3 ms·
No, it's really not so clear if you take a more objective look. First off, the history of vaccination is irrelevant, because this is a novel technology. Second
by twofornone 5y ago
No, it's really not so clear if you take a more objective look. First off, the history of vaccination is irrelevant, because this is a novel technology.
Second, the short half life of mRNA does not guarantee that there are no long term effects.
Third, you are ignoring that in this choice between "two unknowns", the probability of getting symptomatic covid (presumably asymptomatic/mild covid is unlikely to cause heart issues) is less than 1. The probability of exposure to the vaccine for a vaccinated person is 1.
Fourth, unlike exposure to covid in young, healthy people, the vaccine guarantees that your tissues are exposed to a rapid megadose of an inflammatory protein, manufactured in isolation, as opposed to an infection where the protein is attached to the rest of the virus and exposure ramps up gradually. That's my personal concern and I feel like its being swept under the rug. There is a nonzero risk of autoimmune disorders which will be difficult to detect, especially if past preprints regarding expression of the spike protein in human tissues post vaccination prove to be true.
Finally:
>The long-term impact of either one cannot be conclusively determined in the short-term, barring the invention of time travel
Right, which is why vaccine trials normally take 5-10 years and "safe and effective" has been a campaign of transparent propaganda. Numerous past vaccines have been pulled from the market for fewer side effects. Combine that with the stigma against reporting side effects/speaking against the vaccines, the fact that the actual safety trial data is a secret known only to pfizer/moderna and the FDA, the rumors that adverse event collection during clinical trials was (deliberately?) inadequate, the history of big pharma deliberately harming consumers in pursuit of profits, the full protection of pfizer et al from liability, and the assertion that covid is less of a problem than it has been made out to be (especially with recent data on omicron), no, the choice is not clear at all if you have not been taken in by the propaganda.
Edit: let's also remember that the claims of both safety and effectiveness have been repeatedly revised, and multiple points of "misinformation" have been proven correct. So on top of all this it should be clear that our institutions are not deserving of the amount of trust that people like you are placing in them. The executive branch wanted a vaccine yesterday, the FDA suspended typical testing protocols for what amounts to a rubber stamp, and now we are the safety trials. Not even getting into our sudden collective amnesia regarding regulatory capture.
- kareemm 5y agoGenuinely curious about these. Can you cite sources? > There is a nonzero risk of autoimmune disorders which will be difficult to detect, especially if past preprints regarding expression of the spike protein in human tissues post vaccination prove to be true. Which preprints? Why do you say autoimmune disorders have a nonzero risk and will be difficult to detect? > actual safety trial data is a secret known only to pfizer/moderna and the FDA Do you have a source? > multiple points of "misinformation" have been proven correct. Which points of misinformation are now correct?