[ycombinete]

For me? A couple of years. There have been plenty of “safe” new medicines that revealed horrific side effects a long way down the line.

I was vaccinated with Sinopharm 6 months ago, preferring the older vaccine technology; now I’m being vaccinated with Pfizer, because I need to travel to countries which don’t accept Sinopharm. I’m still uncomfortable with MRNA vaccines, and feel a bit like a beta tester.

[saalweachter]

Good news! Phase 1 trials on the Pfizer vaccine began about 18 months ago; only six months to go for the two year mark.

[Exmoor]

When people use the term "medicine" or "drugs" when referring to vaccines it's a good indicator they're either being disingenuous or don't know what they're talking about.

The way drugs interact with your body is incredibly complex and difficult, if not impossible, to fully monitor. You're putting some molecules in your body and hoping they'll end up doing x without knowing what else they might be effecting. Throw in another drug or medical condition that might interact with the first and it gets very crazy very fast. This is why most drugs require prescriptions.

Vaccines on the other hand are very straight forward. They mimic a the natural process of a foreign virus or bacteria entering your system and being found and eventually neutralized by your immune system, training it to know what to look for in the future in the process. It's inherently vastly less complicated with essentially no long term risk that could crop up out of nowhere.

If a knowledgeable person was truly concerned about a vaccine causing long term issues, they'd be absolutely terrified of every virus or bacteria entering their system since those have had no previous testing and will multiply many, many times more than the contents of a vaccine.

[nradov]

Vaccine adjuvants are not at all straightforward. The mechanisms of action are complex and poorly understood.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-021-00163-y

Despite the unknowns, approved adjuvants are very safe and the presence of adjuvants isn't a reason to avoid vaccination.

[lamontcg]

A vaccine isn't a "medicine". You only are exposed to about 25-100ug of payload which is an incredibly small dose, once or twice. That doesn't compare to taking 100s of mg of something once or twice a day for weeks/months/years. Neither does it compare with eating whatever you buy off of grocery shelves that might be synthetic, which is going to be higher doses and more chronic.

The mRNA sticks around for a day or three and then its all effectively gone and the 'infected' cells are disassembled by the immune system. The only thing that remains is the immune reaction, and the side effects (other than the rare immediate anaphylaxis) will be autoimmune reactions triggered by exposure to the antigen.

And we have 250 years of experience with vaccines and we've studied autoimmune conditions for many years, and there's a whole field of medicine devoted to it. And based on all that experience we know what kinds of side effects there could be and that they all show up within 3 months of exposure to the antigen. That is why vaccines don't need more than 3-6 months of a trial in order to determine safety (they often need much longer to determine efficacy).

If you get sick 6+ months after getting vaccinated then it wasn't the vaccine.

I also would take the mRNA vaccine over the Sinopharm, there's far more antigens in Sinopharm or viral vector vaccines that your body has never been exposed to. There's much less different types of antigens in the mRNA vaccines to trigger autoimmune effects. You're likely thinking about the risks backwards. The worrisome thing isn't the american pharmaceutical industry, the bigger issue is the entirely alien (to your body) proteins in the pandemic virus.

[mikeyouse]

There has never been a recorded side effect from a vaccine that occurred more than a month after it was given.

[desine]

There have never been mRNA vaccines widely distributed

[frumper]

Good thing we have approved non-mRNA vaccines for you to choose from.

[anoonmoose]

For example? I'd prefer one from my lifetime (30-40 years)

[simonsarris]

Ranitidine (Zantac) was an extremely commonly prescribed and OTC acid reducer in the US since the 1980's, and was withdrawn in April 2020 because it was found to spontaneously break down into the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine. Only discovered after someone bothered to test. It started with recalls as the carcinogen was detected in some brands, and then a total removal of the product. 40 years of carcinogens. Lots of people still have this in their medicine cabinets.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-u...

Alatrofloxacin (Trovan) was approved in 1997 and withdrawn in 2001 (USA) or 2006 (worldwide) because of serious hepatotoxicity leading to liver transplant or death.

[lamontcg]

neither of which are vaccines.

i also probably ingested a million times more ranitidine than there is mRNA in a vaccine, and the ranitidine still hasn't killed me.

[simonsarris]

You did not ask about vaccines. The parent comment you replied to said medicine.

The Rotavirus vaccine RotaShield was approved in 1998 and withdrawn in 1999 due to risk of intussusception (telescoping intestine).

[lamontcg]

Thing is though that the RotaShield case highlights that vaccines either cause side effects with 3 months or they do not:

> The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield® vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition. The risk of intussusception increased 20 to 30 times over the expected risk for children of this age group within 2 weeks following the first dose of RotaShield® vaccine. The risk increased 3 to 7 times over the expected risk for this age group within two weeks after the second dose of RotaShield® vaccine. There was no increase in the risk of intussusception following the third dose of RotaShield® vaccine, or when three weeks had passed following any dose of the vaccine.

It didn't affect them 5 years later, it happened 2 weeks after the vaccine.

This is typical, and why it isn't particularly necessary to do safety studies of vaccines longer than 3-6 months.

You can argue that the safety study failed in that case and wasn't broad enough and the side effect wasn't noticed so that it wasn't approved, but it was found very quickly after approval, and the rate was 1 in 12,000 vaccinated infants. That is difficult statistically to find in studies of only 25,000 individuals.

And we've had a massive "phase 4" trial of mRNA vaccines involving >100M individuals that has gone on for months now. We know they're incredibly safe.

[anoonmoose]

These anecdotes are absolutely useless without mentioning how many drugs were approved in X year and not withdrawn. Really, it's my fault for humoring this line of thought in the first place.

[ycombinete]

Thalidomide

[cygx]

That happened in the 50s and was uncovered in the 60s...

[anoonmoose]

And the US FDA quite famously rejected it at the time

[ycombinete]

What’s your point?

[anoonmoose]

What exactly is your point? Do you think the Thalidomide saga from seventy years ago is a good reason not to take a new vaccine? Or do you just think being able to name a single drug (that was net accepted by the FDA at the time) means we should be skeptical of all drugs?

I understand that I asked for a drug that had later side effects and you provided one. But, I do not think what happened with Thalidomide is a good reason not to take this vaccine...I'm not even sure if you do.

[ycombinete]

I already made my point. That, if I have a choice, I’d mildly prefer to wait a few years before taking a new type of medicine.

I’m taking my second dose of Pfizer tomorrow (I explained the expedience of this in my first comment). I’m not some frothy anti-vaxxer. I just have a preference for tried and tested methods over the cutting edge.

I also don’t sign up to beta software when there’s a stable or LTS release that meets my needs.

[cygx]

Quote: "I'd prefer one from my lifetime (30-40 years)"