4 ms·

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 str

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
> At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well. Right yes, note how I didn't say anything about "long-term" side effects (or studies). I said that side effects would be present after a short period. That's the only claim I made. Both of the studies you mention show examples of side effects that were present quickly. The 1976 case was a vaccination campaign that started on October 1, 1976 and ended in on December 16th, due to the potential for GBS. In other words, it took ~2 months for the cases to be recognized, studied, and the vaccination program entirely stopped. There was absolutely nothing "long-term" here. I can't find precise enough dates for the Swine flu vaccine. But it looks like initial trials concluded in late 2009, and the vaccine had been canceled in at least a few countries within a year. > This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally. Sure, for learning about things. But it doesn't tell us anything new about safety, the safety concerns were known and acted on within 2 months, without any study, much less a "long-term" one. There's of course the other issue with these things, which is that these kinds of side effects affect 1-in-50 or 100,000 people. To detect that with any power, you need to dose a million people, and at that point its no longer a trial. It's just "the first part of the vaccine rollout". > after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology)
- merlincorey 5y ago
  > Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology) I'm not making any argument about whether or not to take a vaccine based on study results. This is an argument you are having with other people and projecting onto me. I personally neither agree nor disagree with any position on the subject of whether or not to take a vaccine prior to "long term studies" being conducted -- as a libertarian, I believe that choice is completely up to you whether you choose to take a vaccine or not, just as I believe it should be up to you what substances you do or do not put into your body. I get the sense you have a different view and it seems like you potentially would disagree that people should have the choice to decide what goes into their bodies if you believe them not putting something in their bodies would potentially affect you. That's an entirely different debate than what this started with: what's the definition of short term vs long term when it comes to side effects. I'd still like a definitive answer with regards to your stance on the definition of short vs long term whether or not you think it applies to your more general arguments.

joshuamorton 5y ago

> At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well. Right yes, note how I didn't say anything about "long-term" side effects (or studies). I said that side effects would be present after a short period. That's the only claim I made. Both of the studies you mention show examples of side effects that were present quickly. The 1976 case was a vaccination campaign that started on October 1, 1976 and ended in on December 16th, due to the potential for GBS. In other words, it took ~2 months for the cases to be recognized, studied, and the vaccination program entirely stopped. There was absolutely nothing "long-term" here. I can't find precise enough dates for the Swine flu vaccine. But it looks like initial trials concluded in late 2009, and the vaccine had been canceled in at least a few countries within a year. > This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally. Sure, for learning about things. But it doesn't tell us anything new about safety, the safety concerns were known and acted on within 2 months, without any study, much less a "long-term" one. There's of course the other issue with these things, which is that these kinds of side effects affect 1-in-50 or 100,000 people. To detect that with any power, you need to dose a million people, and at that point its no longer a trial. It's just "the first part of the vaccine rollout". > after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology)

merlincorey 5y ago
> Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology) I'm not making any argument about whether or not to take a vaccine based on study results. This is an argument you are having with other people and projecting onto me. I personally neither agree nor disagree with any position on the subject of whether or not to take a vaccine prior to "long term studies" being conducted -- as a libertarian, I believe that choice is completely up to you whether you choose to take a vaccine or not, just as I believe it should be up to you what substances you do or do not put into your body. I get the sense you have a different view and it seems like you potentially would disagree that people should have the choice to decide what goes into their bodies if you believe them not putting something in their bodies would potentially affect you. That's an entirely different debate than what this started with: what's the definition of short term vs long term when it comes to side effects. I'd still like a definitive answer with regards to your stance on the definition of short vs long term whether or not you think it applies to your more general arguments.