> More than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for at least four months after the second dose. Overall, approximately 12,000 recipients have been followed for at least 6 months.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...
But also "Phase 4" clinical trials are where the study of long-term effects occur. Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J are all doing those today. Here's a Jan 2022 paper that has some information on current-ish specifics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8665991/
That's exactly what the parent commenter said. Your children are affected, but your first grandchildren should be safe.
The poster implies that there could be unknown long term effects of a vaccine, and conflates long term effects with birth defects, which, of course, appear only after a fetus has developed enough to spot defects in a sonogram or other imaging. It's a scare tactic.
Remember when it was claimed the spike protein is out of your body in 48 hours? This study found the spike protein persists in the body for at least 16 days and the antigen can be found for at least 60 days.
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9
Thats longer than if you actually contract COVID.
So now knowing this, would you monitor for safety longer?
If we assume manufacturers are intentionally malicious, what prevents them from outright submitting a dummy saline shot for testing instead of the real thing, guaranteeing absolutely zero side-effects?
Yes, and to many on here, "they were"...and the company benefited from that. Make sense?
It would also benefit the company to cut corners, do as much as they can but not stop the rollout for more, which would take years to be "proven" beyond some threshold as safe.
Much of this proof would require long term testing, impossible to do up front so they would benefit from just releasing them anyways.
>what prevents them
Perhaps there is some optimal range, within which they benefit from best-effort (in a given period of time) attempt at producing what they think does something, what they think doesn't do bad things, and then releasing in full volume to cash in. Everything I'm saying doesn't require them to be nefarious either, even just a little negligence can result in "not actually safe".
If they have cover from government, media, and a willing populace ready to assume safety and efficacy, then what do they have to lose?
The world does not work that way unfortunately.
>what prevents them from outright submitting a dummy saline shot for testing instead
Perfectly possibly.
Clinical trials do, indeed, last for longer: https://www.pfizerclinicaltrials.com/about/how-clinical-tria...
Here's a good overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsfPOpE-GEs
And every step of the way through those layers of filters, many drugs are rejected. Exactly what I was getting at.
It is certainly not your contention that COVID vaccines went through 3 or 4 phases of long term (years) of limited FDA trials is it lol?
1000s in 6 years = millions in 6 months? I think not, and I don't think you do either.
Having been able to circumvent long term FDA trials, obviously.... obviously.... It made it more likely than it otherwise would have been for the drugs to be approved.
It seems like you're changing the goalposts here, right? You said "if they tested for longer [than 7 days], they'd be less likely to sell their products." I don't think that holds water.
> additionally millions of people have received multiple doses as the drugs are in wide release, whereas normally Phase 2 would be maybe a few hundred
Each Phase has different goals in mind. Moderna, J+J, and Pfizer are all in Phase IV now. FDA approval for Pfizer came after 6 months of study of tens of thousands of vaccine recipients.
I'm not sure what you're claiming anymore.
I am stunned by this. Seven days? Is there really no reason to think that a vaccine candidate might have adverse effects more than a week later?