health

New global lab network will compare COVID-19 vaccines head-to-head

21 Comments
By Kate Kelland

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

It is a nice effort, and if done properly will result in useful information for everybody, but it seems overly optimistic.

It is not realistically possible to follow perfectly a protocol for testing. Machines change performance depending on use even if they are of the same model, mice are housed with different conditions, people have different degrees of skill, etc. That increases variability and noise in the results.

If two vaccines have very strong differences in performance they will still show it in this kind of research, but if they are only marginally different there is no reliable way to get a confirmation when the replication's noise is bigger than the difference.

It is of course not a waste of time nor money, because extra corroboration and extra controls are desirable in order to prove safety and efficacy. But if they overreach on their conclusions ("vaccine A is 2% better than vaccine B") things will get complicated and messy and the effort necessary to do the work.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

But the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) has some skin in the "game":

Obviously, their interest is to keep funding the best candidates, there is nothing wrong with that, the opposite would be much worth of criticism, just trusting everybody were doing things perfectly and not corroborating anything.

WHO is being asked to not approve a "rushed" vaccine that is not less than 30% effective.

Which is precisely what this kind of efforts aim to avoid, by having outsiders corroborating the individual efforts so the WHO can have a reference to use for their decisions. Did you even read the article? 6 months of phase III trials is something that was used before, with vaccines that are being already used today. Anything approved next year do not need any kind of rush.

And 30% effective? With the negative side effects happening in Phase III before approval THAT IS INSANE

MORE than 30% for all we know any of the candidates can have over 90% efficacy.

Exhaustion, fever and headaches for a minority, and that for most of them last for less than a day are still a much better prospect than a natural infection that frequently causes acute complications and even more some long lasting side effects that are still being quantified. Specially because the blinded participants do not know to which arm of the study they were randomized, as happened with previous vaccines some of the side effects (even the important ones) are felt by people inoculated by placebo.

Looks to me like you get a blast of COVID-19 with each dose multiple times a year. 

There is absolutely no evidence that there will be needed multiple reinforcement of the vaccine, that is coming just from your imagination and discredited by the evidence collected both from preclinical and clinical trials.

We haven't seen the negative effects of what happens to children or seniors with or without comorbidities.

That is what is being examined in the phase III trials and included in the declaration of side effects in a minority of cases. The people interviewed in the article are not the only ones volunteering, that is a misunderstanding from your part.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

MORE than 30% for all we know any of the candidates can have over 90% efficacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/30/covid-vaccine-rush-could-make-pandemic-worse-say-scientists

Did you read the article?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-participants-exhaustion-fever-headaches.html

Expect to take a day off cause you will be out the next day experiencing those symptoms. Now...these are healthy volunteers who were approved for the trial now in Phase III and they are STILL EXPERIENCING these outcomes.

What will happen when you mass vaccinate unhealthy individuals with COMORBIDITIES (high blood pressure, diabetes, obese, heart disease, cancer history, stroke history, older age)?

You're going to have a vaccinated population in A LOT of hurt. You say it'll all go away in a day as if it's just saline solution. You don't even have long term studies.

THESE COVID-19 VACCINE TRIALS DO NOT INCLUDE CHILDREN OR INFANTS

If you already have these negative side effects in healthy adults what about the children being injected? You talk as if it'll all be fine and dandy, birds will be chirping, flowers everywhere. Just a day...it'll pass...don't worry.

There is absolutely no evidence that there will be needed multiple reinforcement of the vaccine, that is coming just from your imagination and discredited by the evidence collected both from preclinical and clinical trials.

Self-proclaimed vaccine expert and "philanthropic" funder (bless his heart) of these vaccine companies Bill Gates already mentioned that 1 dose isn't effective enough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmsmgj5244Q

"None of the vaccines appear that they will work with a single dose....we hope just two..."

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Did you read the article?

Yes, and nothing written justifies thinking any vaccine barely within the limit would be approved, that is fantasy thinking.

Expect to take a day off cause you will be out the next day experiencing those symptoms. Now...these are healthy volunteers who were approved for the trial now in Phase III and they are STILL EXPERIENCING these outcomes.

As with every vaccine ever approved, including people inoculated with placebo controls. The people interviewed are not the only included, you really need to read what is the objectives and methods for a phase III trial, not all volunteers are healthy young adults, that is phase I.

And no, the article makes it clear the participants went back to normal shortly. they are not experiencing anything now.

You're going to have a vaccinated population in A LOT of hurt. You say it'll all go away in a day as if it's just saline solution. You don't even have long term studies.

No, I am not saying anything, your own source did, it is better if you read first what you reference. As long as the side effects are milder and less frequent than the natural infection that still means there is less risk with vaccinating than not doing it.

THESE COVID-19 VACCINE TRIALS DO NOT INCLUDE CHILDREN OR INFANTS

But they include people of advanced age and with comorbidities, which is very different from what you said, children have a much less severe reaction to most febrile diseases and their vaccines as any pediatrician could tell you. So it is expected that side-effects will be much less frequent than in young adults, the same as with the natural disease.

Do you have any data pointing to children being specially susceptible to side effects or is this just something you pulled out of thin air?

Self-proclaimed vaccine expert and "philanthropic" funder (bless his heart) of these vaccine companies Bill Gates already mentioned that 1 dose isn't effective enough

One, it "appear" to not be enough is not the same as "will" not be enough. Without data to prove it you can only say the first, not the second. Else, if he says that vaccines "appear" to be safe, is that proof for you that vaccines "will" be safe? Also, people scientifically illiterate keep thinking who says something is the important part, in reality the only important part is the data used to say that something.

Two, needing two doses close in time (as many other vaccines today) is completely different from needing multiple doses a year as you said. Do you have any data that points that every single vaccine candidate will need multiple doses? if not, that is still part of your imagination.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

As with every vaccine ever approved, including people inoculated with placebo controls. The people interviewed are not the only included, you really need to read what is the objectives and methods for a phase III trial, not all volunteers are healthy young adults, that is phase I.

Trials are for volunteers (which they will hand pick as not all of them are approved) between the ages of 18 to 55~60 years old depending on the vaccine company.

