4 ms·

He claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer but for sure sounds like one. Can somebody please point me out how Pfizer vaccine is causing more hearth AE in young peo

He claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer but for sure sounds like one. Can somebody please point me out how Pfizer vaccine is causing more hearth AE in young people than COVID-19 does?

londgine 5y ago
That depends on how you define anti-vaxxer. If you use webster's month old definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer "a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination" Then a whole lot of supposedly "reasonable" people (including myself) are anti-vaxxers. If however, you use the traditional definition, then the author is against boosters for under 18 year olds, but pro vaccines for all and boosters for 18+. That would make him a pro-vaxxer
- nojokes 5y ago
  For me a clear separation is spreading false information about vaccine effectiveness and safety. I could not see how any US approve COVID-19 vaccine for 16-17 year old is causing more hearth issues than COVID-19 does - quite opposite appears to be true based on the referenced Oxford study. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the study?
  - londgine 5y ago
    In order to determine that you have to determine 1: How much harm the vaccine is causing 16-17 yo 2: How much harm the virus is causing 16-17 yo Regarding 1, we know that mRNA vaccines can cause heart inflammation. As for, how much for 16-17 yo, I don't know if that has been tested. Regarding 2, I am unaware of a test that has been preformed on 16-17 yo. But the test on under 11 yo was unsuccessful, because even those getting the placebo did not develop serious symptoms of the virus. If you believe that the burden of proof should be on whoever wants someone to take the vaccine, then they would have to preform a trial that determines 1 and 2. Until that is done, the philosophical default is not to claim that boosters should be given to 17-18 yo.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      This has been already determined and result is - virus causes more arm than vaccination. As for boosters - US is not Israel that could vaccinate all their 16-17 in one week if they see that virus has started to cause a lot harm. It would be great success when US could vaccinate half of them in few months. We know already well how the virus is acting on under 11 olds and we do not need statistics to tell us that. If the vaccine can prevent symptomatic illness, it can also prevent serious illness. Simple as that.
Vecr 5y ago
I think some people's definition of an "anti-vaxer" is getting too enlarged. If Paul Offit (member of VRBPAC, and the author of a book titled "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All"), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP, the advisory group to the CDC), the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC, the advisory group for the FDA) are all anti-vaxers because they share similar views to the author, there might be a problem.
logic_beats_pro 5y ago
[flagged]

He claims that he is not an anti-vaxxer but for sure sounds like one. Can somebody please point me out how Pfizer vaccine is causing more hearth AE in young people than COVID-19 does?

londgine 5y ago

That depends on how you define anti-vaxxer. If you use webster's month old definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer "a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination" Then a whole lot of supposedly "reasonable" people (including myself) are anti-vaxxers. If however, you use the traditional definition, then the author is against boosters for under 18 year olds, but pro vaccines for all and boosters for 18+. That would make him a pro-vaxxer

nojokes 5y ago
For me a clear separation is spreading false information about vaccine effectiveness and safety. I could not see how any US approve COVID-19 vaccine for 16-17 year old is causing more hearth issues than COVID-19 does - quite opposite appears to be true based on the referenced Oxford study. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the study?
- londgine 5y ago
  In order to determine that you have to determine 1: How much harm the vaccine is causing 16-17 yo 2: How much harm the virus is causing 16-17 yo Regarding 1, we know that mRNA vaccines can cause heart inflammation. As for, how much for 16-17 yo, I don't know if that has been tested. Regarding 2, I am unaware of a test that has been preformed on 16-17 yo. But the test on under 11 yo was unsuccessful, because even those getting the placebo did not develop serious symptoms of the virus. If you believe that the burden of proof should be on whoever wants someone to take the vaccine, then they would have to preform a trial that determines 1 and 2. Until that is done, the philosophical default is not to claim that boosters should be given to 17-18 yo.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    This has been already determined and result is - virus causes more arm than vaccination. As for boosters - US is not Israel that could vaccinate all their 16-17 in one week if they see that virus has started to cause a lot harm. It would be great success when US could vaccinate half of them in few months. We know already well how the virus is acting on under 11 olds and we do not need statistics to tell us that. If the vaccine can prevent symptomatic illness, it can also prevent serious illness. Simple as that.

Vecr 5y ago

I think some people's definition of an "anti-vaxer" is getting too enlarged. If Paul Offit (member of VRBPAC, and the author of a book titled "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All"), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP, the advisory group to the CDC), the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC, the advisory group for the FDA) are all anti-vaxers because they share similar views to the author, there might be a problem.

logic_beats_pro 5y ago

[flagged]