6 ms·

Recently I spoke with two senior scientists with decades of experience who specialise in pharmacology, biology, and vaccines, who both work at high-level labs t

Recently I spoke with two senior scientists with decades of experience who specialise in pharmacology, biology, and vaccines, who both work at high-level labs that inspect all types of drugs. They both were extremely sceptical of the vaccine, with one being openly antagonistic towards it. YouTube's new rules allow them to post content, but they both say they've been warned by their jobs about speaking out - that they will lose their careers if they say anything against the vaccines. Where is the room for their opinion? Because they are the top of the tree scientifically. What the hell is going on when we are silencing senior scientists who are extremely worried about an experimental drug that we're giving to the entire world??! To clarify - the first scientist told me that her lab is not allowed to look at or test the vaccine, even though they test every other drug that comes into the country. She has only found a report from one other non-Pfizer lab that has looked at it under a microscope. To me, that is really scary.

distrill 5y ago
trust me bro
corona-research 5y ago
There are plenty of such examples. Some of the most reputable scientists of that field have been banned for sharing their opinion on Youtube.
babypuncher 5y ago
If there was a problem with the vaccine we probably would have noticed something by the time a billion people got injected with it. These skeptics need to put up some serious evidence if they want to be taken seriously.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  I agree. This kind of skepticism-on-theoretical-grounds might have been interesting/valuable a year ago. At this point additional evidence for the vaccine's safety mounts every day as more people receive it. Evidence for the vaccine's efficacy is also mounting[1]. Claims to the contrary would need some extraordinary evidence to back them up. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-19-hospitalizations-nonvaccinated https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-19-hospitalizations-non...
  - AHappyCamper 5y ago
    Scientist #1 said that if she mentions anything against the vaccine, there would be retribution against her. This includes publishing any data that detracts from the vaccines safety. They're essentially creating an echo chamber where all news about the vaccine is good news.
    - AlexandrB 5y ago
      Given the number of countries and institutions involved the scope of the conspiracy here would have to be vast. And there are plenty of powerful, vaccine-skeptical institutions (like the GOP) that would welcome this kind of data and venerate someone producing it. Indeed, some have already built media or political careers on COVID vaccine skepticism. In addition, there's the J&J vaccine which was pulled after nasty side effects were found in a small number of patients. Where was the "they" who are supposedly creating the echo chamber in that case?
    - babypuncher 5y ago
      You're still making bold yet vague claims and providing no evidence. Just wishy-washy "an unnamed expert I know made this significant yet unverifiable statement".
- AHappyCamper 5y ago
  But we have noticed problems with it. https://openvaers.com/covid-data https://openvaers.com/covid-data
- belorn 5y ago
  One major issue was that in the beginning of this year we started with one dose, then went to a second dose a few months later, and then a third dose is starting to be recommended now a few months after that. There are some serious evidence to back this up. A study done around early summer found that only about 50% of those that have taken two doses had any detectable traces of a defense, which was one of the reason that a third dose had to be added. By winter we don't know how effective the 2 dose or 3 dose will be. To me that is where the focus of skepticism should be right now.
  - babypuncher 5y ago
    > There are some serious evidence to back this up. A study done around early summer found that only about 50% of those that have taken two doses had any detectable traces of a defense, which was one of the reason that a third dose had to be added. By winter we don't know how effective the 2 dose or 3 dose will be. One study, going against countless others showing that the vaccines are highly effective. The readily available data speaks for itself. Highly vaccinated populations are experiencing much slower transmission and hospitalization rates than their poorly vaccinated counterparts. Also, we didn't start with one dose. Both mRNA vaccines were two-dose regimens from the day they started clinical trials last summer.
    - belorn 5y ago
      We don't have countless studies on how effective the vaccines over a longer period of time, and especially for those with two doses. Most seems to been done around 3 months, through most conclusions is based on simulations from observation data gathered by other vaccines such as smallpox, measles, mumps, and rubella. The observed half-life of neutralizing titers was 65 days for mRNA vaccines. The evidence will be found in the future when we have more data. Most expectation is that while the protection will be significant lower but that there might be some longer term benefits. Highly vaccinated populations that has taken the vaccine in the last 3-4 months are going to be currently more protected than those that aren't, but that doesn't say much if we need a new vaccination this winter, next summer or the year after that. It would be interesting to see a study done on those early groups of people that received the last dose of vaccine in 2020 during the summer and see how much protection that they still have now this fall in 2021. Got any links to such studies?