SHORT TERM: Adverse reactions AND there will NO LONG TERM STUDIES (on these healthy individuals):

These are short term studies on those age ranges. Unhealthy individuals can apply but doesn't mean they will get approved for Phase I:

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/10/how-will-unhealthy-americans-react-to-covid-19-vaccines/

"If you look at the human clinical trials that have been conducted this year by drug companies developing experimental vaccines for COVID-19, the participants in those trials have all been “healthy adults.” Take, for example, Moderna’s Phase 1 clinical trial for its mRNA-1273 vaccine, which included 45 healthy adults 18 to 55 years old. The same is true for the Phase 1/2 clinical trial for the BNT162b1 vaccine being developed jointly by Pfizer and BioNTech. That trial also involved 45 healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 55 years."

And what happens long term will not be known until negative effects start to show up later. There is a huge financial incentive to BE FIRST TO MARKET. With no risk or liability then there are HUGE financial incentives to rush and get approval:

Since 1986 vaccine companies themselves have enjoyed liability free vaccines.

"NCVIA's purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims in order to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims."

"The law established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which was created to to ensure vaccine supply, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish a no-fault compensation alternative for those injured by vaccines. Currently the U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides vaccine injury claims and three Federal government offices jointly work to administer in the NVICP:

https://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/1986-Vaccine-Injury-Law.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546

But they include people of advanced age and with comorbidities, which is very different from what you said, children have a much less severe reaction to most febrile diseases and their vaccines as any pediatrician could tell you. So it is expected that side-effects will be much less frequent than in young adults, the same as with the natural disease.

No. 18-55, 18-59/60 years of age. No age ranges above that although they may apply. They were not accepted.

Children have a much less severe reaction to most febrile diseases

CORRECT in regards to diseases as their immune systems are stronger at an earlier age but deteriorate with age / environment - air / water/ food (fresh vs processed) / stressors / exercise BUT you cannot say that about vaccines. ESPECIALLY THIS ONE as this is a first ever mRNA vaccine they are trying to roll out. We simply DO NOT KNOW the long term effects...those who plan on being injected are just injecting to "feel safe" not knowing the long term effects. You seem incredibly confident with your explanations that these things are typical and everything will be "just fine".

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Trials are for volunteers (which they will hand pick as not all of them are approved) between the ages of 18 to 55~60 years old depending on the vaccine company

Look for the information on clinical trials, basing you opinion of specific cases only on a too generalized piece of information will only make you make mistakes, like in this case.

For example for AstraZeneca clinical trial. NCT04516746

30,000 participants

Ages Eligible for Study: 18 Years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Exclusion Criteria:

confirmed or suspected immunosuppressive or immunodeficient state

significant disease, disorder, or finding

Prior or concomitant vaccine therapy for COVID-19

So no, no limit of age, no exclusion of people with comorbidities (except the norm of "significant disease" which do not include acutely complicated diabetes, hypertension, obesity etc)

It was terribly easy to prove your uniformed opinion wrong. This is because you did not even investigated first.

SHORT TERM: Adverse reactions AND there will NO LONG TERM STUDIES (on these healthy individuals):

Again, 6 months of following for a vaccine against an acute infection is not unheard at all, and it is enough to prove the vaccine is less risky than the natural infection for which there are NO long term studies either, and the ones for short and mid term (that are included in the vaccine trials) are giving up a plethora of complications both acute and chronic that are not being detected for any of the vaccines.

"If you look at the human clinical trials that have been conducted this year by drug companies developing experimental vaccines for COVID-19, the participants in those trials have all been “healthy adults.”

Duh! because those are phase I and II, which are a requisite for beginning phase III, which are still in process, if your complain is that phase III should not be shorter then there is no logical reason to expect the results to be reported right now. That would require a time machine.

Try to inform yourself better about what are the phases of clinical trials, you seem terribly confused about what are they and how they are conducted, that is why you keep mistaken perceptions.

And what happens long term will not be known until negative effects start to show up later. There is a huge financial incentive to BE FIRST TO MARKET. With no risk or liability then there are HUGE financial incentives to rush and get approval:

And you know what is astronomically more likely to give negative effects later? the natural infection, that produces over a million times more antigens in the body, including at least a dozen extra proteins made specifically to mess up with the immune system and that are not included in any of the vaccines in phase III.

The law established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which was created to to ensure vaccine supply, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish a no-fault compensation alternative for those injured by vaccines. Currently the U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides vaccine injury claims and three Federal government offices jointly work to administer in the NVICP

All companies in the developed world have risk and liability exactly the same as any other industry, your confusion comes from the lie antivaxxers like to repeat about compensation, Pharma companies ARE penalized and punished by having products that are deficient or faulty not against particulars but against governments themselves.

Why do you think Japan keep testing all the vaccines that are recommended in the country? The government have agencies dedicated to prove each lot is as safe and effective as described. That would be completely unnecessary if there were no liability.

No. 18-55, 18-59/60 years of age. No age ranges above that although they may apply. They were not accepted.

Prove it. I already put a source here that proves you wrong. Now its your turn to put a source that can say no person over 60 will be accepted. Else you are again pulling things out of your imagination.

CORRECT in regards to diseases as their immune systems are stronger at an earlier age but deteriorate with age / environment - air / water/ food (fresh vs processed) / stressors / exercise BUT you cannot say that about vaccines.

Your explanation is mistaken, it is purely immunogenic and well demonstrated. And again, the burden of proof is in your side, you need to prove that vaccine reaction are particularly worrying for children, if you cannot prove it then you cannot say they are going to be more likely to get them. For all we know there may not be need to vaccinate small children, and if there is need is because the risk of the natural infection is much greater than the vaccine.

ESPECIALLY THIS ONE as this is a first ever mRNA vaccine they are trying to roll out. 

There is no "this one" this is only one of the candidates and nothing says it will be the only one, there is absolutely no specific risk that is higher from a mRNA vaccine, no external proteins, no long lasting expression, no risk of genomic integration, no need of external chemicals for inactivation. If anything mRNA strong advantage is safety (against efficacy which is the one that may suffer).

If people reject a safe vaccine just because is new then they can choose another one made with more classical methods.

You seem incredibly confident with your explanations that these things are typical and everything will be "just fine".

No, I am confident that there is no real reason why everything will turn out bad as you say. There are plenty of reasons and antecedents that strongly indicate at least a few of the candidates will be safe and effective enough to be used in the general population. Statistically speaking there is no real chance only bad vaccines will be developed from the more than 100 candidates being studied now.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Look for the information on clinical trials, basing you opinion of specific cases only on a too generalized piece of information will only make you make mistakes, like in this case.

