5 ms·

I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overw

I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think the manner they public conduct themselves speaks volumes about how and where they generate wealth.

shitpost 5y ago
Covzire 5y ago
errcorrectcode 5y ago
In the US EUAs at the beginning, for me, it was 95% the technology and 5% the manufacturer convinced me mRNA vaccines were superior because of their precisely-targeted nature. It was a gamble between Pfizer and Moderna. Went with Moderna for the first 2 (before the data on "mix-and-match") and Pfizer booster. Btw, sequencing of both mRNA vaccines: https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdfhttps://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdf https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV...
tasha0663 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tasha0663 5y ago
> Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. As well they should be. Feeding vaccine FUD over an unrelated incident is dangerous at a time when trust in our institutions is so vital.
- grapescheesee 5y ago
  It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance. I agree, trust in our institutions is a vital necessity, and it is very easy to lose and hard to gain. This can't be seen as unrelated since it shows the dictates of the company and the the level of coverup and legal maneuvering they use. The only reason anyone was paid from the lawsuit with talc and asbestos contamination within the US, was because it does not fall under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. A legal vaccine indemnification program paid for by US citizens. It would be hard for anyone to honestly trust in something they have no legal recourse in dealing with.
  - briandear 5y ago
    If you are vaccine-injured, what is the remedy? You can’t sue. What is the incentive for pharma to ensure a safe product if taxpayers are the ones holding the liability?
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Which is why the government getting rid of the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers would have been the smartest and most reasonable action they could have taken to increase percentage of vaccinated population if it was really about public health.
  - tasha0663 5y ago
    > It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance. Indeed! Currently in the red on fake internet points, but not flagged to the twilight zone. Also more replies and engagement. My interpretation of this outcome is still pending :D
- 5y ago
briandear 5y ago
Some of us don’t trust Pfizer either. Considering their track record of research fraud. (This is documented, it isn’t some conspiracy theory.)
ciphol 5y ago
Luckily, you don't have to trust the pharmaceutical companies any more. You just have to look at the outcomes of literally billions of people who have been vaccinated, and see how much better those outcomes are on average compared to unvaccinated people: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

shitpost 5y ago

Covzire 5y ago

errcorrectcode 5y ago

In the US EUAs at the beginning, for me, it was 95% the technology and 5% the manufacturer convinced me mRNA vaccines were superior because of their precisely-targeted nature. It was a gamble between Pfizer and Moderna. Went with Moderna for the first 2 (before the data on "mix-and-match") and Pfizer booster. Btw, sequencing of both mRNA vaccines: https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdfhttps://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdf https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV...

tasha0663 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tasha0663 5y ago

> Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. As well they should be. Feeding vaccine FUD over an unrelated incident is dangerous at a time when trust in our institutions is so vital.

grapescheesee 5y ago
It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance. I agree, trust in our institutions is a vital necessity, and it is very easy to lose and hard to gain. This can't be seen as unrelated since it shows the dictates of the company and the the level of coverup and legal maneuvering they use. The only reason anyone was paid from the lawsuit with talc and asbestos contamination within the US, was because it does not fall under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. A legal vaccine indemnification program paid for by US citizens. It would be hard for anyone to honestly trust in something they have no legal recourse in dealing with.
- briandear 5y ago
  If you are vaccine-injured, what is the remedy? You can’t sue. What is the incentive for pharma to ensure a safe product if taxpayers are the ones holding the liability?
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Which is why the government getting rid of the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers would have been the smartest and most reasonable action they could have taken to increase percentage of vaccinated population if it was really about public health.
- tasha0663 5y ago
  > It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance. Indeed! Currently in the red on fake internet points, but not flagged to the twilight zone. Also more replies and engagement. My interpretation of this outcome is still pending :D
5y ago

briandear 5y ago

Some of us don’t trust Pfizer either. Considering their track record of research fraud. (This is documented, it isn’t some conspiracy theory.)

ciphol 5y ago

Luckily, you don't have to trust the pharmaceutical companies any more. You just have to look at the outcomes of literally billions of people who have been vaccinated, and see how much better those outcomes are on average compared to unvaccinated people: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination