[tuesdaynight]

It's so sad to see that you are the first one with any kind of source in your comment. The rest are only saying scary stuff and you are supposed to argue with that. They are saying stuff like "my friend died because of the jab" and you come with studies links, which can sound unfriendly. And we are on HN, for fuck's sake.

[trimethylpurine]

The articles are fantastic, it's the unscientific claim that the data implies safety that's at issue. You can't post research about the fact that people misinterpret research right? But it's factually true. Most of the people on HN are not trained in doing or reviewing research. And not just on HN. Everyone can purchase an ad that claims to be the arbiter. Everyone can say they represent the consensus.

But the people with more money can buy more ads just like Google can stomp out any competitor, because they control the data channel.

It's a logical problem. Should we start requiring a license to hold an opinion about research? Who would we trust to govern that licensing process?

It's not really so simple as finding a source to back your claim. You need to be able to defend your interpretation of that source.

Bottom line "safety" is subjective. That's the critical argument. Compared to what is it safe?

Vaccine with a guarantee of infection, maybe the vaccine is safer.

Vaccinating everyone? Well, we didn't really study that. How do you study people in larger numbers with a guarantee that they don't get infected?

They didn't. They just assume everyone is infected and that number makes the research look valid and safe.

In fact, it's not.

The average person is more likely to have negative outcomes from vaccine than natural infection combined with non-infection.

So is it safe for someone who won't be infected at all? What about for someone that won't exhibit symptoms?

No. It's far less safe for those people.

300x-30,000x less safe. Depends on your estimation of asymptomatic and uninfected subjects in the real world.

It's more safe for someone in their 70s, with cancer, or whatever. Fine. But say that clearly. Don't try to bury that in summaries that obfuscate what you really studied.

Doing so destroys trust in science.

Not advocating for or against this vaccine platform, though. I'm advocating for laws about what meets and doesn't meet scientific rigor, as are most scientists right now.