You are pointing to one company and saying it applies across the board to every other vaccine company. You have nearly 100 vaccine companies rushing to market and the average age group is still 18-55/60 years and healthy.

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/10/how-will-unhealthy-americans-react-to-covid-19-vaccines/

"All six of these experimental COVID-19 vaccine programs have at least three things in common. First, they have all moved into the Phase 3 clinical trial stage in which tens of thousands of healthy adults are being recruited to continue testing the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Second, many of the people who participated in the trials experienced adverse events after getting the vaccines. Third, all of the participants were healthy adults."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/30/covid-vaccine-rush-could-make-pandemic-worse-say-scientists

there is absolutely no specific risk that is higher from a mRNA vaccine, no external proteins, no long lasting expression, no risk of genomic integration, no need of external chemicals for inactivation. If anything mRNA strong advantage is safety (against efficacy which is the one that may suffer).

Again, you seem incredibly confident in this newly rushed to market mRNA vaccine. If anything its strong advantage is safety? You don't even have any long term studies let alone on those younger than 18 and those older than 60 that may not be healthy as the volunteers (although you did point out AstraZeneca's trial example it doesn't mean it applies to all vaccine companies - most of them are taking 18-55~60 years of age healthy).

"Five risks of mRNA vaccines

The big problem with mRNA vaccines is that human biochemistry is incredibly complex, and the body’s synthesis of tens of thousands of different proteins is remarkably delicate and easy to throw out of balance. Many people don’t realize this, but proteins are not merely structural components of the body (such as muscle tissue), they are also messengers (such as hormones), transport vehicles, enzymes, antibodies and many other types of molecules necessary for good health.

Injecting the body with mRNA strands — which are essentially protein synthesis instructions — could theoretically unleash catastrophic unintended consequences in the body, which could include causing destructive self-reinforcing feedback loops that either diminish necessary protein synthesis or cause runaway excessive protein synthesis. These side effects can potentially lead to at least five negative outcomes:

1) Sudden onset of autoimmune disorders that cause the body’s immune system to attack its own cells. (See more details below.)

2) Heightened inflammation in the body, resulting in a hyper-inflammatory response in some people, leading to secondary effects such as neurological damage, organ failure or cancer. This is also sometimes called an “enhanced” inflammatory response.

3) A heightened risk of blood clotting in response to mRNA strands circulating in the blood outside the body’s cells. This can lead to potentially fatal episodes of stroke or serious cardiovascular events.

4) Immune response interference due to the presence of unintended RNA fragments being translated into unintended proteins, leading to a vast array of negative possible outcomes including molecular deficiencies that can result in various diseases and syndromes including hormonal / endocrine disorders, infertility, cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders and many more.

5) In the case of self-replicating mRNA vaccines using viral components, an inability to stop a runaway process that’s replicating out of control in the body. This could theoretically occur when the mRNA snippets are pushed into cells via virus replicon particles (VRP), for example, or using other viral delivery methods that rely on viral replication machinery. On the other hand, self-replicating mRNA vaccines allow for injection doses to be incredibly small, since the mRNA coding material is self-replicating, and this could lead to safer vaccines with far smaller dosing requirements compared to traditional vaccines."

No, I am confident that there is no real reason why everything will turn out bad as you say. There are plenty of reasons and antecedents that strongly indicate at least a few of the candidates will be safe and effective enough to be used in the general population. Statistically speaking there is no real chance only bad vaccines will be developed from the more than 100 candidates being studied now.

No, you are incredibly confident that these "issues" are normal and it is all safe and you have absolutely nothing to worry about as these vaccine companies are there to "protect you" where I say, looking at their history....um....not necessarily:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB0MEjHgkfM

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

You are pointing to one company and saying it applies across the board to every other vaccine company. You have nearly 100 vaccine companies rushing to market and the average age group is still 18-55/60 years and healthy.

Your point is completely base on not a single company testing for older adults, I proved you wrong. That is it, I only needed one example to do it. At least one company is actually testing on volunteers of older age and with comorbidities. If you cannot accept you were wrong it is not my fault. The "average" age group is irrelevant, as long as older people are being tested that is enough. Can you bring proof one one vaccine is accepting older adults? if not again you are imagining things and pretending is a fact.

Third, all of the participants were healthy adults."

Again, try and read at least for 5 minutes about clinical trials, it is obvious that participants of phase I-II are all healthy people, that is part of the requirements BEFORE going into phase III where the target population at higher risk is being tested, Ethically you need to prove safety in healthy people first, then you can test on people with comorbidities. Repeating your mistake endlessly do not make it magically right, the same as with your imaginary problem of not older people ever being tested, that also resulted false.

 Again, you seem incredibly confident in this newly rushed to market mRNA vaccine. If anything its strong advantage is safety? You don't even have any long term studies let alone on those younger than 18 and those older than 60 that may not be healthy as the volunteers (although you did point out AstraZeneca's trial example it doesn't mean it applies to all vaccine companies - most of them are taking 18-55~60 years of age healthy).

Do you understand what evidence and data means? that is what allows to predict outcomes with some degree of accuracy, mRNA vaccines have been already tested preclinically for many kinds of purposes, and the data is always the same, negative reactions are less frequent and pronounced than live attenuated vaccines while activating a balanced immune response, and in many cases even safer than pure protein based vaccines. 

All the different problems I mentioned (and that you are trying to ignore) are absent, that is a valid enough reason to say they are safer. 

You don't even have any long term studies let alone on those younger than 18 and those older than 60 that may not be healthy as the volunteers

And the same reason I already gave to defeat that failed argument still applies, the short mid term studies surpasses the natural infection by a huge lot of margin of safety, and in order to get approved phase III the requirement is to do it also in people with comorbidities and older age. So by definition any vaccine that do not prove it it is not a matter of concern because it cannot be approved for use in the general population.

Now, show me long term studies for COVID-19. Else asking for them for the vaccine to show they are less risky is just nonsense.

Five risks of mRNA vaccines

You need to choose better sources, pseudoscientific sites full of demonstrable lies are worse than ignorance, because not only you cannot get the true idea, you actually get wrong ones, infowars is a trashbin of a source, more likely to get you wrong on anything, and easy to prove it so.

