3 ms·

How do we define an acceptable refusal rate? The vaccines were largely untested and given under emergency use authorization. Shouldn't it be reasonable for peop

How do we define an acceptable refusal rate? The vaccines were largely untested and given under emergency use authorization. Shouldn't it be reasonable for people to choose for themselves whether to take part in the vaccine campaign or not, especially when we can't provide solid data to support safety or efficacy? At the end of the day, in my opinion, there is no magic number for vaccine acceptance that is a metric to define beforehand. Refusal rates are a backward looking metric only and simply reflect the willingness to participate and trust in the general public.

pfisch 3y ago
How many doses would we need to give out to not call them "largely untested"? Far more covid vaccines were given out to more people then almost all prescription medications have been. They were FDA approved officially in 2021, and at the end of the day all of the covid vaccines given an EUA were much safer than even mundane things like driving a car. High vaccine uptake rates save lives. Pretending otherwise requires you to misrepresent the data.
- mharig 3y ago
  Are you member of the Pharma Mafia, or just pested with religious idiocy?
  - pfisch 3y ago
    It's not religious to recognize that medical advances, especially in pharmaceuticals, have done more to extend lifespans and save lives in the last 100+ years than anything else. The pharma industry has been consistently producing what would easily be called life saving miracles in any other context. Anyone unable to see that is the biased one.
    - mharig 3y ago
      Ignoring the VAERS data is not religious?
      - pfisch 3y ago
        That isn't real data. Anyone can write anything on VAERS. There is no verification. People write crazy stuff like the vaccine turned them into the hulk. But lets be real, you almost certainly already know that. So you very likely fall into the category of people who intentionally misrepresent the data so you can pretend that vaccines are a bad thing.
        mharig 3y ago
        That is the same blabla I read from many of your brothers in faith. Up to 2019, there are some studies that clearly show that the VAERS data underestimates the bad side effects of (some) vaccines, up to a factor of 100. Of course it is possible that the highly political, near-religious atmosphere during the Covid-Circus biased the reporting for the mRNA vaccines in the other direction. But this has to be objectively studied. That never happened. One of the many things that make me deeply distrust the mRNA vaccines. Your very general statement "so you can pretend that vaccines are a bad thing" shows your propaganda. I am vaccinated against several pathogens. But the topic "immune system" is really complicated, the knowledge up to date is not sufficient to force people. Especially vaccination of children has to be thoroughly justified. Search on Google Scholar for "Peter Aabye".
        pfisch 3y ago
        >Up to 2019, there are some studies that clearly show that the VAERS data underestimates the bad side effects of (some) vaccines, up to a factor of 100. You mean before vaccines became extremely politicized? I think we can safely assume those numbers aren't useful anymore now that the well has been poisoned. >But this has to be objectively studied. There were plenty of double blind studies on the covid vaccines. Those are the gold standard. I'm not even sure what you are asking for here.
        mharig 3y ago
        What? The numbers from before the poisening are not useful, because of the poisoning? I asked for studies on the reliability of VAERS data about the Covid vaccines. RCTs are just one brick of the science building. And of the plenty you think exist, I have encountered only a few good ones, yet. The Cleveland Clincs study is one of them, but they justctested for infection and didn't include the outcome all-cause mortality or hospitalization for some unknown reasons. The US veterans study seems to prove a lower mortality for vaccinated, but the cohort is for sure not representative. Btw, those two showed a clearly monotonic increasing probability of acquiring a Covid19 infection with number of vaccinations. RCT fanatism is not helpful.

pfisch 3y ago

How many doses would we need to give out to not call them "largely untested"? Far more covid vaccines were given out to more people then almost all prescription medications have been. They were FDA approved officially in 2021, and at the end of the day all of the covid vaccines given an EUA were much safer than even mundane things like driving a car. High vaccine uptake rates save lives. Pretending otherwise requires you to misrepresent the data.

mharig 3y ago
Are you member of the Pharma Mafia, or just pested with religious idiocy?
- pfisch 3y ago
  It's not religious to recognize that medical advances, especially in pharmaceuticals, have done more to extend lifespans and save lives in the last 100+ years than anything else. The pharma industry has been consistently producing what would easily be called life saving miracles in any other context. Anyone unable to see that is the biased one.
  - mharig 3y ago
    Ignoring the VAERS data is not religious?
    - pfisch 3y ago
      That isn't real data. Anyone can write anything on VAERS. There is no verification. People write crazy stuff like the vaccine turned them into the hulk. But lets be real, you almost certainly already know that. So you very likely fall into the category of people who intentionally misrepresent the data so you can pretend that vaccines are a bad thing.
      - mharig 3y ago
        That is the same blabla I read from many of your brothers in faith. Up to 2019, there are some studies that clearly show that the VAERS data underestimates the bad side effects of (some) vaccines, up to a factor of 100. Of course it is possible that the highly political, near-religious atmosphere during the Covid-Circus biased the reporting for the mRNA vaccines in the other direction. But this has to be objectively studied. That never happened. One of the many things that make me deeply distrust the mRNA vaccines. Your very general statement "so you can pretend that vaccines are a bad thing" shows your propaganda. I am vaccinated against several pathogens. But the topic "immune system" is really complicated, the knowledge up to date is not sufficient to force people. Especially vaccination of children has to be thoroughly justified. Search on Google Scholar for "Peter Aabye".
        pfisch 3y ago
        >Up to 2019, there are some studies that clearly show that the VAERS data underestimates the bad side effects of (some) vaccines, up to a factor of 100. You mean before vaccines became extremely politicized? I think we can safely assume those numbers aren't useful anymore now that the well has been poisoned. >But this has to be objectively studied. There were plenty of double blind studies on the covid vaccines. Those are the gold standard. I'm not even sure what you are asking for here.
        mharig 3y ago
        What? The numbers from before the poisening are not useful, because of the poisoning? I asked for studies on the reliability of VAERS data about the Covid vaccines. RCTs are just one brick of the science building. And of the plenty you think exist, I have encountered only a few good ones, yet. The Cleveland Clincs study is one of them, but they justctested for infection and didn't include the outcome all-cause mortality or hospitalization for some unknown reasons. The US veterans study seems to prove a lower mortality for vaccinated, but the cohort is for sure not representative. Btw, those two showed a clearly monotonic increasing probability of acquiring a Covid19 infection with number of vaccinations. RCT fanatism is not helpful.