I have no dog in this fight, I'm just providing a possible answer.
That same question can be asked about covid so I don't understand how this single point brings anything to the discussion. We don't know the future. We don't know the future vaccine effects just like we don't know the future for covid effects.
We do definitely know that the effects of covid (even if you discount them by the fact that not everyone gets covid) are much worse than the vaccines. Everything points to the vaccines being much better than the disease.
And it doesn't even have to be intrinsic to the vaccine, it could be a manufacturing error like there was with Polio.
As I said, I am vaccinated, but this reaction and militancy really puts me off and frankly, I think it is a bit stupid. Not your comment though.
All we can consider is _actionable_ information. All information so far points to the side-effects of the vaccines causing problems at negligible levels compared to the the side-effects of getting covid. That is information we can use and it really only supports one conclusion.
Anyway if you'd like an anecdote, I have a friend in Spain who just got the delta variant along with his 4 friends a few days ago. He was about to get his second shot yesterday (obviously it's postponed now) and his 4 friends were all completely vaccinated when they got sick.
This is actually a smaller issue. The big issue is that measures based on science that is tainted with trust issues must not be mandated.
Have written about this here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926
Basically, I think science require a global change in its perception that is updated to modern times.
mRNA tech itself has been in development since the 80s, and for immunisation since about 2012. It's gone from the body within a few hours AFAICT. If you're that worried, go for the J&J or AZ vaccines, which are more 'traditional' and don't use mRNA.
I'm not saying this is what is happening now, but it has definitely happened in the past. When you read the history of Pandemrix[0][1], you will note that:
> In August 2010 the Swedish MPA issued a statement which included the following: "An investigation is ongoing, but any relationship between the vaccination and the reported symptoms can not be concluded."
and:
> In the Irish parliament, TD Clare Daly commented that, “The Health Service Executive (HSE) decided to purchase Pandemrix and continued to distribute it even after they knew it was dangerous and untested, and before most of the public in Ireland received it.”
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix
[1] https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-w...
When we're talking about "we don't know the long term effects", it's certainly a crucial point, because it shows that we can have a good idea of the long term effects already.
I agree there's likely to be huge political pressure to downplay side effects, however the scale of this rollout and the attention it's getting worldwide mean that it's going to be very unlikely such things sneak through, simply due to the size of the vaccinated population.
The fear is that people are irrational, and when informed will overreact and not get vaccinated. This fear is not unfounded, so they downplay the side effects. Then people notice this downplaying, lose confidence anyway, and don't get vaccinated.
It's a bizarre and ridiculous game.
Off the top of my uneducated head, the one theoretical concern would be giving yourself an autoimmune disease, where your immune system attacks something it shouldnt. Like mistraining a model. Barring that, it seems general consensus is that long term consequences are infinitely unlikely.
I am not sure this idea of "traditional vaccine" is true. The contents of Vaccines can be drastically different. And you cannot generalise that.
> substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity.
It is quite misleading, to say the least.
Possibly. Or accurate.
In this specific case, you can argue the lipid layer throws a wrench in assumptions, and then the onus is on you to prove some proposed mechanism for long term effect. Because the protein the vaccine targets is not human, the risk of the immune system turning on the body after training was rhetorical, because if the antibodies were targeting our body, it would have come up by now.
Another theoretical concern that has not manifested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement...
People have been smoking for a very long time without noticing any apparent problem.
Vioxx is estimated to have caused a 100000 additional heart attacks in US alone, but no one noticed.
This is why we do systematic research. Point is "There have been millions of vaccines administrated", is not a proof for safety.
That is not even considering the censorship of Vaccine adverse effects, and how that can skew the perception of safety.
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-open-...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-doctor-removed-fr...
No, but with a larger population, any adverse effects are likely to be noticed.
With time. Not every problem shows up immediately.
I'm vaccinated but I respect some people who decided against it.
My logic is easy enough to explain: the virus have bigger known side effects than the vaccine and I have personally no reason to belive that there won't be even more and bigger unknown unknowns with the virus than with the vaccine.
Not blindly trusting governments, media and big pharma however doesn't sound crazy to me. After all the worst crimes and crimes against humanity haven't been done by catholic inquisitors or the armed neighbor next door but by governments, and typically not in active war but in steady state after occupation or even typically by the country people belong to.
As for media: how anyone here can trust anyone of them blindly is beyond me. I actively support some of them but I always try to ask myself what really happened.
> As for media: how anyone here can trust anyone of them blindly is beyond me.
I think this is a problem in our current society, rightly or wrongly a lot of people don't trust government or many mainstream information resources, but unfortunately instead of becoming rationally sceptic, a lot go over to blatant misinformation and conspiracy.