The big problem with mRNA vaccines is that human biochemistry is incredibly complex

Duh! and that is the same for every kind of molecule that enters the body, that is why it is not assume to work in a certain way but tested to confirm if the intended effect is being done and the related pathways are not being affected, exactly what has been done for many years with preclinical (and now clinical) studies. This is not an argument, is just an excuse and can be said the same for everything, from drinking water to takin a stroll in the afternoon.

Injecting the body with mRNA strands — which are essentially protein synthesis instructions — could theoretically unleash catastrophic unintended consequences

Except when it has been carefully corroborated this is not the case with dozens and dozens of studies, and no, there are no self-feeding loops that mRNA is more likely to activate than any protein would do, it would actually be the opposite, mRNA is extremely labile and the cells have not only specific mechanisms to destroy it quickly but also inespecific ones that ends its life much more shortly than a protein. It is precisely because of that that is so difficult to use with efficacy, because of the problem of delivering to the cell.

Sudden onset of autoimmune disorders that cause the body’s immune system to attack its own cells.

The same risk as with any protein introduced to the body, again this is not a risk from mRNA, the nucleotide strands are not antigenic by themselves, so they cannot cause autoimmune disorders. Also, do you know what is hugely more likely to produce autoimmune disorders? the natural infection, that produces more than a million times more protein to trigger it. Again vaccines are safer because of this reason.

Heightened inflammation in the body, resulting in a hyper-inflammatory response in some people, leading to secondary effects such as neurological damage, organ failure or cancer

The opposite, a protein only triggers one side of the immune process, producing a disbalance that promotes inflammation and not necessarily protection. mRNA produces activation of both cellular and humoral response, in a much more natural way which lets the body regulate the reaction much better and produce both kinds of cytosines, pro- and anti-inflamation, in the same way that attenuated vaccines do, but without risk of losing the attenuation.

 heightened risk of blood clotting in response to mRNA strands circulating in the blood outside the body’s cells. 

This is simply fantasy without scientific basis, it is much more likely that a protein being recognized by antibodies would (in some weird unknown way) produce clotting, in a healthy person there are huge lots of mRNA circulating in the body from the natural processes of the cell, the body has no ability to recognize one strand as foreign (it is not antigenic). Magical thinking and too much movies are not a replacement for scientific knowlege.

Immune response interference due to the presence of unintended RNA fragments being translated into unintended proteins, 

what "unintended" RNA fragments? it is not like they will have another sequence, so the only thing they could produce would be fragments of the spike protein, which is still the target.

This is a moot point anyway, mRNA fragments are not recognized for translation because both end of the strand are necessary, the capping structure at the 5' end and the polyA tail at the 3' end. A broken mRNA is useless and recognized as such by the cell, being eliminated at once.

No, you are incredibly confident that these "issues" are normal and it is all safe and you have absolutely nothing to worry about as these vaccine companies are there to "protect you" where I say, looking at their history....um....not necessarily:

Because they are, you have failed to prove every single one of your points, you want people to believe everything has to end up wrong without proof, just because that is what you want to believe.

People only have to see the world today, how vaccines have increased the quality of life, a world where COVID is the disease to be feared, because polio, measles, rabies, etc. are no longer the death sentences they were in the past. Your point requires vaccines to fail all the time (so they would of course fail the next one) that is simply false and easy to demonstrate.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Because they are, you have failed to prove every single one of your points, you want people to believe everything has to end up wrong without proof, just because that is what you want to believe.

People only have to see the world today, how vaccines have increased the quality of life, a world where COVID is the disease to be feared, because polio, measles, rabies, etc. are no longer the death sentences they were in the past. Your point requires vaccines to fail all the time (so they would of course fail the next one) that is simply false and easy to demonstrate.

Sigh....OK. All types of vaccines are 100% safe and risk free.

We can now inject away with this rushed mRNA vaccine without a worry in the world. Long term studies? No need. Studies on infants, children, pregnant women with these negative short side effects? No need. Non-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines? Seniors more than likely to have comorbidities (high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, stroke history, cancer history) will be totally fine even with short term negative side effects let alone the long term ones.

The mainstream media news isn't manufacturing FEAR and we can fully trust governments along with BIG PHARMA to help us for the good of society during every "plandemic" or "pandemic". Whichever one you believe.

Nothing to do with rushing the first to market for the bottom line profits to make their shareholders happy and to establish a strong foothold globally (for years to come) among the hundred vaccine companies.

https://learntherisk.org/diseases/

Can't wait to get a I (HEART) mRNA license plate.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Sigh....OK. All types of vaccines are 100% safe and risk free.

My point is that there is a good chance at least one, if not many of the vaccine candidates end up being safe and effective enough to be used by the population.

What you wrote is a strawman, something nobody but you has said but since you cannot refute the real argument you need a false one to attack.

We can now inject away with this rushed mRNA vaccine without a worry in the world. 

No, we don't, because the phase III trial is not finished. But at least we don't have to listen to false reasons and demonstrable lies that try to seed misinformation.

Long term studies? No need.

Of course we do, but specially for the natural infection which is the one that is more likely to produce problems in the long term.

Studies on infants, children, pregnant women with these negative short side effects? No need.

Of course we do, but that can wait until we find out we need to vaccinate them, it is perfectly possible a vaccine safe and effective in adults (with and without comorbidities) is enough to solve the most important part of the problem. At least now we know we are testing more than just healthy adults as you mistakenly said.

Seniors more than likely to have comorbidities (high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, stroke history, cancer history) will be totally fine even with short term negative side effects let alone the long term ones.

Since they are being tested in the phase III trials that would not be a worry, short/mid term effects are more likely to be detected then, repeating myself again, your idea that they were not tested comes from not understanding clinical trials.

The mainstream media news isn't manufacturing FEAR and we can fully trust governments along with BIG PHARMA to help us for the good of society during every "plandemic" or "pandemic". Whichever one you believe.

Sure, because the statements from every professional association of the world are "mainstream media" right? as well as all published manuscripts written by everybody that dedicate their lives to prevent deaths from infections. Do the media contradict them? ignore the media. But most of the time they don't, because the pandemic danger is real.

Nothing to do with rushing the first to market for the bottom line profits to make their shareholders happy and to establish a strong foothold globally (for years to come) among the hundred vaccine companies.

