5 ms·
The disproportionate spike in reports in the VAERS database would suggest that we might want to have a more rational discussion about risk than continuing to ta
by EricE 5y ago
The disproportionate spike in reports in the VAERS database would suggest that we might want to have a more rational discussion about risk than continuing to take assurances from folks who CONTINUE to have blanket immunity from any side effects. That used to be called a sever conflict of interest instead of settled science.
I dunno - I got COVID and while it wasn't pleasant, it wasn't any worse than the worst flu I have had in the past. There is growing evidence that there are multiple side effects from these vaccines, including heart problems for males - particularly 18 and under or over 50. I'm in the latter so I have zero desire to roll the dice with the vaccines, especially as I've already had and recovered and now have as good if not better immunity than what is provided by the vaccine.
When you consider the ridiculous political and social pressure put on ANYONE who dares to question the vaccines, I'm frankly amazed the numbers in VAERS are as high as they are. If anything I would expect them to be underreported. Why not - the CDC director recently admitted that at least 40% of COVID hospitalizations were not because of COVID, but from people who went to the hospital for something else and happened to also test positive for COVID - despite being pitched as "COVID Infections" requiring emergency responses.
If that can be over reported for almost 2 years before we finally start to get clarification of what many suspected (or saw with their own eyes) why can't VAERS be underreported?
That's the real problem - at this point we still don't know, because very few are asking any questions. And those that do get quickly pounced on as being crackpot trash conspiracy theorists.
I'm amazed that so many people still seem to be puzzled that not everyone is unquestioning about if there are risks with the vaccines or not. Especially when there is still a blind push/rush to get everyone vaccinated, whether it is needed or not, whether it's medically advisable or not (quite a few people have pre-existing medical conditions where the vaccines are far more of a risk than mitigating COVID other ways). If such people aren't willing to have an inarguably rational discussion about real risk, then why should they expect to be taken seriously? Much of the uncertainty around the vaccines are self-inflicted wounds - and instead of altering their approach the usual suspects double down and just shout louder/more shrilly.
If they are so safe as to be unquestionable then why are they STILL operating under emergency use? Over a year later is it really still an an emergency? Isn't it beyond ridiculous to have an emergency for this amount of time - especially when the vast majority of the population has either been vaccinated or had COVID already at this point? Yes, infections are up with the latest variants - how could you miss it with the constant flogging of the infection numbers by the media and some politicians. But notice what has disappeared? The death counters that were oh so prominent, especially before a certain election. More than a little curious, eh?
- kelnos 5y ago> There is growing evidence that there are multiple side effects from these vaccines, including heart problems for males Right, except that myocarditis is also a possible side effect of COVID, and the incidence as a COVID side effect is an order of magnitude larger than as a vaccine side effect. > I dunno - I got COVID and while it wasn't pleasant, it wasn't any worse than the worst flu I have had in the past. This is why articles like this are so useless: they rely on anecdotes cherry-picked to support their conclusion, not on actual data that tracks both positive and negative effects. You got lucky; many many people do not.
- Izkata 5y ago> Right, except that myocarditis is also a possible side effect of COVID, and the incidence as a COVID side effect is an order of magnitude larger than as a vaccine side effect. Unless you're a male under 40 years old, then that particular risk is higher in the vaccines than covid. And way higher with Moderna.
- swsieber 5y agoThey are only partially operating under emergency use. I'd assume that's for co-horts that weren't the first priority. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr... > Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals. So the Pfizer is approved, not just in an emergency fashion. Full approval is for the 2 doses for ages 16+, while emergency approval is for the 3rd dose or ages 12-16.
- jokethrowaway 5y agoI agree we shouldn't mandate vaccines or have governments buy them with my taxes or restrict people who are not vaccinated. But as the resident anarcho-capitalist nobody ever listen to me. I hope the authoritarianism displayed by governments Keep an eye on this: > A judge forced Pfizer to publish safety data in 8 months (instead of the 75 years they asked), so hopefully that will shed some light. > A federal judge on Thursday ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to produce, at a rate of 55,000 pages per month, the documents it relied on to license the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. > The rate of 55,000 pages a month would mean the FDA has just over eight months to fully produce all of Pfizer’s pre-licensure safety data. That is much faster than the 500 pages-per-month rate the FDA proposed in December 2021. That rate would have effectively given the agency roughly 75 years to fully produce the data, Aaron Siri, a lawyer working on the case, previously observed.