3 ms·
"It would be exceptional if side effects occurred months or years down the line" If you dig into the sources of such claims, you find they're unfortunately bas
by native_samples 5y ago
"It would be exceptional if side effects occurred months or years down the line"
If you dig into the sources of such claims, you find they're unfortunately based on circular logic. As is so often in the case in public health. Specifically, circular logic of the form "we can't prove beyond doubt a nasty thing that happened ~3 weeks later was due to the vaccine and we're not inclined to look, so it won't be reported as an AE, therefore there are no AEs after that point, therefore it's exceptional for vaccines to cause long term injuries, therefore we won't blame vaccines for anything happening after 3 weeks because it doesn't happen".
Except in the case of the COVID vaccines a few weeks became 7 days. Literally any event that happened after 7 days was considered not vaccine related in the trials. That's not very long especially given the nature of heart damage.
Also, you have to distinguish between side effects happening, and side effects being recognized by public health. It took five years for the system to accept that Pandemrix had maimed teenagers (to protect them from Swine Flu, a disease so mild everyone had forgotten about it by the time this fact was recognized). It also took lawsuits and a very slow moving process to even get the pharma firms to cough up the data showing they knew about the problem much earlier.
Finally, actually, no, we don't know that SARS-CoV-2 is much more dangerous. The data and science quality on this topic is so poor that almost nothing can be said for certain except at the extremes.