Yes, because it is believable that over 100 candidates will all result in (hidden) failures, and people will stick with the first one even if much better options come out at a slightly delayed time. That is why the world is all buying the Russian vaccine right?

learntherisk

Yet another side well know for lying and manipulating information. With those sources you will not be able to stop making as much mistakes as you do here

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Sigh....OK. All types of vaccines are 100% safe and risk free.

Yeah, and anyone who does not agree with that is an irrational, ignorant, antiscience, conspiracy theorist ; )

To be honest, I am not all that concerned with the mRNA molecule itself, other than its lower effectiveness compared to other vaccines, as admitted to by many including virusrex. But the main concern I have with vaccines in general is the other stuff that is injected into your arm.

In the case of this mRNA vaccine, I share the concern of many others on the PEG-related immune reactions, from the carrier system they're using.

Many other vaccines use monkey or human fetal cell lines, that is something I will definitely avoid.

The Novavax vaccine seems promising and their high-budget animation makes it look really clean, but somehow, the feeling of injecting something produced by an insect (moth larvae) cell line is just... yuck! Although their technology seems promising, it's brand new and they have yet to have a vaccine on the market.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Since they are being tested in the phase III trials that would not be a worry, short/mid term effects are more likely to be detected then, repeating myself again, your idea that they were not tested comes from not understanding clinical trials.

We're in Phase III for Moderna / Pfizer / Johnson & Johnson / AstraZeneca and they're still having these side effects for qualified healthy individuals? (They're certainly not going to take unhealthy volunteers and risk their data). Phase III trial specifically for Safety and Efficacy? Real safe. Real effective remains to be seen. Don't forget we'll need multiple doses so you'll need to take a day or two off multiple times per year. These are not side effects you want to be experiencing short term and we still do not know about long term...

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Trials

Bed bound - Hutchison, a 44-year-old computational biologist in Utah (healthy, physically fit)

"After getting the first shot on Aug. 18, he said he felt a little under the weather for several days with a low-grade fever. He got his second shot at a clinic on Sept. 15. Eight hours later, he said he was bed bound with a fever of over 101, shakes, chills, a pounding headache and shortness of breath. He said the pain in his arm, where he received the shot, felt like a “goose egg on my shoulder.” He hardly slept that night, recording that his temperature was higher than 100 degrees for five hours." 

Short-term pain - North Carolina woman 50s

"she didn’t experience a fever but suffered a bad migraine that left her drained for a day and unable to focus. She said she woke up the next day feeling better after taking Excedrin, but added that Moderna may need to tell people to take a day off after a second dose"

Worth the risk Maryland man 20s

"experienced nausea after the first shot, but it wasn’t until the second that he “really felt things.” He said he woke up at 1 a.m. with chills and a 104 fever. He said the fever went down after he took Advil and Tylenol but it lasted until around 8 pm"

Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trial

"A physician in Baltimore participating in the Pfizer study is due for his second dose on Saturday. While he said his symptoms were “very mild” for the first dose, he wouldn’t be surprised if others experienced symptoms more serious than a flu shot and said people should be prepared for that. 

Another participant in Pfizer’s trial said he was up all night after the first shot from the pain of the injection. The booster injection he received caused more of that same pain in his arm, followed by intense flu-like symptoms that hit him around 1a.m. He couldn’t sleep that night without an electric blanket, and shook so hard that it became uncontrollable and he cracked part of his tooth from chattering them."

Of course we do, but that can wait until we find out we need to vaccinate them, it is perfectly possible a vaccine safe and effective in adults (with and without comorbidities) is enough to solve the most important part of the problem. At least now we know we are testing more than just healthy adults as you mistakenly said.

Just recently you were telling another commenter to NOT WAIT and make sure to vaccinate their children because of heart problems in children (relating to Kawasaki's disease) but that was shown to be false.

https://www.societi.org.uk/kawasaki-disease-covid-19/responding-to-press-coverage-28-april-2020/

You are pushing the vaccine angle non-stop as if it were the ultimate, can do no wrong, no risk solution as if this were ebola.

When you look at the lethality data (infection fatality rate) by country:

https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/

I know you're going to try to discredit them like to do with websites that differ from your "narrative" but check their sources. The data is there. Break it down by gender, age, comorbidities, area, etc.

You're trying to push a vaccine for a lethality rate of between 0.1% and 0.5% in most countries, which is comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

You're trying to push a vaccine for a lethality rate of between 0.1% and 0.5% in most countries

Yeah, as I said many times, I would very much rather catch the virus than get the vaccine. But the big pharma cheerleaders are constantly exaggerating the risks of the virus and downplaying (or completely ignoring) the risks of vaccines.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Yeah, and anyone who does not agree with that is an irrational, ignorant, antiscience, conspiracy theorist ; )

With a badly made strawman? no, that would make the person bad at discussing. After all the whole purpose of the non-argument is misrepresent something into a completely different thing that can be attacked when given up against the real one.

But the main concern I have with vaccines in general is the other stuff that is injected into your arm.

Not in the blood stream directly? unbelievable.

In the case of this mRNA vaccine, I share the concern of many others on the PEG-related immune reactions, from the carrier system they're using.

Any immune reaction is of concern independently of the origin, that is why trials are done in blind, so every piece of information that is different from the normal is registered and evaluated, any volunteer showing anything would be of interest, even if the cause is not part of what is expected from the vaccine formulation, or even precisely for that reason.

Many other vaccines use monkey or human fetal cell lines, that is something I will definitely avoid.

Everybody has reasons for avoiding safe and effective measures, as long as you don't want to pretend to be logical that is fine. After all if you used methods of detection as sensitive as the ones used for detection of contaminants in drugs and vaccines you would detect monkey and fetal cell remains in your food routinely.

We're in Phase III for Moderna / Pfizer / Johnson & Johnson / AstraZeneca and they're still having these side effects for qualified healthy individuals? (They're certainly not going to take unhealthy volunteers and risk their data). 

Even more, they are having side effects for people on the placebo arm, the same as every other phase III clinical trial ever, since it involves thousands of volunteers.

And again, being unhealthy is not part of the exclusion criteria. So you can imagine whatever you want about the volunteers, if you cannot prove they all are only healthy young adults you are simply mistaken and pretending your uninformed option is some kind of fact, it is not.

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Trials

You already put these examples before, for one of the vaccines, COVID infection have much more dangerous reactions even on healthy young people. Anecdotes of people that even died from it are easy to find, even if the reaction were as common with the vaccine than with the infection (something you cannot even prove) they are still better than death.

