[d--b]

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.

[manwe150]

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”

[d--b]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[lixtra]

Would that large trial have shown the cancerous effect of smoking? If not, do you then agree that some possible adverse effects were not checked for and could have slipped through?

[qsera]

No, it is not about large trials. It is about changing the attitude of medical practitioners and the media that refuse to acknowledge a vaccine could have caused an adverse effect.

I understand that this is to not feed the vaccine hesitancy. But to anyone observing carefully, this is a crucial break in the information chain that can feedback any ill effects of any vaccine back to the creators.

[defrost]

> the attitude of medical practitioners and the media that refuse to acknowledge a vaccine could have caused an adverse effect.

In what alternative group think echo chamber did that happen within?

Here, in the real world, it was acknowledged from the get go that vaccines carried risks and that was why the call went out, from almost the start of 2020, for trial volunteers to find the risks associated with a number of new vaccine variants in the pipelines.

[qsera]

I am talking about a case when there IS some adverse effect, after it happened.

In that case, there is generally an effort from the practitioners that the vaccine could not have caused it, particularly when the said thing is not mentioned in the package insert or in the list of adverse effects from the manufacture.

[RandomLensman]

Who refused to acknowledge there could be adverse effects? I certainly was given information prior to vaccination that outlined possible adverse side effects.

[vfclists]

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]

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]

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.

[manwe150]

That’s what this article here is about. Yes, FDA is known to make questionable actions, as are other agencies around safety or efficacy of drugs. But here the statistics continue to show they are right about vaccines.

[no-name-here]

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.

[qsera]

>Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines?

It is a question of how aligned the individual's incentives and the incentives of the medical body in question. And often it is extremely misaligned. So that is what is I mean when I said there is "no incentive".

So what do I mean by that?

When such an organization recommend X, it just mean that if everyone follows that recommendation, the population wide metric, that can be immediately measured or that is often measured will show good beneficial result.

So here if people follow the recommendation two things can happen

1. The number of covid deaths will drop. This is something that will show up immediately, because everyone was focused on daily death toll.

2. A substantial number of people will have adverse effects. This is something that can be managed (in terms of public opinion)

So the incentive of the organization end up being favorable to the recommendation despite the very good chance of point 2 happening. With financial incentives, this is just more pronounced...

> What are you referring to?

Any group of human beings.

[estearum]

It probably means that you take the statistical evidence produced by massive double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials as actual evidence

[qsera]

That is not really an evidence unless you yourself eliminate any biases or flaws in the trial methodology.

Even trained professionals fail to do that regularly...

[estearum]

No, not really. The correct claim is "all evidence is imperfect."

But an FDA approved, Phase 3, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial is the strongest form of evidence that we have for anything at all.

[qsera]

If it is not good enough, then it does not matter if it is the best available. Nature does not give a damn what the best solution humanity can come up with at some arbitrary point in time.

[add-sub-mul-div]

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]

Bruh??

[katbyte]

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

[d--b]

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.