4 ms·

A couple of months of human trials (that started before animal trials were finished) isn't proper testing. Each mRNA vaccine (like any other type of vaccine) is

A couple of months of human trials (that started before animal trials were finished) isn't proper testing. Each mRNA vaccine (like any other type of vaccine) is a standalone product. Testing the general viability of mRNA technology isn't the same as testing a specific mRNA vaccine.

epistasis 3y ago
Says who? Seriously? Some random paper taken out of context and copied onto lists that anti-backers uncritically copy and paste? And animal trials? That's not going to tell you much of anything about human safety! In any case, if it was a gamble, the gamble paid off, because deployment has proven to be incredibly safe. The only vaccine that has safety questions was the more traditional vaccine from Johnson and Johnson, and they are very very rare, if they exist. All this data is out there, anybody who has safety concerns has not bothered to educate themselves, think critically, and examine the data. We all have different risk tolerances, but along any possible health metric, not being vaccinated is far less safe than being vaccinated for the people the vaccine is indicated for.
- OCASMv2 3y ago
  > In any case, if it was a gamble, the gamble paid off, because deployment has proven to be incredibly safe. Has it? What long term trials have been carried that show that?
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Yes, of course! It's required of every single drug. Earlier in the pandemic, the fear mongering was that the existence of these standard monitoring trials (phase 4) meant that the vaccine was inadequate tested before. See for example: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-monitoring-idUSKBN2AC2G3 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-monitor... Ongoing monitoring of complaints is a required part of all quality systems. The core of our regulation system requires the ability to detect subtle problems that can only appear after lots and lots of people have been treated. There are forces within our society that are spreading FUD about basic institutions, transforming our society from a high trust, efficient, informed society to a low-trust inefficient corruption-prone society. Fearmongering about well established safety practices is at the core of it all, IMHO.
    - OCASMv2 3y ago
      You tell me they're monitoring the vacciness, but what I asked for is proof of your statement about proven safety. > Fearmongering about well established safety practices is at the core of it all, IMHO. These vaccines didn't go through well established safety practices. They skipped them to be put to use as soon as possible. People who pointed this out were outright called "antivaxxers." > There are forces within our society that are spreading FUD about basic institutions, transforming our society from a high trust, efficient, informed society to a low-trust inefficient corruption-prone society. There's no need for conspiratorial thinking. Basic institutions proved themselves to the general public to be highly incompetent and corrupt.

epistasis 3y ago

Says who? Seriously? Some random paper taken out of context and copied onto lists that anti-backers uncritically copy and paste? And animal trials? That's not going to tell you much of anything about human safety! In any case, if it was a gamble, the gamble paid off, because deployment has proven to be incredibly safe. The only vaccine that has safety questions was the more traditional vaccine from Johnson and Johnson, and they are very very rare, if they exist. All this data is out there, anybody who has safety concerns has not bothered to educate themselves, think critically, and examine the data. We all have different risk tolerances, but along any possible health metric, not being vaccinated is far less safe than being vaccinated for the people the vaccine is indicated for.

OCASMv2 3y ago
> In any case, if it was a gamble, the gamble paid off, because deployment has proven to be incredibly safe. Has it? What long term trials have been carried that show that?
- epistasis 3y ago
  Yes, of course! It's required of every single drug. Earlier in the pandemic, the fear mongering was that the existence of these standard monitoring trials (phase 4) meant that the vaccine was inadequate tested before. See for example: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-monitoring-idUSKBN2AC2G3 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccine-monitor... Ongoing monitoring of complaints is a required part of all quality systems. The core of our regulation system requires the ability to detect subtle problems that can only appear after lots and lots of people have been treated. There are forces within our society that are spreading FUD about basic institutions, transforming our society from a high trust, efficient, informed society to a low-trust inefficient corruption-prone society. Fearmongering about well established safety practices is at the core of it all, IMHO.
  - OCASMv2 3y ago
    You tell me they're monitoring the vacciness, but what I asked for is proof of your statement about proven safety. > Fearmongering about well established safety practices is at the core of it all, IMHO. These vaccines didn't go through well established safety practices. They skipped them to be put to use as soon as possible. People who pointed this out were outright called "antivaxxers." > There are forces within our society that are spreading FUD about basic institutions, transforming our society from a high trust, efficient, informed society to a low-trust inefficient corruption-prone society. There's no need for conspiratorial thinking. Basic institutions proved themselves to the general public to be highly incompetent and corrupt.