Just recently you were telling another commenter to NOT WAIT and make sure to vaccinate their children because of heart problems in children (relating to Kawasaki's disease) but that was shown to be false.

That is false and mistaken on two reasons.

One, because I never told anybody not to wait (Can you quote me? or you are going to accept to lie?) only to be aware that the infection have unknown long term effect and we keep discovering new short and medium term ones, which are dangerous and not as infrequent as you would like.

Two, because Kawasaki disease as a complication has already been demonstrated

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6932e2.htm

and the cardiological problems are yet another complication not necessarily related to it

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery#:~:text=Nearly%20one%2Dfourth%20of%20those,infected%20may%20be%20more%20widespread.

You really need to read more, and from better sources than what you try to use, instead of letting people fool you to think mRNA causes coagulation try reading news from this month instead of april, or better yet scientific reports.

You're trying to push a vaccine for a lethality rate of between 0.1% and 0.5% in most countries, which is comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968.

That is of course the whole point of the very heavy measures put in order in most countries to avoid widespread contagion, death of vulnerable population (which is a majority of people over 50, and a significant portion of younger people) and swamping of the hospitals which would convert every hospitalization on a fatality (including people that could not be hospitalized for everything else, not related to COVID)

And that is ignoring the very significant portion of the patients that suffer from long term disabilities or serious problems months after being discharged.

Everything observed is in spite of the measures in place, which can be replaced with a safe and effective treatment or vaccine. Which is the reason why is so demanded, because surprisingly people want to be back to their normal lives without increasing the lethality rate. (Compare now the lethality and incidence rates per 100,000 people of influenza this year, THAT is how much the real problem has been reduced)

Finally, do you know what is much much lower than 0.1%? every single vaccine that is in use today. Thinking that taking a 0.1% chance of dying (while in lockdowns, etc) instead of the much lower risk of death by a vaccine (and eventually no more social distancing) is not logical, it is just an attempt to mislead with bad statistics.

Yeah, as I said many times, I would very much rather catch the virus than get the vaccine. 

Which again is your complete freedom, people have the right to run higher risk if they want to be illogical or irrational, it happens all the time with people that refuse blood, routine surgeries or simple antibiotics even if they lose their lives for it.

What you don't have a right is to say this is logical (it is not) nor to impose this risk on other people, which may mean you would not be able to do some things that someone already immune to the disease will be able to do.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It seems quite obvious that only one person in this conversation have any idea about vaccines. Quite educative in many senses.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yeah, as I said many times, I would very much rather catch the virus than get the vaccine. But the big pharma cheerleaders are constantly exaggerating the risks of the virus and downplaying (or completely ignoring) the risks of vaccines.

Same here Raw Beer. There's much, much less risk to those under 60 and generally healthy. Extra precaution should be taken for those older or with comorbidities (obese, high blood pressure, diabetic, heart disease, stroke history, cancer history) but you can reduce the risk by boosting your immune system ("they" would have you believe that there's nothing you can do about it and to wait for their rushed "product" that supposed to be at least 30% effective with multiple injections per year) .

Big Pharma and those who are trying to maintain the narrative would like us to stay in fear, lockdown and wait for their vaccine product.

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Fatality rate: 0.1%-0.5%

SARS-CoV Fatality rate: 9.6%

MERS Fatality rate: 34.3%

https://time.com/5798168/coronavirus-mortality-rate/

For those who want the vaccine...not trying to stop you. Your choice. Just do your research and step outside mainstream media's narrative push. There will be a portion of the population who'd gladly take the vaccine (they will provide the data for the world to see). Look for reports of any adverse events short term and long term. Don't rush to get it as the you can manage the risk if you are healthy.

But I'm gravely concerned about the vaccine mandate they are trying to push in the states. If "they" had their way they would force you to vaccinate because the virus is SO INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS at 0.1%-0.5%. Even worse is that after injecting there is no recourse for negative side effects or injury. Their green light is the golden goose that keeps on giving every year. IF they pass the vaccine mandate they are in the money regardless.

I don't care about Trump or Biden. People who hate Trump want him to be wrong. Hydroxychloroquine keeps coming up as safe at recommended doses 400mg. The studies were meant to discredit HCQ but IT IS EFFECTIVE as well as IVERMECTIN in helping patients recover at normal safe doses. Those studies were overdosing unsuspecting volunteers: 2400mg MEGA TOXIC dose in the 1st 24 hours.

Self Gates funded study on Hydroxychloroquine were designed to kill those volunteers for the study FOR DATA to show HCQ is deadly and not effective:

https://oye.news/news/health/gates-funded-hydroxychloroquine-studies-are-designed-to-kill-people/

IVERMECTIN - ANOTHER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 THAT IS EFFECTIVE & SAFE

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ivermectin+australia+covid+19

BUT you can switch HCQ with natural supplement Quercetin 500mg - 1000mg (of course "they" will disagree with you and say it does not work / false) + Chelated Zinc. Like HCQ, Quercetin is a zinc ionophore that increases uptake of zinc to combat the virus and deliver zinc across cell membranes. Higher levels of zinc (75mg-150mg / day) are effective in reducing the symptoms, reducing chances of infection and improving speed of recovery. Again "they" will disagree and say it does not work / false information. Do your own research. Look into this yourself but expand upon your search yourself to learn more.

https://swprs.org/on-the-treatment-of-covid-19/

https://greenstarsproject.org/2020/03/27/quercetin-a-treatment-for-coronavirus/

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Same here Raw Beer. There's much, much less risk to those under 60 and generally healthy.

And do you know what is even less risky than covid for healthy people under 60?

every single vaccine in use today!

Extra precaution should be taken for those older or with comorbidities (obese, high blood pressure, diabetic, heart disease, stroke history, cancer history) but you can reduce the risk by boosting your immune system

That would be the opposite, a big part of the pathology comes from a very active immune system that damages the tissues affected in an effort to clear the virus.

The extremely cheap steroid dexamethasone (that proves the conspiracy of hiding cheap and effective medicines as false) acts precisely DE-boosting the immune system so the patient can survive.

("they" would have you believe that there's nothing you can do about it and to wait for their rushed "product" that supposed to be at least 30% effective with multiple injections per year) .

No, that would be you. "they" are developing new treatments this day, because a vaccine is a source of much less important profit.

