4 ms·

You mean the stuff the whole world got injected with in 2020? Good to know! Seriously though, I am very pro-vax, but the fact that studies like these come out

by d--b 3mo ago

You mean the stuff the whole world got injected with in 2020? Good to know! Seriously though, I am very pro-vax, but the fact that studies like these come out now is just confirmation that people had the right to doubt the safety of mRNA back then. Many people shamed others for being anti vax but everyone has the right to be careful.

alex1138 3mo ago
[flagged]
add-sub-mul-div 3mo ago
People have rights but they also have the responsibility to be scientifically literate enough to know that analyzing data about the vaccine was prudent regardless of anything and does not suggest their prostration to antivax demagogues was smart.
- vfclists 3mo ago
  Bruh??
manwe150 3mo ago
Why would repeating a study now and getting the same result as when it was first measured in 2020 be a reason to doubt the safety? I’m also pro-vax, so I don’t think it is correct to equate ignoring the preponderance of current evidence (in 2021 or 2026) for vaccine protection as being careful. That just seems the logical fallacy sold by “vax hesitant” and social media influencers to make people feel smart to ignore statistics and “make their own choice based on intuition”
- vfclists 3mo ago
  What does being "pro-vax" mean? That you believe in any claims of vaccine efficacy made by the manufacturers or the FDA and are more then willing to have them injected into your body?
  - no-name-here 3mo ago
    If you don't believe every developed countries’ medical bodies on vaccines, where do you get your info on this? (As to the ‘pro-vax’ question, I'd define it as someone who is open to listening the medical bodies of every developed country on the planet.)
    - qsera 3mo ago
      So what is the logic here? If the only entity that you can get information from is an entity that is known to lie, you can trust this entity? It is not that we know for a fact that X is not safe. It is that we have no reason to believe that the powers that can ensure that, does not have an incentive to do it, and a large financial incentive to NOT do it and instead grease a lot of palms and get it mandated. This is particularly relevant when the cost to grease the palms is minuscule compared to the profit that can be made by the approval. And it is particularly relavant when the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source. We are sitting ducks here. But people apparently does not notice.
      - no-name-here 3mo ago
        I think your own logic supports the opposite from your conclusions? I'm saying that every developed country's medical bodies support that these vaccines are safe. Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines? That they will be too cautious because they are afraid of approving something that turns out to be unsafe, or the opposite that they have no fear of approving something unsafe? Are there any examples you'd point to of where developed countries' medical bodies approved something unsafe because they were bribed, as you imply is the norm today? But most importantly, if you think every developed country's medical bodies should not be used as the source of info about safety vs benefits, what should be? Or what should be the system even if it doesn't exist today? > is an entity that is known to lie What are you referring to? > the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source. The common man is inundated with info about vaccines from other sources, although much of it is misinformation, etc.
- d--b 3mo ago
  By late 2020, when they got approved, the vaccines were not scientifically proven safe for mainstream use. No other mRNA vaccine had been through all the trial stages, and certainly not those COVID ones. Could the vaccines have side effects that became visible after 6 months? Yes and we couldn’t have known that they didn’t. Could the vaccines have side effects on people with rare conditions? Sure, and we couldn’t have known that either. My point is that in 2020, the decision to approve the vaccines and pretty much force everyone to get it was a risk tradeoff. It was way more risky to let the disease continue spreading and mutate than it was to release the vaccines. mrna vaccines had been in trials and there was no reason to believe they could have been harmful. But the reality is that we just didn’t know. Biology is complex enough that you can’t just assume everything will be fine without proper testing. And what we deem proper testing is a process that these drugs hadn’t gone through. I happily got vaxed in early 2021, and did it again 4 times , so I was willing to trust the tradeoff. But ignoring that it was a tradeoff and hiding behind a sign that says “science” is just taking people for dummies.
  - RandomLensman 3mo ago
    How large a trial do you want to run to capture "rare conditions"? Millions? Billions of participants? How long do you want to run trials? Years? Decades?
    - d--b 3mo ago
      There is a process in place that’s meant to capture a certain number of potential problems. I didn’t make that process. The people who are making drugs safe designed the process. There is never zero risk of a treatment behaving badly, of course but when a drug gets fast tracked and doesn’t go through the regular approval process, it just hasn’t been proven to be safe by the regular standard of what experts deem safe. It’s not very complicated. trials ok => drug most likely ok trials not done => we don’t really know.
      - RandomLensman 3mo ago
        Operation Warpspeed addressed that by running a very large stage 3 trial. One reason that isn't normally done is the high cost of such a large trial.
katbyte 3mo ago
mRNA vaccines and testing of them have been around far longer then 2020
- d--b 3mo ago
  yes but no other mRNA vaccines had completed the various trial phases and got approved. And we shouldn’t assume that all mRna vaccines are the same. The rna sequence that’s used potentially can matter as well.

