5 ms·

They have a lot of work to do, I would say look outside of the US and also technologies used by different vaccines worldwide. A lot of the consternations fall

They have a lot of work to do, I would say look outside of the US and also technologies used by different vaccines worldwide. A lot of the consternations fall apart, to me, when the aggregate response reaches the same conclusion, something impossible to be done by any guiding hand due to geopolitics.

incrudible 5y ago
> A lot of the consternations fall apart, to me, when the aggregate response reaches the same conclusion... Does it though? The other countries that went all in on MRNA vaccines obviously don't have an interest in finding more problems with them. I have yet to see a single good study that determines risk/benefit stratified by age and risk factors. This rather new study shows that risk of Myocarditis is higher with vaccination rather than infection, in males under 40: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v... Furthermore, the risk appears to increase with each dose. Yet, many countries are now advising all the 12-17 year-olds to get a third dose - to speculatively decrease an already minor risk. This suggests to me that proper precaution is not actually being pursued, neither in the US nor elsewhere.
- vmception 5y ago
  I’m not sold on third doses or more either. Its a mRNA vaccine for two variants ago and we dont use that standard for other viruses. Decent example but this is a separate issue than the premise I started with or replied to. I think myocarditis is a good example of remaining objective with data. At risk people know what they need to do and it is no longer selfish for the rest of us to not help that. Nobody can kill as many grandmas as Cuomo’s nursing homes, its impossible now and a booster also assumes additional risk whereas the initial doses did not.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > Decent example but this is a separate issue than the premise I started with or replied to. I disagree. The question is, is the the system broken or not? To me, this example suggests that it is indeed broken. Then, did it just break or was it broken all along? Is it possible that we mandated vaccinations to millions of people that were more likely to be harmed than helped by these vaccines? If so, would we know, eventually? The status quo in the pharma industry is to never do more trials than absolutely necessary, lest you risk discovering something that runs counter to business interest. I suspect a very similar attitude would exist among regulatory bodies that risk discovering that it has been advocating a potentially harmful medical intervention to people that didn't need it. The only entities that have a vested interest in figuring this out are private health insurances. If these vaccines are worth taking, let them charge a premium for refusal.

incrudible 5y ago

> A lot of the consternations fall apart, to me, when the aggregate response reaches the same conclusion... Does it though? The other countries that went all in on MRNA vaccines obviously don't have an interest in finding more problems with them. I have yet to see a single good study that determines risk/benefit stratified by age and risk factors. This rather new study shows that risk of Myocarditis is higher with vaccination rather than infection, in males under 40: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v... Furthermore, the risk appears to increase with each dose. Yet, many countries are now advising all the 12-17 year-olds to get a third dose - to speculatively decrease an already minor risk. This suggests to me that proper precaution is not actually being pursued, neither in the US nor elsewhere.

vmception 5y ago
I’m not sold on third doses or more either. Its a mRNA vaccine for two variants ago and we dont use that standard for other viruses. Decent example but this is a separate issue than the premise I started with or replied to. I think myocarditis is a good example of remaining objective with data. At risk people know what they need to do and it is no longer selfish for the rest of us to not help that. Nobody can kill as many grandmas as Cuomo’s nursing homes, its impossible now and a booster also assumes additional risk whereas the initial doses did not.
- incrudible 5y ago
  > Decent example but this is a separate issue than the premise I started with or replied to. I disagree. The question is, is the the system broken or not? To me, this example suggests that it is indeed broken. Then, did it just break or was it broken all along? Is it possible that we mandated vaccinations to millions of people that were more likely to be harmed than helped by these vaccines? If so, would we know, eventually? The status quo in the pharma industry is to never do more trials than absolutely necessary, lest you risk discovering something that runs counter to business interest. I suspect a very similar attitude would exist among regulatory bodies that risk discovering that it has been advocating a potentially harmful medical intervention to people that didn't need it. The only entities that have a vested interest in figuring this out are private health insurances. If these vaccines are worth taking, let them charge a premium for refusal.