Also, you are the also the only one that baselessly insist on a 30% effective vaccine with multiple injections per year, you failed to sustain that product of your imagination with data again, repeating it does not make it more real.

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Fatality rate: 0.1%-0.5%

Do you know what has a much less fatality rate than even the 0.1%? every single vaccine in use right now. Illogical to choose something hugely worse such as the natural infection with SARS CoV 2

For those who want the vaccine...not trying to stop you. Your choice. Just do your research and step outside mainstream media's narrative push.

The one that you still believes controls every professional medical association of the world, that insist on taking even more precautions against covid? you failed to prove this weird theory of yours when I told you it was false before.

There will be a portion of the population who'd gladly take the vaccine (they will provide the data for the world to see). Look for reports of any adverse events short term and long term. Don't rush to get it as the you can manage the risk if you are healthy.

And there will be people that will refuse the vaccine for irrational fears and will provide the data for the world to see in yet unknown problems and maybe even deaths, that statistically speaking are simply much more likely to appear with the infection than with the vaccine. Simply because of the amount of antigens.

But I'm gravely concerned about the vaccine mandate they are trying to push in the states. If "they" had their way they would force you to vaccinate because the virus is SO INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS at 0.1%-0.5%.

There is no mandate, if something is proved as safe and effective objectively they can recommend it, if you don't want it nobody can make you take it, it is not North Korea. The worst that can happen is that you will not be able to do certain things unless you prove you are immune, but that is the same as now.

Even worse is that after injecting there is no recourse for negative side effects or injury. Their green light is the golden goose that keeps on giving every year. IF they pass the vaccine mandate they are in the money regardless.

On the contrary, that is a lie baselessly repeated by antivaxxers, in reality as long as the injury may be due to the vaccine (even if very unlikely) you would get compensation, as if you won a lengthy trial.

And no, the myth of the golden goose is also a lie easy to demonstrate as such, why would then vaccine be permanently monitored? the answer is that any product that is not up to the standards put by the goverment is rejected and the company punished, that is what happened in the past, happens today and will happen in the future.

I don't care about Trump or Biden. People who hate Trump want him to be wrong. Hydroxychloroquine keeps coming up as safe at recommended doses 400mg.

Scientists of the world don't care about Trump, something that failed to prove efficacy simply have no usefulness. Trump could have said the thing is poison and it would be the same, his opinion cannot change objective scientific data that proves HCQ has no role treating COVID patients.

The studies were meant to discredit HCQ but IT IS EFFECTIVE as well as IVERMECTIN in helping patients recover at normal safe doses. Those studies were overdosing unsuspecting volunteers: 2400mg MEGA TOXIC dose in the 1st 24 hours.

Ivermectin is another myth, the only paper where it hinted at having a role was retracted when the data was proved to have been falsified.

You can be honest and say you don't understand about biodisponibility, but impregantion doses are nothing new nor they are toxic, as proved by complete lack of evidence of HCQ on the treated patients. You need to read about serum levels to understand why you can safely increase the first dose of something to get the same effect of having the patient on treatment for normal doses for a few days.

IVERMECTIN - ANOTHER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 THAT IS EFFECTIVE & SAFE

More like Ivermectin, the lie told by scammers that got caught immediately, except for people that don't understand science and the meaning of retracting false reports.

If the whole argument is based on a conspiracy to hide cheap and effective medicines (even to their own family and friends) you can rest without stress, it is false. Dexamethasone is cheap, very effective and everybody knows it is safe to use and reduces the huge amount of expenses from patients of COVID, not as much as a safe and effective vaccine, but good enough to prove the conspiracy is just wishful thinking from conspiracionists.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And do you know what is even less risky than covid for healthy people under 60?

every single vaccine in use today!

Do you know what has a much less fatality rate than even the 0.1%? every single vaccine in use right now. Illogical to choose something hugely worse such as the natural infection with SARS CoV 2

Now I know you're just trying to push big pharma's agenda.

As an example Fluzone High Dose for seniors has a mortality rate of 0.6% (check the insert page 11):

https://www.henryschein.com/us-en/images/Medical/Sanofi_Fluzone_FluzoneHD.pdf

Grouping ALL vaccines as TOTALLY SAFE? C'mon son. Each and every vaccine is different with different ingredients / adjuvants from different vaccine companies.

Wait...Measles vaccine kills more people than measles?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/measles-vaccines-kill-more-people-than-measles-cdc-data-proves/5429736

Again, since 1986 vaccine companies themselves have enjoyed liability free vaccines.

"NCVIA's purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims in order to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims."

The law preserved the right for vaccine injured persons to bring a lawsuit in the court system if federal compensation is denied or is not sufficient. By 2018, the U.S. Court of Claims had awarded nearly $4 billion dollars to vaccine victims for their catastrophic vaccine injuries, although two out of three applicants have been denied compensation" 

https://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/1986-Vaccine-Injury-Law.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546

And don't forget that they are pushing Remdesivir. A cheap drug tied to Dr. Anthony Fauci marked up 347%

Because of the patent and control of the market: $3000+

https://abcnews.go.com/US/covid-19-drug-remdesivir-cost-3120-us-patients/story?id=71509977

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gilead-coronavirus-treatment-remdesivir-private-insurance-cost/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/gileads-coronavirus-treatment-remdesivir-to-cost-3120-for-us-insured-patients.html

Actual cost: $9

No money (or market control) in saving lives with HCQ. No money or market control in Ivermectin. Absolutely no money in natural treatments with Quercetin.

Something fishy going on here but trying to bank HUGE PROFITS with unaffordable, ineffective treatments in the name of "saving lives"? Now with no liability to vaccine companies being pushed in other countries outside the US for this COVID-19 vaccine? Conspiracy theory? C'mon son. Something's not right and you're still trying to push the narrative.

With no long term safety studies it's just Russian roulette. I'm surprised that with your "scientific" "science based" background you see no issues at all. You want to inject? Feel free to do so. It's your choice. No one's stopping you but for everyone else considering it do a little more digging first away from mainstream big pharma controlled news sites.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Now I know you're just trying to push big pharma's agenda.

Because I tell the truth? sorry, but correcting your mistakes and misleading information is not pushing any agenda, it is just that you have failed to defend them against real knowledge. If you used actual real information, truthful, well sustained I would have nothing to say. But if you use proven lies I have every right to correct them.

