Pfizer is in the process of completing the normal licensing process: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

What's the next hurdle after that for being 'properly' tested?

vaccines are supposed to have years of testing to prove they are truly safe in the long term. your own link says pfizer is trying to extend the emergency use authorization to apply to younger people, nothing about completing approvals. true FDA approval is still years away.

The headline is Pfizer and BioNTech Initiate Rolling Submission of Biologics License Application for U.S. FDA Approval of Their COVID 19 Vaccine

Biologics License Application for U.S. FDA Approval is the final thing. The next step after that is safety monitoring of the fully licensed product.

The 16 and over there is about the applicability of the resulting BLA.

> This becomes even more important because even the basic mechanism is not studied for vaccinations long-term at all.

It is spouting shit like this that makes people call you an anti-vaxer. What the hell are you on about?

There are no long-term studies for mRNA vaccines.

That is not strictly speaking true. There have been no long term studies for the most recent mRNA vaccines, but mRNA technology has been in development for many years with much of the effort going into studies of human safety. This long period of development and testing is how the method of packaging the mRNA in a precisely engineered blob of fat came about.

>mRNA technology has been in development for many years with much of the effort going into studies of human safety.

Have there been any long term human trials of mRNA vaccines?

Yes, though that might depend on your definitions of both long term and vaccine. There is actually a quite interesting body of literature surrounding these developments, so it might be worth doing some searches and some reading.

Do you have any sources for long term mRNA vaccine trials on humans?

My searches seem to indicate there are none, other than the preliminary, limited scope short term trials

So what? What's the mechanism you're concerned about?

>What's the mechanism you're concerned about?

What do you mean?

We can't know what the long term side effects of drugs are until we have long term data.

Even with long term data showing significant negative side effects of drugs, we often dont understand the "mechanism"

If the drug breaks down rapidly in the body, yes, we can indeed know that. Then there can be no mechanism by which it can have long term effects. That's what happens with the delivered mRNA.

I'm fully for vaccination as I wrote above.

But out of interest, what about the people who have long-haul COVID, do we know the mechanism how they experience long term effects from the actual disease.

Would it be possible that vaccines created long-term effects in the same way?

What is the "mechanism" from the vaccine which has caused some people to get thrombocytopenia, bells palsy, temporary deafness, and other such side effects in just the short term?

Hyperactive immune response gone wrong?

Scientists don't know what causes auto immune reactions/disorders, or why they have seemingly been on the rise for decades.

> What do you mean?

Apologies, don't mean to pick on you but wanted an example for a future comment.

This maintains context worse than GPT-3

"I've been smoking cigarattes for the past year and nothing bad has happened to me, i guess they are perfectly healthy"

What about long-term studies for the actual COVID?

Don't we need to vaccinnate kids to reach herd immunity? Sure it doesn't make sense when you look at young people in isolation but that is beside the point.

Not when you factor in immunity from recovered people.

If we get to 60% of the total population plus 25% of the rest being immune from recovery, that is 70% total.

The vaccines are not sterile, so they do not stop the spread either.

This statement makes no sense.

The mRNA vaccines are sterile; there's no active virus or bacteria in them. It's also conclusively determined they reduce transmission.

(The sterility of a vaccine has no impact on its ability to reduce transmission, anyways; they're not linked. Live-virus vaccines like the flu nasal spray vaccine can still prevent disease.)

I think the comment was alluding to 'sterilizing immunity', rather than the aseptic nature of the vaccines themselves.

You did not understand the difference between systemic and individual risk the parent mentioned. Of course, 12+ year olds are not vaccinated for their own safety, but to supress infection chains that might reach someone more vulnerable. I don't see any insanity in this as testing HAS happened properly.