by d--b 3mo ago

alex1138 3mo ago

[flagged]

add-sub-mul-div 3mo ago

People have rights but they also have the responsibility to be scientifically literate enough to know that analyzing data about the vaccine was prudent regardless of anything and does not suggest their prostration to antivax demagogues was smart.

vfclists 3mo ago
Bruh??

manwe150 3mo ago

Why would repeating a study now and getting the same result as when it was first measured in 2020 be a reason to doubt the safety? I’m also pro-vax, so I don’t think it is correct to equate ignoring the preponderance of current evidence (in 2021 or 2026) for vaccine protection as being careful. That just seems the logical fallacy sold by “vax hesitant” and social media influencers to make people feel smart to ignore statistics and “make their own choice based on intuition”

vfclists 3mo ago
What does being "pro-vax" mean? That you believe in any claims of vaccine efficacy made by the manufacturers or the FDA and are more then willing to have them injected into your body?
- no-name-here 3mo ago
  If you don't believe every developed countries’ medical bodies on vaccines, where do you get your info on this? (As to the ‘pro-vax’ question, I'd define it as someone who is open to listening the medical bodies of every developed country on the planet.)
  - qsera 3mo ago
    So what is the logic here? If the only entity that you can get information from is an entity that is known to lie, you can trust this entity? It is not that we know for a fact that X is not safe. It is that we have no reason to believe that the powers that can ensure that, does not have an incentive to do it, and a large financial incentive to NOT do it and instead grease a lot of palms and get it mandated. This is particularly relevant when the cost to grease the palms is minuscule compared to the profit that can be made by the approval. And it is particularly relavant when the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source. We are sitting ducks here. But people apparently does not notice.
    - no-name-here 3mo ago
      I think your own logic supports the opposite from your conclusions? I'm saying that every developed country's medical bodies support that these vaccines are safe. Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines? That they will be too cautious because they are afraid of approving something that turns out to be unsafe, or the opposite that they have no fear of approving something unsafe? Are there any examples you'd point to of where developed countries' medical bodies approved something unsafe because they were bribed, as you imply is the norm today? But most importantly, if you think every developed country's medical bodies should not be used as the source of info about safety vs benefits, what should be? Or what should be the system even if it doesn't exist today? > is an entity that is known to lie What are you referring to? > the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source. The common man is inundated with info about vaccines from other sources, although much of it is misinformation, etc.
d--b 3mo ago
By late 2020, when they got approved, the vaccines were not scientifically proven safe for mainstream use. No other mRNA vaccine had been through all the trial stages, and certainly not those COVID ones. Could the vaccines have side effects that became visible after 6 months? Yes and we couldn’t have known that they didn’t. Could the vaccines have side effects on people with rare conditions? Sure, and we couldn’t have known that either. My point is that in 2020, the decision to approve the vaccines and pretty much force everyone to get it was a risk tradeoff. It was way more risky to let the disease continue spreading and mutate than it was to release the vaccines. mrna vaccines had been in trials and there was no reason to believe they could have been harmful. But the reality is that we just didn’t know. Biology is complex enough that you can’t just assume everything will be fine without proper testing. And what we deem proper testing is a process that these drugs hadn’t gone through. I happily got vaxed in early 2021, and did it again 4 times , so I was willing to trust the tradeoff. But ignoring that it was a tradeoff and hiding behind a sign that says “science” is just taking people for dummies.
- RandomLensman 3mo ago
  How large a trial do you want to run to capture "rare conditions"? Millions? Billions of participants? How long do you want to run trials? Years? Decades?
  - d--b 3mo ago
    There is a process in place that’s meant to capture a certain number of potential problems. I didn’t make that process. The people who are making drugs safe designed the process. There is never zero risk of a treatment behaving badly, of course but when a drug gets fast tracked and doesn’t go through the regular approval process, it just hasn’t been proven to be safe by the regular standard of what experts deem safe. It’s not very complicated. trials ok => drug most likely ok trials not done => we don’t really know.
    - RandomLensman 3mo ago
      Operation Warpspeed addressed that by running a very large stage 3 trial. One reason that isn't normally done is the high cost of such a large trial.

katbyte 3mo ago

mRNA vaccines and testing of them have been around far longer then 2020

d--b 3mo ago
yes but no other mRNA vaccines had completed the various trial phases and got approved. And we shouldn’t assume that all mRna vaccines are the same. The rna sequence that’s used potentially can matter as well.