As an example Fluzone High Dose for seniors has a mortality rate of 0.6% (check the insert page 11):

See? this is a very clear example, I have already corrected you on this. That is the same mortality rate that seniors that are NOT vaccinated have, the vaccine do not increase it at all, and even decreases it (because they stop dying from influenza complications). But here you again try to mislead people into believing this mortality rate is in some way related to the vaccine? Why would you willingly use something you know is not true? because you have not anything else? that is morally, intellectually wrong.

Grouping ALL vaccines as TOTALLY SAFE? C'mon son. Each and every vaccine is different with different ingredients / adjuvants from different vaccine companies.

Again, quote me, why do you have to modify what I wrote? I have never said that all vaccines are totally safe, just that all are much safer than a 0.1% fatality rate, because they are.

Wait...Measles vaccine kills more people than measles?

I already told you that this source is full of proven lies, but you keep using it. Is it that you think lying is more important that safety? that is not good.

For example here they make the completely false assumption that anything reported in VAERS is due to vaccines, they willingly stop telling that in VAERS everything that happens is recorded, even if it is completely obvious that is not vaccine related. And that the only meaning comes from comparing with unvaccinated population and see if there is any difference. Big surprise, there is not. Children vaccinated with measles die, because the vaccine do not protect them against everything (accidents, violence, other infections) but they do NOT die because of the vaccine. That is a lie.

Again, since 1986 vaccine companies themselves have enjoyed liability free vaccines

No, I already corrected you on this, repeating it will not make it correct.

One thing is to be completely free of liability, another is to be protected from litigation of particulars and instead be under constant vigilance and judgment from the whole goverment. Liability is there and companies are made to respond, not against single persons but against the government.

You keep repeating this mistaken information, I can correct you every time you do.

The law preserved the right for vaccine injured persons to bring a lawsuit in the court system if federal compensation is denied or is not sufficient. By 2018, the U.S. Court of Claims had awarded nearly $4 billion dollars to vaccine victims for their catastrophic vaccine injuries, although two out of three applicants have been denied compensation" 

Thanks for proving yourself wrong, you said there was nothing a person could do to get compensation, now you say 4 billion were paid in compensation. To nobody?

It is very telling that the Court of claims approves compensation for anything that can prove it MAY be due to vaccines, without having to prove it was actually so. That two thirds are not awarded actually means this was not true, people that were trying to claim compensation from injuries too obviously unrelated to the vaccines that not even this low hurdle can be passed. In recent years this includes Autism, that was approved as possible vaccine injury until science proved it was not the case.

And don't forget that they are pushing Remdesivir. A cheap drug tied to Dr. Anthony Fauci marked up 347%

Because of the patent and control of the market: $3000+

Actual cost: $9

It is irrelevant, nobody's argument is that pharma is doing things only for the good of their hearths, simply that the conspiracy where every doctor and scientist in the world hiding good and cheap medicines is false, not only because it makes no sense that every one of the thousands and thousands of people would prefer to have yet another tool for their family and friends to be saved, but because there are examples of cheap drugs that have been proved effective without problem. Remdesivir is NOT one of them.

Every drug is much more expensive than what it cost to simply produce it. Research and development cost are included while it is still patented. That does not mean you proved your favorite medicine is now effective, it just mean expensive drugs are expensive and people want to sell them.

No money (or market control) in saving lives with HCQ. No money or market control in Ivermectin. Absolutely no money in natural treatments with Quercetin.

And no money for dexamethasone (which you apparently are so afraid of that you have to pretend not being able to even read the word) The difference is that dexamethasone has proved to be effective in treating COVID, without relying on low quality reports or articles that had to be retracted because the authors used proved false information.

With no long term safety studies it's just Russian roulette. I'm surprised that with your "scientific" "science based" background you see no issues at all.

Of course not, because science is the method to make accurate predictions about future developments based on careful systematic observations. Short and middle term safety and efficacy studies are part of the observations, that allow to predict that long term problems with the vaccine for COVID are hugely less likely to appear than with the natural infection itself. You don't like it? prove this conclusion is wrong, but try to use better arguments than the mRNA coagulation nonsense.

You want to inject? Feel free to do so. It's your choice. No one's stopping you but for everyone else considering it do a little more digging first away from mainstream big pharma controlled news sites.

You dont want to inject, feel free to reject it, it is also your choice, just don't pretend is a logical decision, as long as you are fine acting irrationally you can put yourself at higher risk.

It is unfortunate you choose terribly sites to base your uninformed opinion, I would tell you to go directly to scientific studies (news sites are completely irrelevant for this), but that would need you to be interested in the truth, not in defending an opinion that even you appear to consider wrong.

Every single one of your arguments have been proved false or misleading, and your only defense is to try and ignore everything that proves them wrong and just repeat them, as if this would make the counter arguments disappear.

Why don't you try to defend against them? this gives the appearance of you knowing I am right but persisting to push mistaken arguments just because of pride, not because you are interested in the truth.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Now I know you're just trying to push big pharma's agenda.

Bingo!

Again, since 1986 vaccine companies themselves have enjoyed liability free vaccines.

"NCVIA's purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims in order to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims."

And it probably blocks the investigations into the real causes of injury or death. God forbid it becomes widely known that vaccines can be harmful.

It seems quite obvious that only one person in this conversation have any idea about vaccines. Quite educative in many senses.

Indeed, thank you so much! Or perhaps you're referring to neowave?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

And it probably blocks the investigations into the real causes of injury or death. God forbid it becomes widely known that vaccines can be harmful.

Again, you can keep ignoring the counter arguments that prove that is a lie as much as you want, I can keep repeating them with the same effect over and over again.

Liability against particulars is not the only kind of liability, and being under constant monitoring and testing by the government is exactly the opposite from being free of liability, it still means they have to respond to the government every time they find something that is not up to the deal.

And "probably"? so you mean it is only your uninformed opinion for which you have no proof and people just have to believe you? like a conspiracy theory? and that includes every scientist and doctor that works with vaccines because they would obviously be perfectly aware when one would be making their patients sick or die? yeah, totally believable.

Indeed, thank you so much! Or perhaps you're referring to neowave?

Well, at least it is not pretending to be a scientists or university professor any more. It gets though to keep that while at the same time accepting that very clear professional talk is just "nonsense" to your ears.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites