[aredox]

Will Dig1t reply to this? Will he try to show this to the many vaccine sceptics he knows of and update us on how they reacted?

Because usually that's what happens when you "debate" with vaccine sceptics: they just accuse you of being mean/pretentious/know-it-all/arrogant/etc., they move goalposts, they switch subjects, or they completely ignore you, disappear and come back later elsewhere asking the exact same "questions" as if your discussion never happened.

Because they have reached a point where hey are so much wrong that admitting it would be admitting they have been very stupid, very unjust and very bad people. And it requires a lot of backbone to own such a personal failure. So instead they double down.

[Dig1t]

So yeah if you read that explanation but can’t understand why that isn’t convincing these people, then I would say you are not really trying to understand these people’s concerns. This explanation is basically making the anti-vaxxer argument for them. An uncharitable/skeptical interpretation of their explanation is one that hurts the cause. It basically sounds something like “drug companies couldn’t show their vaccines were safe enough like other drugs, but the government still wanted a supply of them anyway so they had to give them special protections”.

Basic question: so why does this stable supply concern apply to vaccines but not any other types of medicine? If you have concerns that one of these vaccines has some serious side effect, why is it important to have a stable supply of it?

I just feel like asking these types of basic questions leads to such vitriol like in your response, it’s no wonder nobody trusts you.

[bdhe]

I'm still confused. I don't think it says anywhere that drug companies couldn't show their vaccines were safe enough. I think it said that if we allow indiscriminate lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, WHILE longer-term trials are still pending, this disincentivizes production.

If you believe vaccines are a good thing, generally speaking, you want to incentivize production. You also make it sound like there are no remedies. I don't think that is the case at least from this sentence. Do you disagree?

> However, a plaintiff may file a civil court claim against vaccine companies after filing a claim in the VICP if they reject the vaccine court's decision.

[aredox]

>It basically sounds something like “drug companies couldn’t show their vaccines were safe enough like other drugs

Can you point exactly where in the given link there is something that could be summarized or interpreted as such?

“drug companies couldn’t show their vaccines were safe enough" is nowhere to be found. What I can see is this:

"A 1982 TV news report entitled Vaccine Roulette suggested that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine was the cause of permanent brain injury. Subsequent studies indicated that while the whole-cell vaccine was associated with febrile seizures, it was not associated with long-term brain damage. However, those studies took at least 10 years to exonerate the vaccine."

Vaccine manufacturers demonstrated their product was safe before being put to the market (that's the reason for the different "phases"). A concern was raised by a TV news report. The vaccine manufacturers proved - after a long study - that it wasn't the case, their product was demonstrably safe.

Where have you found elements to support your assertion the linked references show “drug companies couldn’t show their vaccines were safe"?