4 ms·

> What will the long term effects be? We don't know. Thank you for bringing this up. It isn’t “anti-science” to ask these type of questions and expect answers.

> What will the long term effects be? We don't know. Thank you for bringing this up. It isn’t “anti-science” to ask these type of questions and expect answers. Indeed, it has always been the job of the FDA to hold drug companies responsible for proving that their drugs do not harm. Guilty until proven innocent. Given the rushed approval, incredible profit motive, reluctance of the FDA to respond to FOIA requests and the strong pushback against those who ask questions I think some skepticism is warranted. So far, the cost-benefit for those not in high risk groups (especially children) seems waaaaay off. Why vaccinate children that are at almost no risk of serious illness when we clearly do not have all the info on long term vax risks?

saynay 5y ago
So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination. Vaccines are not exactly new science. There has, however, been evidence of long-term effects of catching COVID in some cases. It is pretty obvious which option to take with the currently available evidence.
- bequanna 5y ago
  Right, my argument would be that the “currently available evidence” should be viewed with skepticism given the incredible profit motive involved and current political climate.
- a45a33s 5y ago
  >So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination. Vaccines are not exactly new science. the vaccines came out last year, there hasn't even been a long term yet. mrna vaccines are definitely new science, unless you can point me to another mrna vaccine that has been distributed to the public at this scale?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  "So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination" A couple of people have died, I'd call that a long-term adverse effect. Presumably way less people than would otherwise have died from Covid, so not to say you shouldn't get vaccinated. But to claim there are no known long-term adverse effects is wrong.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    When people are talking about unknown long-term effects in this context, they typically mean effects that appear much later. As in, stuff that wouldn't be caught in studies and our current vaccination efforts. Long-lasting but quickly appearing adverse effects, like death, are pretty well understood and are calculated in.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  The time period of "long term" after vaccination literally doesn't exist yet
- peteradio 5y ago
  > Vaccines are not exactly new science. This tells you nothing about the predictability of the practice of the science. It also cannot be used to gild by association anything that wishes to be marketed as a "vaccine".
- omginternets 5y ago
  >So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination So far, there hasn't been nearly the same amount of public scrutiny as with your average vaccine, either. Sure, people have taken in record numbers, but we have far less information about long-term effects than usual. And certainly, there have been extraordinary incentives to push vaccination, along with extraordinary mismanagement of the pandemic in general. The difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that one is more ethical or risk-averse than the other. It's a difference in estimation of where the most risk resides: in the disease, or in our management thereof.
  - arrrg 5y ago
    Do we? Why do you claim that? The eyes of the world have been glued to this. People actually know the different "brands" of vaccines. Tabloids have discussions on them and their side effects … the scrutiny and expectations from the public seem extremely high, so I’m not sure why you think anyone involved in this could afford to no be very tough and detail oriented in the scrutiny of this vaccine. This seems like a deeply weird worldview that doesn’t in any way match up to reality. Your statement seems highly implausible and just makes no sense. Do you have any concrete evidence to back it up?
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
- generalizations 5y ago
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    The definition of the word vaccine is a substance that stimulates immunity by imitating the infectious agent. There have been many different kinds of vaccines over the years. “Vaccine” is a word like “chair.” It tells you what it does, not what it is made out of.
    - bequanna 5y ago
      Did you just unilaterally decide what the word “vaccine” means? :) That isn’t how it works. A word means what people understand it to mean. But…semantics. Whatever. The main issue that the parent comment touches on is that this is a new process for developing a vaccine and it isn’t honest to compare this to vaccines we’ve been giving people for decades. There is a heck of a lot we don’t know. People are intuitive and they sense this. They aren’t anti science, but they do know when they are being sold something in a less than honest way.
      - didibus 5y ago
        > Did you just unilaterally decide what the word “vaccine” means? :) Their definition seems pretty close to that of Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+vaccine https://www.google.com/search?q=define+vaccine > a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease But to be fair, at this point, I don't know why we discuss mRNA vaccines, there's been traditional vaccines available for people to take as well such as J&J and Novavax. So even if you don't want to take risk with mRNA since its a newer mechanism to use for vaccines, one can take J&J or Novavax instead.
        Izkata 5y ago
        J&J is an adenovirus-vector vaccine. They're almost as new as mRNA - before the covid ones, it had only been approved once, in an Ebola vaccine, in 2019. Novavax I don't think is available yet.
potatoz2 5y ago
There's arguably some profit motive for Pfizer and Moderna. But there isn't any for the FDA or all its other international peers. Not to mention that if the vaccine turns out to be dangerous in any way, the reputational damage will be incalculable and completely wipe away the billions made from what will probably be at most 10 doses of the vaccine, if we're unlucky.
- generalizations 5y ago
  They can come back from it - other companies have. Do we even remember the scandals Nesle and Monsanto (etc) have weathered? And don't forget that Pfizer and Moderna have been given immunity against any side effects from their COVID treatments. If there's any long term effects, the drug companies are well insulated from any blowback.
- bequanna 5y ago
  There is essentially a revolving door between industry and regulators in the US. We shouldn’t trust, we need to independently verify. We need openness and the FOIA. Also, please see vioxx to learn more about how pharma will push drugs with known, serious side effects and try to bury the evidence. Most of these people have their professional lives tied up in a specific drug. You better bet many of them will do damn near anything to push it thru regardless of the human cost. Remember that when there is wrongdoing the individual whistleblower is the exception. The only person out of many that was willing to come forward to do the right thing.