- max46 5y ago
  >If there was a problem with the vaccine we probably would have noticed something by the time a billion people got injected with it. Not when everyone who tries to talk about their bad experiences gets treated like qanon and the morons who thought 5G caused covid-19. Even quoting CDC or letters from a company who makes the vaccines is considered dangerous misinformation and can get you banned if what you are showing doesn't paint the vaccine in a good light.
  - longhairedhippy 5y ago
    I would venture a guess that some of that is due to the people sticking spoons to their faces, saying they were magnetized by the vaccine. Do we really need to give those people a platform? While we are walking a fine line here, people have proven they will believe anything that is said in an authoritative enough voice, regardless of merit. At what point does the harm outweigh the good? We know social media allows these people to find each other and create echo chambers to reinforce their viewpoints and recruit others. We would have no problem if this was "white supremacy" or "terrorism", however I think this will affect many more people.
sekai 5y ago
> experimental drug When do drugs stop being experimental?
- distrill 5y ago
  Unfortunately, people will be saying "we don't know what happens 10 years after getting vaccinated" for 10 years
  - yellow_lead 5y ago
    Ask these people what a p-value is though and they'll tell you about urinalysis.
yellow_lead 5y ago
By "the vaccine" are you referring to an mRNA vaccine? Are they skeptical of the J&J vaccine?
- AHappyCamper 5y ago
  Pfizer. She said she doesn't know what's really in it, or how it performs transfers, what lipids it uses, etc.
  - asdff 5y ago
    Then she hasn't bothered looking into it from legit sources at all, or when she does find a legit source she assumes that since it goes against whatever conspiracy website she reads that its in on the conspiracy and therefore wrong. Here are your ingredients: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/Community_Resources/Vaccinations/Print-Materials/Fact-Sheets/Ingredients_English.pdf https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/Community_Resource...
clajiness 5y ago
> What the hell is going on when we are silencing senior scientists who are extremely worried about an experimental drug that we're giving to the entire world??! What exactly is “experimental” about a vaccine that has not only been through very robust phase III clinical trials, but has also had literally billions of doses deployed?
- AHappyCamper 5y ago
  The first scientist told me that practically no non-Pfizer labs have looked at it. That is not robust. Usually this stuff gets reviewed by everyone, but in this case, technical info is not available to other scientists who wish to learn more about the vaccine - according to her.
YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
The room for their opinion is in peer reviewed medical journals. Short of conducting their own study, they could, for example, write a dissenting letter to the editor, or submit what's known as a "brief report." Posting to Youtube for clicks and views is to not take seriously their own knowledge. Covid-19 is a very serious issue; on the chance that your two senior scientists have information that the world needs, the appropriate venue is in the medium scientists and doctors use to communicate with each other. Also, what does it mean to be "skeptical" of "the" vaccine? There are several vaccines. Were they skeptical of mRNA? Viral vector vaccines? All of them? Do they think that the covid-19 vaccines secretly don't work?
- AHappyCamper 5y ago
  They both said they feel immense pressure not to speak out against the vaccine or publish anything against it. So the regular channels of dissent have been removed.
  - asdff 5y ago
    If they had significant data a journal would pick them up. There is no one silencing them but themselves, because they know they don't have good evidence and their sources also don't have good evidence. The lancet, one of the most prestigious journals in the world, took up an article that vaccines might be related to autism, because at the time the authors had significant data (that later turned out to be fraudulent but at this point pandoras box had already been opened, and now decades later people believe vaccines cause autism). So if they did have this smoking gun data that said the vaccines are something to be worried about, it would have been published by now in a huge journal.
    - YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
      Great points. In particular, that one original source of anti-vax anxiety comes from a study published in a top medical journal. If one thinks that the medical establishment is corrupt or self-censoring, or should not be trusted, etc., then does that also not apply to articles published in The Lancet?
SkipperCat 5y ago
I hope they have published their critique of the mRNA technology in the last decade because the technology has been around for a long time. It was just adapted for COVID-19 in the last year. My guess is they have not said a peep about mRNA until this became political.
- AHappyCamper 5y ago
  They said they feel immense pressure not to say anything negative, and that they feel they have been silenced. They're not even allowed to ask basic questions about the vaccine as part of their work, even tho that's what they do for a living.
amuchmore 5y ago
It seems curious, then, that the entire source of the vaccine is publicly available.

