4 ms·

Ok, so latent side effects are long term side effects that have no immediately observable impact. As in, we aren't aware of them until later. You're arguing ove

Ok, so latent side effects are long term side effects that have no immediately observable impact. As in, we aren't aware of them until later. You're arguing over semantics, but latent effects absolutely do matter as well. And are just as important to consider in the risk profile. If I eat mad cow prions, I might not have any immediate issues, but those prions are folding around in my head. Is that a latent or a long term side effect? The only difference is whether it's observed or not. So does it matter? It's still an issue. With the mRNA vaccines, one of the only side effects that's acknowledged now in public is the cardiovascular damage they can cause. You can damage your cardiovascular system and not notice it for a long time. Likewise, the iGG4 antibody triggering for the spike proteins, this actually has an immediate side effect that can be mistaken as a beneficial side effect, less symptoms! But, now your infections are treated like common allergens by your immune system and a "mild" case of COVID causes you to die suddenly. Latent, long term... what's the difference? > unless you're a vaccineologist then your opinion about whether sufficient time has passed is totally meaningle Also, outright dismissal of an argument based on appeal to authority is not productive.

arcticbull 3y ago
> Latent, long term... what's the difference? Most people conflate latent with long-term. They believe when researchers are looking for 'long-term' effects they're looking for things that magically show up somewhere down the line, and therefore 'we haven't waited long enough!!' and 'there's not enough data!!' - but that's not what they're doing, although they're open to being surprised. We've studied mRNA for like 50 years now, we understand how it works enough to know that what you're suggesting just isn't a real outcome. You are right it doesn't matter per se because outcomes are normally distributed in severity and time and if you give enough people the vaccine you can substitute that for waiting. And by vaccinating 70% of the world, we can be utterly, completely, 100% sure it's safe. It's safe, end of story. > Also, outright dismissal of an argument based on appeal to authority is not productive. To invoke appeal to authority there would have to be an attempt to invalidate evidence on the basis that someone is or isn't an expert. The parent didn't provide any evidence whatsoever. If they had either evidence or experience in the area I'd take their claim more seriously (but still inconclusively). However at this point it's just some random person on the internet saying "we need more time!" without explaining why or why I should believe them in absence of data. Sorry bud, it's MSG all over again. But like I said it's a personal responsibility thing now and if you want to be wrong you're free to do so.
- peteradio 3y ago
  > outcomes are normally distributed in severity and time and if you give enough people the vaccine you can substitute that for waiting What an utterly fortunate universal truth of vaccines!
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    It's kind of true when you're looking for the long tail in anything. The reality is most drugs and vaccines that you get are tested on a few hundred or a few thousand people over a long period of time. But mostly because it's very difficult to measure the efficacy of something with statistical significance if the prevalence rate is low. So you can either give a bunch of people Ebola to check if the Ebola vaccine works, or you can wait a long time. Ethics boards frown on the former. However with COVID like 1% of the population had it when we were ready to test vaccines so showing efficacy was very quick and very easy.
    - peteradio 3y ago
      But aren't we talking about latent issues? It sounds like you are saying most drugs de-facto check this because the trials must go for so long. But that's the point isn't it? Because short term efficacy was proven so quickly the de-facto check on latent issues never occurred.
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        Let me ask you this. What reason do you or anyone else on earth have to think there would be a mechanism that yields latent issues? We have studied mRNA for about 50 years now. And the adenoviral vector vaccines are a completely different mechanism studied for about 50 years too. What exactly bad thing do you think would miraculously appear 3 years later showing zero signs, symptoms or evidence in 6 billion people? And why would that be different after 5, 10 or even 15 years? There's no law that says Tylenol doesn't cause your arm to fall off 110 years later either, but that's not the standard of proof. Nothing in life has zero risk. That aside I think if your n is large enough, I think even issues that are ordinarily latent would be at least detectable. Certainly 3 years later. The normal development cycle is as short as 5 years, 2 of which are in regulatory approval. At some point we have to be guided by our past experience. You can't ever prove a negative, but you don't have to prove a negative to move forward.

arcticbull 3y ago

> Latent, long term... what's the difference? Most people conflate latent with long-term. They believe when researchers are looking for 'long-term' effects they're looking for things that magically show up somewhere down the line, and therefore 'we haven't waited long enough!!' and 'there's not enough data!!' - but that's not what they're doing, although they're open to being surprised. We've studied mRNA for like 50 years now, we understand how it works enough to know that what you're suggesting just isn't a real outcome. You are right it doesn't matter per se because outcomes are normally distributed in severity and time and if you give enough people the vaccine you can substitute that for waiting. And by vaccinating 70% of the world, we can be utterly, completely, 100% sure it's safe. It's safe, end of story. > Also, outright dismissal of an argument based on appeal to authority is not productive. To invoke appeal to authority there would have to be an attempt to invalidate evidence on the basis that someone is or isn't an expert. The parent didn't provide any evidence whatsoever. If they had either evidence or experience in the area I'd take their claim more seriously (but still inconclusively). However at this point it's just some random person on the internet saying "we need more time!" without explaining why or why I should believe them in absence of data. Sorry bud, it's MSG all over again. But like I said it's a personal responsibility thing now and if you want to be wrong you're free to do so.

peteradio 3y ago
> outcomes are normally distributed in severity and time and if you give enough people the vaccine you can substitute that for waiting What an utterly fortunate universal truth of vaccines!
- arcticbull 3y ago
  It's kind of true when you're looking for the long tail in anything. The reality is most drugs and vaccines that you get are tested on a few hundred or a few thousand people over a long period of time. But mostly because it's very difficult to measure the efficacy of something with statistical significance if the prevalence rate is low. So you can either give a bunch of people Ebola to check if the Ebola vaccine works, or you can wait a long time. Ethics boards frown on the former. However with COVID like 1% of the population had it when we were ready to test vaccines so showing efficacy was very quick and very easy.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    But aren't we talking about latent issues? It sounds like you are saying most drugs de-facto check this because the trials must go for so long. But that's the point isn't it? Because short term efficacy was proven so quickly the de-facto check on latent issues never occurred.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Let me ask you this. What reason do you or anyone else on earth have to think there would be a mechanism that yields latent issues? We have studied mRNA for about 50 years now. And the adenoviral vector vaccines are a completely different mechanism studied for about 50 years too. What exactly bad thing do you think would miraculously appear 3 years later showing zero signs, symptoms or evidence in 6 billion people? And why would that be different after 5, 10 or even 15 years? There's no law that says Tylenol doesn't cause your arm to fall off 110 years later either, but that's not the standard of proof. Nothing in life has zero risk. That aside I think if your n is large enough, I think even issues that are ordinarily latent would be at least detectable. Certainly 3 years later. The normal development cycle is as short as 5 years, 2 of which are in regulatory approval. At some point we have to be guided by our past experience. You can't ever prove a negative, but you don't have to prove a negative to move forward.