[arenaninja]

> the benefits of both mRNA shots in preventing COVID-19 continue to outweigh the risks, the regulator said, echoing similar views expressed by U.S. regulators and the World Health Organization

I'm not so sure about that. I think there's valid healthy skepticism about the mRNA shots but the loudest people protesting are firebreathers with no coherent argument or thought

[peter422]

Yes billions of data points showing the safety and efficacy of the mRNA shots just isn’t enough. We need tens of billions otherwise you just can’t trust those things.

[landemva]

In addition to data points, safety determinations also take time. Prior to 2020, it took 4-10 years (though sometimes longer like chicken pox shot) for vaccine approval in USA.

When did we have discussions and thoughts and reasoned policy change on the _time_ aspect of safety testing? While some things like asbestos have uses, safety concerns can take years to be discovered.

[peter422]

The past vaccine timeline was driven mostly by monetary concerns and not safety ones. Companies did not want to risk spending tons of money on large trials until they were sure all the smaller ones were bulletproof.

Once you get to the point of doing the large phase 3 trial the timeline for these vaccines was much less compressed. Also much easier to test a vaccine when the virus is spreading all over the place quickly.

Also there just aren’t historical examples of vaccines having “hidden” long term effects. All side effects that happen after 6 weeks also happen much more frequently before 6 weeks.

[disambiguation]

I am not an expert, but I'll weigh in on the "healthy skepticism"

1. I can't speak for others, but my skepticism stems from one idea: it's foolish to tamper with your immune system unless absolutely necessary or there's absolutely no risk, because you can't undo it later. At this point we can safely say the covid vaccine poses some risk relative to other vaccines.

That being said, for some individuals the vaccine is absolutely necessary. For other's such as children and young people whose bodies are still developing, the cost-benefit tradeoff is dubious.

2. "safe and effective" has proven to be a false statement. It might be fair to instead phrase it as "better than nothing, for most people". That's what the tens of billions of data points tell us so far.

Yet this is undermined further by reports such as "Aaron Rodgers, unvaccinated, sick with COVID, has mild symptoms and is doing fine" and "Fully Vaccinated NFL player hospitalized with COVID-19".

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vaccinated-nfl-playe...

3. We don't have a good way of tracking and reporting adverse events. VAERS has a lot of systemic problems -- self-reporting isn't 100% reliable in scientific terms, but simultaneously studies show vaccine related adverse events are typically under reported.

"and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported." https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publicatio...

4. By extension of VAERS, we don't have a good way of relating the vaccine to adverse event. ex. If someone gets vaccinated, and a month later dies of a blood clot, how do we prove or disprove the correlation? With food, drugs, and medicine, the only useful way is long term clinical trials.

I don't think we even have a causal relationship between the vaccine and myocarditis at this point, but rather an undeniable correlation. This says something about our scientific ability to measure safety.

5. There have been whistleblower reports about the honesty and reliability of the original vaccine trials. I take this with a grain of salt, but it highlights the lack of transparency and forced compliance endemic in the medical industry.

6. As time goes on, more articles and studies are released that cast doubt on the safety of the vaccine. This recent study shows (in vitro) that the mRNA induced spike protein is observed to cause damage at the cellular level in a way that hinders DNA repair and antibody creation. (Published: 13 October 2021)

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056

To be clear, I don't want to forecast "vaccine doom" because everyone I know and love has the vaccine. I truly hope the science disproves any doubts about safety.

But until then I reserve the right to speculate and make my own risk assessment.

[deodorel]

Have you actually read after the abstract? The study you mentioned is about any spike protein, not only vaccine induced. And you will get a lot mote of that if you get infected. Also the effect is temporary and limited to the infected cells as these cells are terminated by the immune system or go into apoptosis (as per your study).

[disambiguation]

I admit at this level of detail I'm at my limit in confidently interpreting all of the paper.

But yes, my concern is with apoptosis and whether or not it happens correctly in both scenarios.

My impression is that viruses thoroughly destroy cells, but the mRNA method naively exposes the nucleus to the spike protein without doing all the other things viruses do.

Maybe the spike protein does the same damage in both scenarios

Maybe apoptosis correctly resolves all the risk

But people with wild imaginations like myself are wondering if between the virus and the vaccine if we didn't just drastically increase the risk of cancer and auto immune deficiencies across the whole world. Something we won't observe for years to come.

[native_samples]

"you will get a lot mote of that if you get infected"

Prove it. You won't be able to because no such relative measurements exist.

[peter422]

Have you seen any studies about the potential long term effects of a sars-cov2 infection?

Also any “whistleblower” complaints about the studies are ridiculous at this point. Billions of people have taken the vaccines, we are overflowing in data about how safe and effective they are. There isn’t a coverup that half the human population is in on.

[disambiguation]

I haven't seen any convincing science on "long covid" but I'm open to having my mind changed.

Further, it comes off as tone deaf to care about long term COVID effects but not that of vaccines.

I agree we're overflowing with data, my stance is data-driven.

I think it's wrong to discount whistleblowers, but you can pick and choose who you think is worth listening too.

[peter422]

Well you seem like an unbiased interpreter of the available data. Good luck.

[disambiguation]

Well I'm not making any friends or profit off of this stance, so I'm not sure what my ulterior motive could be?

I think it's fair to challenge my _ability_ as an interpreter more than bias, but rarely do we have the opportunity to defer important life altering decisions to others and still retain confidence they will prioritize what's best for us over themselves.