distrill 5y ago

trust me bro

corona-research 5y ago

There are plenty of such examples. Some of the most reputable scientists of that field have been banned for sharing their opinion on Youtube.

babypuncher 5y ago

If there was a problem with the vaccine we probably would have noticed something by the time a billion people got injected with it. These skeptics need to put up some serious evidence if they want to be taken seriously.

AlexandrB 5y ago
I agree. This kind of skepticism-on-theoretical-grounds might have been interesting/valuable a year ago. At this point additional evidence for the vaccine's safety mounts every day as more people receive it. Evidence for the vaccine's efficacy is also mounting[1]. Claims to the contrary would need some extraordinary evidence to back them up. [1] https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-19-hospitalizations-nonvaccinated https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-19-hospitalizations-non...
- AHappyCamper 5y ago
  Scientist #1 said that if she mentions anything against the vaccine, there would be retribution against her. This includes publishing any data that detracts from the vaccines safety. They're essentially creating an echo chamber where all news about the vaccine is good news.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    Given the number of countries and institutions involved the scope of the conspiracy here would have to be vast. And there are plenty of powerful, vaccine-skeptical institutions (like the GOP) that would welcome this kind of data and venerate someone producing it. Indeed, some have already built media or political careers on COVID vaccine skepticism. In addition, there's the J&J vaccine which was pulled after nasty side effects were found in a small number of patients. Where was the "they" who are supposedly creating the echo chamber in that case?
  - babypuncher 5y ago
    You're still making bold yet vague claims and providing no evidence. Just wishy-washy "an unnamed expert I know made this significant yet unverifiable statement".
AHappyCamper 5y ago
But we have noticed problems with it. https://openvaers.com/covid-data https://openvaers.com/covid-data
belorn 5y ago
One major issue was that in the beginning of this year we started with one dose, then went to a second dose a few months later, and then a third dose is starting to be recommended now a few months after that. There are some serious evidence to back this up. A study done around early summer found that only about 50% of those that have taken two doses had any detectable traces of a defense, which was one of the reason that a third dose had to be added. By winter we don't know how effective the 2 dose or 3 dose will be. To me that is where the focus of skepticism should be right now.
- babypuncher 5y ago
  > There are some serious evidence to back this up. A study done around early summer found that only about 50% of those that have taken two doses had any detectable traces of a defense, which was one of the reason that a third dose had to be added. By winter we don't know how effective the 2 dose or 3 dose will be. One study, going against countless others showing that the vaccines are highly effective. The readily available data speaks for itself. Highly vaccinated populations are experiencing much slower transmission and hospitalization rates than their poorly vaccinated counterparts. Also, we didn't start with one dose. Both mRNA vaccines were two-dose regimens from the day they started clinical trials last summer.
  - belorn 5y ago
    We don't have countless studies on how effective the vaccines over a longer period of time, and especially for those with two doses. Most seems to been done around 3 months, through most conclusions is based on simulations from observation data gathered by other vaccines such as smallpox, measles, mumps, and rubella. The observed half-life of neutralizing titers was 65 days for mRNA vaccines. The evidence will be found in the future when we have more data. Most expectation is that while the protection will be significant lower but that there might be some longer term benefits. Highly vaccinated populations that has taken the vaccine in the last 3-4 months are going to be currently more protected than those that aren't, but that doesn't say much if we need a new vaccination this winter, next summer or the year after that. It would be interesting to see a study done on those early groups of people that received the last dose of vaccine in 2020 during the summer and see how much protection that they still have now this fall in 2021. Got any links to such studies?
max46 5y ago
>If there was a problem with the vaccine we probably would have noticed something by the time a billion people got injected with it. Not when everyone who tries to talk about their bad experiences gets treated like qanon and the morons who thought 5G caused covid-19. Even quoting CDC or letters from a company who makes the vaccines is considered dangerous misinformation and can get you banned if what you are showing doesn't paint the vaccine in a good light.
- longhairedhippy 5y ago
  I would venture a guess that some of that is due to the people sticking spoons to their faces, saying they were magnetized by the vaccine. Do we really need to give those people a platform? While we are walking a fine line here, people have proven they will believe anything that is said in an authoritative enough voice, regardless of merit. At what point does the harm outweigh the good? We know social media allows these people to find each other and create echo chambers to reinforce their viewpoints and recruit others. We would have no problem if this was "white supremacy" or "terrorism", however I think this will affect many more people.

