4 ms·

Yes billions of data points showing the safety and efficacy of the mRNA shots just isn’t enough. We need tens of billions otherwise you just can’t trust those

Yes billions of data points showing the safety and efficacy of the mRNA shots just isn’t enough. We need tens of billions otherwise you just can’t trust those things.

bongcloud420 5y ago
The safety is being called into question and the vaccines aren't any where even kinda close to effective as they purported to be when they were released. I find it extremely strange to see more or less this exact post over and over again in response to people's concerns for long-term side effects. Number of people !== time. Every single person on the planet could get the vaccine and we still would have precisely 0 long-term data. It's even more interesting that the same people making this mistake and telling everyone to "follow the science" seem completely unable to accept that not only are there very real health concerns, but that it's entirely possible if not probable that more negative effects will be found in the future.
landemva 5y ago
In addition to data points, safety determinations also take time. Prior to 2020, it took 4-10 years (though sometimes longer like chicken pox shot) for vaccine approval in USA. When did we have discussions and thoughts and reasoned policy change on the _time_ aspect of safety testing? While some things like asbestos have uses, safety concerns can take years to be discovered.
- peter422 5y ago
  The past vaccine timeline was driven mostly by monetary concerns and not safety ones. Companies did not want to risk spending tons of money on large trials until they were sure all the smaller ones were bulletproof. Once you get to the point of doing the large phase 3 trial the timeline for these vaccines was much less compressed. Also much easier to test a vaccine when the virus is spreading all over the place quickly. Also there just aren’t historical examples of vaccines having “hidden” long term effects. All side effects that happen after 6 weeks also happen much more frequently before 6 weeks.
disambiguation 5y ago
I am not an expert, but I'll weigh in on the "healthy skepticism" 1. I can't speak for others, but my skepticism stems from one idea: it's foolish to tamper with your immune system unless absolutely necessary or there's absolutely no risk, because you can't undo it later. At this point we can safely say the covid vaccine poses some risk relative to other vaccines. That being said, for some individuals the vaccine is absolutely necessary. For other's such as children and young people whose bodies are still developing, the cost-benefit tradeoff is dubious. 2. "safe and effective" has proven to be a false statement. It might be fair to instead phrase it as "better than nothing, for most people". That's what the tens of billions of data points tell us so far. Yet this is undermined further by reports such as "Aaron Rodgers, unvaccinated, sick with COVID, has mild symptoms and is doing fine" and "Fully Vaccinated NFL player hospitalized with COVID-19". https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vaccinated-nfl-player-hospitalized-with-covid-19 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vaccinated-nfl-playe... 3. We don't have a good way of tracking and reporting adverse events. VAERS has a lot of systemic problems -- self-reporting isn't 100% reliable in scientific terms, but simultaneously studies show vaccine related adverse events are typically under reported. "and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported." https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publicatio... 4. By extension of VAERS, we don't have a good way of relating the vaccine to adverse event. ex. If someone gets vaccinated, and a month later dies of a blood clot, how do we prove or disprove the correlation? With food, drugs, and medicine, the only useful way is long term clinical trials. I don't think we even have a causal relationship between the vaccine and myocarditis at this point, but rather an undeniable correlation. This says something about our scientific ability to measure safety. 5. There have been whistleblower reports about the honesty and reliability of the original vaccine trials. I take this with a grain of salt, but it highlights the lack of transparency and forced compliance endemic in the medical industry. 6. As time goes on, more articles and studies are released that cast doubt on the safety of the vaccine. This recent study shows (in vitro) that the mRNA induced spike protein is observed to cause damage at the cellular level in a way that hinders DNA repair and antibody creation. (Published: 13 October 2021) https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056 To be clear, I don't want to forecast "vaccine doom" because everyone I know and love has the vaccine. I truly hope the science disproves any doubts about safety. But until then I reserve the right to speculate and make my own risk assessment.

Yes billions of data points showing the safety and efficacy of the mRNA shots just isn’t enough. We need tens of billions otherwise you just can’t trust those things.

bongcloud420 5y ago

The safety is being called into question and the vaccines aren't any where even kinda close to effective as they purported to be when they were released. I find it extremely strange to see more or less this exact post over and over again in response to people's concerns for long-term side effects. Number of people !== time. Every single person on the planet could get the vaccine and we still would have precisely 0 long-term data. It's even more interesting that the same people making this mistake and telling everyone to "follow the science" seem completely unable to accept that not only are there very real health concerns, but that it's entirely possible if not probable that more negative effects will be found in the future.

landemva 5y ago

In addition to data points, safety determinations also take time. Prior to 2020, it took 4-10 years (though sometimes longer like chicken pox shot) for vaccine approval in USA. When did we have discussions and thoughts and reasoned policy change on the _time_ aspect of safety testing? While some things like asbestos have uses, safety concerns can take years to be discovered.

peter422 5y ago
The past vaccine timeline was driven mostly by monetary concerns and not safety ones. Companies did not want to risk spending tons of money on large trials until they were sure all the smaller ones were bulletproof. Once you get to the point of doing the large phase 3 trial the timeline for these vaccines was much less compressed. Also much easier to test a vaccine when the virus is spreading all over the place quickly. Also there just aren’t historical examples of vaccines having “hidden” long term effects. All side effects that happen after 6 weeks also happen much more frequently before 6 weeks.

disambiguation 5y ago

I am not an expert, but I'll weigh in on the "healthy skepticism" 1. I can't speak for others, but my skepticism stems from one idea: it's foolish to tamper with your immune system unless absolutely necessary or there's absolutely no risk, because you can't undo it later. At this point we can safely say the covid vaccine poses some risk relative to other vaccines. That being said, for some individuals the vaccine is absolutely necessary. For other's such as children and young people whose bodies are still developing, the cost-benefit tradeoff is dubious. 2. "safe and effective" has proven to be a false statement. It might be fair to instead phrase it as "better than nothing, for most people". That's what the tens of billions of data points tell us so far. Yet this is undermined further by reports such as "Aaron Rodgers, unvaccinated, sick with COVID, has mild symptoms and is doing fine" and "Fully Vaccinated NFL player hospitalized with COVID-19". https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vaccinated-nfl-player-hospitalized-with-covid-19 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vaccinated-nfl-playe... 3. We don't have a good way of tracking and reporting adverse events. VAERS has a lot of systemic problems -- self-reporting isn't 100% reliable in scientific terms, but simultaneously studies show vaccine related adverse events are typically under reported. "and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported." https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publicatio... 4. By extension of VAERS, we don't have a good way of relating the vaccine to adverse event. ex. If someone gets vaccinated, and a month later dies of a blood clot, how do we prove or disprove the correlation? With food, drugs, and medicine, the only useful way is long term clinical trials. I don't think we even have a causal relationship between the vaccine and myocarditis at this point, but rather an undeniable correlation. This says something about our scientific ability to measure safety. 5. There have been whistleblower reports about the honesty and reliability of the original vaccine trials. I take this with a grain of salt, but it highlights the lack of transparency and forced compliance endemic in the medical industry. 6. As time goes on, more articles and studies are released that cast doubt on the safety of the vaccine. This recent study shows (in vitro) that the mRNA induced spike protein is observed to cause damage at the cellular level in a way that hinders DNA repair and antibody creation. (Published: 13 October 2021) https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056 To be clear, I don't want to forecast "vaccine doom" because everyone I know and love has the vaccine. I truly hope the science disproves any doubts about safety. But until then I reserve the right to speculate and make my own risk assessment.