4 ms·

> All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short

> All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short term side effects on the scale of 6 months rather than the 1 month you stated it would not be possible to have them after. > But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects. I'm not arguing with you over whether or not there could be long term side effects; I am arguing with you over the definition of long term.

joshuamorton 5y ago
See my edit. You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. But that doesn't follow. If the prevalence of some potentially chronic condition is low enough after a month to be safe, that it might be even safer doesn't really matter. Right like to recap but remove the word "long term" entirely, you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning. I said that no that's not possible, stuff can't develop suddenly after even just a month or so, because the mechanisms don't exist. You then cited an example of something that developed in under a month or two as a counterexample. When I put it that way, it's clear that it isn't actually a counterexample.
- merlincorey 5y ago
  > You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. This is not my position and I have made no such statements. You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me. > But that doesn't follow. Quite! > you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning I absolutely did not -- maybe you have me mistaken with someone else you are currently discussing with.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me. As are you, I never used the term "long term" until you did. My initial comment was "Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months?" So now that I've attempted to clarify, let's ask the related question: if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) would be initially detectable in a month or two, and given that the vaccine already meets the bar for safety, what is the point of a long term study? You're not going to detect any new side effects, and the only thing you may find is that existing side effects might be less serious. What reason should I (or you) have to care about "long-term" studies?
    - merlincorey 5y ago
      My original reply to you quoted your sentence which I will requote here: > In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well. I don't personally hold any particular view about short or long term studies, but I do enjoy logic and engaging in discussion. > if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) would be initially detectable in a month or two, and given that the vaccine already meets the bar for safety, what is the point of a long term study? You're not going to detect any new side effects, and the only thing you may find is that existing side effects might be less serious. The CDC maintains a list of Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns[0] and at least two of those have long term studies attached to them. In 1976, a Swine Flu vaccine was provided to people. This caused an increase of 1 in 100,000 cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and when 40,000,000 people had been vaccinated, the government stopped vaccinations to prevent this. > The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally. Similarly, in 2009 and 2010 there was an H1N1 Influenza Vaccine distributed in Europe which produced an increased rate of narcolepsy. While the first cases started showing up in 2010, it wasn't until 2012 and later that this link was shown to be significant. The rest of the CDC text focuses on the subsequent testing of other H1N1 vaccines to show that they do not increase the risk of getting narcolepsy, but that should not detract you from the findings that the oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant called ASO3 that was present in Pandemrix is somehow related. Even with all of that, we still don't know why AS03 seemed to increase the incidence of narcolepsy, but we don't give that vaccine to people since 2011 or so because of it. > What reason should I (or you) have to care about "long-term" studies? *Conclusion*: I agree that side effects will generally be seen early on, but I believe we can benefit from "long term" studies because there is a large amount of complexity in the way the human body responds to various chemicals and some of those responses aren't able to be understood even after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them [0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....

joshuamorton 5y ago

See my edit. You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. But that doesn't follow. If the prevalence of some potentially chronic condition is low enough after a month to be safe, that it might be even safer doesn't really matter. Right like to recap but remove the word "long term" entirely, you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning. I said that no that's not possible, stuff can't develop suddenly after even just a month or so, because the mechanisms don't exist. You then cited an example of something that developed in under a month or two as a counterexample. When I put it that way, it's clear that it isn't actually a counterexample.

merlincorey 5y ago
> You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. This is not my position and I have made no such statements. You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me. > But that doesn't follow. Quite! > you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning I absolutely did not -- maybe you have me mistaken with someone else you are currently discussing with.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me. As are you, I never used the term "long term" until you did. My initial comment was "Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months?" So now that I've attempted to clarify, let's ask the related question: if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) would be initially detectable in a month or two, and given that the vaccine already meets the bar for safety, what is the point of a long term study? You're not going to detect any new side effects, and the only thing you may find is that existing side effects might be less serious. What reason should I (or you) have to care about "long-term" studies?
  - merlincorey 5y ago
    My original reply to you quoted your sentence which I will requote here: > In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well. I don't personally hold any particular view about short or long term studies, but I do enjoy logic and engaging in discussion. > if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) would be initially detectable in a month or two, and given that the vaccine already meets the bar for safety, what is the point of a long term study? You're not going to detect any new side effects, and the only thing you may find is that existing side effects might be less serious. The CDC maintains a list of Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns[0] and at least two of those have long term studies attached to them. In 1976, a Swine Flu vaccine was provided to people. This caused an increase of 1 in 100,000 cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and when 40,000,000 people had been vaccinated, the government stopped vaccinations to prevent this. > The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally. Similarly, in 2009 and 2010 there was an H1N1 Influenza Vaccine distributed in Europe which produced an increased rate of narcolepsy. While the first cases started showing up in 2010, it wasn't until 2012 and later that this link was shown to be significant. The rest of the CDC text focuses on the subsequent testing of other H1N1 vaccines to show that they do not increase the risk of getting narcolepsy, but that should not detract you from the findings that the oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant called ASO3 that was present in Pandemrix is somehow related. Even with all of that, we still don't know why AS03 seemed to increase the incidence of narcolepsy, but we don't give that vaccine to people since 2011 or so because of it. > What reason should I (or you) have to care about "long-term" studies? *Conclusion*: I agree that side effects will generally be seen early on, but I believe we can benefit from "long term" studies because there is a large amount of complexity in the way the human body responds to various chemicals and some of those responses aren't able to be understood even after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them [0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....