sekai 5y ago

> experimental drug When do drugs stop being experimental?

distrill 5y ago
Unfortunately, people will be saying "we don't know what happens 10 years after getting vaccinated" for 10 years
- yellow_lead 5y ago
  Ask these people what a p-value is though and they'll tell you about urinalysis.

yellow_lead 5y ago

By "the vaccine" are you referring to an mRNA vaccine? Are they skeptical of the J&J vaccine?

AHappyCamper 5y ago
Pfizer. She said she doesn't know what's really in it, or how it performs transfers, what lipids it uses, etc.
- asdff 5y ago
  Then she hasn't bothered looking into it from legit sources at all, or when she does find a legit source she assumes that since it goes against whatever conspiracy website she reads that its in on the conspiracy and therefore wrong. Here are your ingredients: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/Community_Resources/Vaccinations/Print-Materials/Fact-Sheets/Ingredients_English.pdf https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/Community_Resource...

clajiness 5y ago

> What the hell is going on when we are silencing senior scientists who are extremely worried about an experimental drug that we're giving to the entire world??! What exactly is “experimental” about a vaccine that has not only been through very robust phase III clinical trials, but has also had literally billions of doses deployed?

AHappyCamper 5y ago
The first scientist told me that practically no non-Pfizer labs have looked at it. That is not robust. Usually this stuff gets reviewed by everyone, but in this case, technical info is not available to other scientists who wish to learn more about the vaccine - according to her.

YossarianFrPrez 5y ago

The room for their opinion is in peer reviewed medical journals. Short of conducting their own study, they could, for example, write a dissenting letter to the editor, or submit what's known as a "brief report." Posting to Youtube for clicks and views is to not take seriously their own knowledge. Covid-19 is a very serious issue; on the chance that your two senior scientists have information that the world needs, the appropriate venue is in the medium scientists and doctors use to communicate with each other. Also, what does it mean to be "skeptical" of "the" vaccine? There are several vaccines. Were they skeptical of mRNA? Viral vector vaccines? All of them? Do they think that the covid-19 vaccines secretly don't work?

AHappyCamper 5y ago
They both said they feel immense pressure not to speak out against the vaccine or publish anything against it. So the regular channels of dissent have been removed.
- asdff 5y ago
  If they had significant data a journal would pick them up. There is no one silencing them but themselves, because they know they don't have good evidence and their sources also don't have good evidence. The lancet, one of the most prestigious journals in the world, took up an article that vaccines might be related to autism, because at the time the authors had significant data (that later turned out to be fraudulent but at this point pandoras box had already been opened, and now decades later people believe vaccines cause autism). So if they did have this smoking gun data that said the vaccines are something to be worried about, it would have been published by now in a huge journal.
  - YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
    Great points. In particular, that one original source of anti-vax anxiety comes from a study published in a top medical journal. If one thinks that the medical establishment is corrupt or self-censoring, or should not be trusted, etc., then does that also not apply to articles published in The Lancet?

SkipperCat 5y ago

I hope they have published their critique of the mRNA technology in the last decade because the technology has been around for a long time. It was just adapted for COVID-19 in the last year. My guess is they have not said a peep about mRNA until this became political.

AHappyCamper 5y ago
They said they feel immense pressure not to say anything negative, and that they feel they have been silenced. They're not even allowed to ask basic questions about the vaccine as part of their work, even tho that's what they do for a living.

amuchmore 5y ago

It seems curious, then, that the entire source of the vaccine is publicly available.