Yep.
As I have tried to explain one of my friends: even if you assume every official is prone to lying something can be read from their words and actions.
When I see doctors who have 5-7 more years of studies in the field than me lining up for the vaccine that is a useful signal.
Same with the military and the politicians.
Then there is Ivermectin who according to some could have eradicated Covid-19 if it wasn't for Big Pharmas stranglehold on media and politicians.
Well in that case COVID-19 should be eradicated in Cuba, Iran and Russia now as none of those suffers the same stranglehold from Big Pharma.
etc etc.
Let me share some similar signals that I see.
Let us talk about the VAERS database. I wonder why is it not made in such a way that it can collect high quality data? Like for example, make strict mandates to the healthcare people to document each and every AEFI that they notice.
But right now, the covid vaccines are not even in the list of vaccines whos events are reportable under law [1].
And [2] where they choose not to enforce data collections in name of promoting vaccinations.
So when the authorities opt not to collect data, it is a big red signal for me.
>Well in that case COVID-19 should be eradicated in Cuba, Iran and Russia now as none of those suffers the same stranglehold from Big Pharma.
Well I guess anywhere in the world, the authorities will be taking a big risk by going against W.H.O. Not sure, just something that could be the case..Can you show some citation to show Ivermectin was being used in these places and found to be of no use?
[1] https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_...
Because it's made in such a way that it can collect all data from self-reporting as well. It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise, not be restrictive or definitive.
> But right now, the covid vaccines are not even in the list of vaccines whos events are reportable under law
That list seems to be things which are legally mandated reporting -
"In addition, healthcare professionals are encouraged to report any clinically significant or unexpected events"
That doesn't mean other things can't be or aren't being reported.
> And [2] where they choose not to enforce data collections in name of promoting vaccinations.
What part of that link says that? Hard to tell.
> Well I guess anywhere in the world, the authorities will be taking a big risk by going against W.H.O.
Why? What sort of risk do you think it might be? What sort of power do you think the WHO has to suppress effective treatments in countries around the world?
Ivermectin, like HCQ before it, appears to have been latched onto by the antivax crowd with no evidence to support it. We do have some effective treatments now, like tocilizumab and dexamethsone, supported with good clinical evidence.
Obviously, I know that, which is why I am asking the question.
>It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise,
How does it make sense to mix signal and noise together, and then trying to separate them on the other end? To me it it appears that it gives an opportunity to reject all the signal as noise. We can see that happening already, where news article that report on data showing up in VAERS calling it as unreliable because it is self reported.
Also, I asked specifically about not strictly mandating reporting of all AEFI events, you seemed to have ignored that important part of the question. So basically instead of allowing any one to do the reporting, allow only the healthcare provider who administrated the vaccine to do it.
Also, some studies have estimated that only 1% of events are reported. So one can only speculate the actual numbers?
Why throwaway such an important body of data? Does not make any sense at all.
>That doesn't mean other things can't be or aren't being reported.
Basically the document makes a distinction between legally reportable and merely encouraged. I am not sure why that distinction is there in first place, but the concern is that covid vaccines, even though under EUA, fall under the latter and not in the former.
>What part of that link says that? Hard to tell.
Sorry, here.
>OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022.
>Why? What sort of risk do you think it might be? What sort of power do you think the WHO has to suppress effective treatments in countries around the world?
Basically since W.H.O is considered an authority, if a local authority takes a measure that contradict W.H.O, and later it turn out to be sub-optimal, then the local body will find it hard to justify in front of the people, and any political opposition. It is a risk most local authorities will not take, as I see it.
Presumably it's not the only body of data, though, particularly when we're talking about worldwide, rather than just the USA. Side effects are detected in other countries too.
> OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects
So ... you're not required to report suspected covid-vaccine health problems your employees might be having. It seems a poor fit for something you'd want employers to do anyway? Much more suited to the healthcare system.
> if a local authority takes a measure that contradict W.H.O, and later it turn out to be sub-optimal, then the local body will find it hard to justify in front of the people
Good reason to stick to well-evidenced treatments then, regardless of the WHO, as if more reason was needed.
As an example, see lead, asbestos, mercury, or other heavy metals poisonings.
As Taleb says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As a specific point regarding these vaccines, we don't really know the long term effect of the lipid nano particles used in them. And we do know that it took 20 years to create them, because all previous lipid nano particles tried were proven to be highly toxic.
After thorough analysis I took the Moderna one. If you're above 25, the risk from Covid is bigger than any vaccine risk. But I do assume I also took some risk with the Moderna shot. It's basically choosing the lesser evil.