA vaccines and therapies were already under FDA trials with ~10 year time-frames since the method is new. Our scientific knowledge in 1957 was limited at best. The double-helix was discovered just a half-decade before. Today, we understand in-depth most of the mechanisms of action involved. There just isn't a comparison here. The COVID19 vaccine is far safer than what we put together in 1957, no question. > 2) Why is sequential better, because it is considered safer? It's safer to the original research subjects, but not to the general public. For general safety, you don't find out more by going slowly. You generally learn strictly more from a human study than an animal one, and you learn more from a large study than from a small one. The point of an animal study before first-in-man is to not endanger a human subject. Small groups come before big ones to pick off things which might e.g. harm 10% of subjects. And so on. The decision was made to skip that step, slightly raising the risk of the subjects, in order to save millions of lives. Part of that is we had pretty darned good reason to believe the vaccine was safe, and part of that was the grave risk. > 3) Yes, short-term we know it is extremely safe. But there are zero people that have had the vaccine much over 1 year. Long-term effects are unlikely but it's just not scientifically correct to say that this vaccine is better studied than any other just because of the number of doses administered. Duration matters a lot. Not so much: - We have historical evidence. Do you know of any vaccine in the history of mankind which had long-term effects not visible the first few months? I don't. - We understand mechanisms of action pretty well at this point. Your body gets all sorts of junk thrown at it all the time -- random polens, plastics from your water bottle, randomly mutating cold viruses, and so on. There just isn't any reason to believe a new vaccine is any more dangerous than a random bug bite. Indeed, we understand the stuff going into the vaccine a lot better than we do a random bug.