saynay 5y ago

So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination. Vaccines are not exactly new science. There has, however, been evidence of long-term effects of catching COVID in some cases. It is pretty obvious which option to take with the currently available evidence.

bequanna 5y ago
Right, my argument would be that the “currently available evidence” should be viewed with skepticism given the incredible profit motive involved and current political climate.
a45a33s 5y ago
>So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination. Vaccines are not exactly new science. the vaccines came out last year, there hasn't even been a long term yet. mrna vaccines are definitely new science, unless you can point me to another mrna vaccine that has been distributed to the public at this scale?
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination" A couple of people have died, I'd call that a long-term adverse effect. Presumably way less people than would otherwise have died from Covid, so not to say you shouldn't get vaccinated. But to claim there are no known long-term adverse effects is wrong.
- yupper32 5y ago
  When people are talking about unknown long-term effects in this context, they typically mean effects that appear much later. As in, stuff that wouldn't be caught in studies and our current vaccination efforts. Long-lasting but quickly appearing adverse effects, like death, are pretty well understood and are calculated in.
defaultprimate 5y ago
The time period of "long term" after vaccination literally doesn't exist yet
peteradio 5y ago
> Vaccines are not exactly new science. This tells you nothing about the predictability of the practice of the science. It also cannot be used to gild by association anything that wishes to be marketed as a "vaccine".
omginternets 5y ago
>So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination So far, there hasn't been nearly the same amount of public scrutiny as with your average vaccine, either. Sure, people have taken in record numbers, but we have far less information about long-term effects than usual. And certainly, there have been extraordinary incentives to push vaccination, along with extraordinary mismanagement of the pandemic in general. The difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that one is more ethical or risk-averse than the other. It's a difference in estimation of where the most risk resides: in the disease, or in our management thereof.
- arrrg 5y ago
  Do we? Why do you claim that? The eyes of the world have been glued to this. People actually know the different "brands" of vaccines. Tabloids have discussions on them and their side effects … the scrutiny and expectations from the public seem extremely high, so I’m not sure why you think anyone involved in this could afford to no be very tough and detail oriented in the scrutiny of this vaccine. This seems like a deeply weird worldview that doesn’t in any way match up to reality. Your statement seems highly implausible and just makes no sense. Do you have any concrete evidence to back it up?
bopbeepboop 5y ago
generalizations 5y ago
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  The definition of the word vaccine is a substance that stimulates immunity by imitating the infectious agent. There have been many different kinds of vaccines over the years. “Vaccine” is a word like “chair.” It tells you what it does, not what it is made out of.
  - bequanna 5y ago
    Did you just unilaterally decide what the word “vaccine” means? :) That isn’t how it works. A word means what people understand it to mean. But…semantics. Whatever. The main issue that the parent comment touches on is that this is a new process for developing a vaccine and it isn’t honest to compare this to vaccines we’ve been giving people for decades. There is a heck of a lot we don’t know. People are intuitive and they sense this. They aren’t anti science, but they do know when they are being sold something in a less than honest way.
    - didibus 5y ago
      > Did you just unilaterally decide what the word “vaccine” means? :) Their definition seems pretty close to that of Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+vaccine https://www.google.com/search?q=define+vaccine > a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease But to be fair, at this point, I don't know why we discuss mRNA vaccines, there's been traditional vaccines available for people to take as well such as J&J and Novavax. So even if you don't want to take risk with mRNA since its a newer mechanism to use for vaccines, one can take J&J or Novavax instead.
      - Izkata 5y ago
        J&J is an adenovirus-vector vaccine. They're almost as new as mRNA - before the covid ones, it had only been approved once, in an Ebola vaccine, in 2019. Novavax I don't think is available yet.

potatoz2 5y ago

There's arguably some profit motive for Pfizer and Moderna. But there isn't any for the FDA or all its other international peers. Not to mention that if the vaccine turns out to be dangerous in any way, the reputational damage will be incalculable and completely wipe away the billions made from what will probably be at most 10 doses of the vaccine, if we're unlucky.

generalizations 5y ago
They can come back from it - other companies have. Do we even remember the scandals Nesle and Monsanto (etc) have weathered? And don't forget that Pfizer and Moderna have been given immunity against any side effects from their COVID treatments. If there's any long term effects, the drug companies are well insulated from any blowback.
bequanna 5y ago
There is essentially a revolving door between industry and regulators in the US. We shouldn’t trust, we need to independently verify. We need openness and the FOIA. Also, please see vioxx to learn more about how pharma will push drugs with known, serious side effects and try to bury the evidence. Most of these people have their professional lives tied up in a specific drug. You better bet many of them will do damn near anything to push it thru regardless of the human cost. Remember that when there is wrongdoing the individual whistleblower is the exception. The only person out of many that was willing to come forward to do the right thing.