Hi! Thanks for asking! I very much am drawing that comparison, because there is literally no--and I mean that, literally no--evidence from a credible source to suggest that the possibility exists in terms of actual pathways to a long-term problem. Should that evidence be forthcoming from sources with a credible tether to reality, I will re-evaluate my position, but unlike so many of the fearful types who insist one "should do their own research", I have, and this is the conclusion I've come to, and to such a degree of certainty that I am comfortable with the requirement.
Further, I am also asserting that the fearmongering to the contrary is foolish and worth immediate discount. And given that literal disinformation ops are trying to recruit YouTubers to take a ninety degree swerve from tech or whatever they normally do to talk very seriously about the just asking questions about vaccination, I am okay with being pretty damned hard on this.
Actually there already have been previously undocumented side effects with the new vaccines, heart inflammation with the mRNA vaccines and blood clotting with a couple of the others. These were the short term side effects that weren't caught during the safety trials. We have zero data about long term side effects.
While I can't give you an "actual pathway to a long-term problem" by which I assume you mean a mechanism of action I will note science is hard, scientists can't always predict what will happen, and serendipitous discoveries happen daily. The long term risk is unknown. I think if you're at risk for serious infection you should get vaccinated, if you're not really at risk it's more difficult to weigh the relative risks.
Your source is wrong. The Pandemrix swine flu vaccine caused narcolepsy in children which did not start showing up for a year after the first doses were administered, and it took authorities another year after that to acknowledge the link to the vaccine.
You say "caused", but it seems that the research points to a weak correlation at best. Given a potential incidence of 1 in 50,000 in a disease/condition which is hard to diagnose, I think this rather points out again how extraordinary sensitive the whole vaccination vigilance system is.
Given the increased focus on the Covid vaccines, correlations as these would have already been found.
The estimated rate in children and adolescents was 1 in 18,400, which is still a very relevant number because it's substantially higher than that group's risk of similarly life-altering complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
My latest information on the impact of long covid in children says that 1 in 25 are affected with serious health problems for more than 3 months after infection. This is from a Swiss study of school children.
It thought that narcolepsy much as fatigue is something that is easily missed when showing weakly. Tired kid?
“An increased risk of narcolepsy was found following vaccination with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine that was used in several European countries during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. This risk was initially found in Finland, and then other European countries also detected an association.”
>There has never been a vaccine with a side effect found after more than 2-3 months. Long term side-effects are not a thing for vaccines.
Bullshit and demonstrably false. The first gen rotavirus vaccine was pulled post-marketing because it destroyed the intestines of infants. Was on the market for a year.
But the adverse effects showed within a week [1] which confirms my point. Yes, it took long to act upon those adverse effect reports, but the effect itself occured quickly.
Well good thing there's not a huge surge of reports coming into VAERS or other reporting databases then, or we might have evidence a similar thing is occurring.
lol, no. You know that not a single vaccinated vs unvaccinated population study has ever been conducted, right?
VAERS is designed to detect acute, recent reactions and only acute, recent reactions. If it's not an accute, recent reaction, it probably never makes it into VAERS. That notion that long-term effects could even be reasonably detected today without a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated population study is highly questionable. The CDC refuses to do a vaccinated vs unvaccinated comparison study of overall mortality and disease prevalence. Don't believe me? Go on YouTube and you can find videos of Melinda Wharton making excuses to not do it. Sad, laughable excuses.
Also, you mentioned a German specialist: are you only considering vaccine rollouts in high HDI nations? Because DTP is absolutely associated with increase overall mortality in developing nations. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15082643/
Worth noting that DTP was the reason why the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act was lobbied for and passed in the first place. Vaccines were so "safe", that they couldn't be brought to market for a profit because injuries and lawsuits were so frequent. So, the government indemnified the manufacturers, capped the max injury settlement at $250k, made a special court for vaccine injury where all documents are under seal, and had HHS (taxpayers) make all the payouts. Sounds safe to me!
They do effectively prevent transmissions, against the strains to which they were tailored. They still do a pretty good job against strains to which they were not specifically tailored. The problem is that not enough people have them.
The side effects that are able to be actually substantiated by credible sources have been generally quite mild and very, very rare.
It seems unfair to point out the lack of evidence of long-term side effects when there hasn't been enough time for them to appear. Did we have any evidence that thalidomide was harmful in pregnant women before babies started being born with birth defects?
Respectfully, this is one of those questions that sounds reasonable until you dig a little. No mRNA treatment has ever shown long-term negative effects. mRNA therapy isn't used because its effects aren't long-term enough. What these vaccines do is use the mRNA mechanism to cause proteins used in the coronavirus to be generated by somatic cells (i.e., not germ cells, which can reproduce), at which point they're indistinguishable in effect from a viral subunit vaccine (which directly injects those proteins into the body and are recognized from there).
mRNA isn't new and we do know how it works. There is no mRNA left after the process. It breaks down and is evicted. If what you describe was going to happen, it would have happened already.
If you can find anyone who has studied mRNA academically (let's draw a line of "has contributed to or reviewed a paper on the topic", I can't think of a better one?) willing to put their credentials on the line to buttress this concern I'd be honestly amazed, because I can't find one and I have looked.
No thalidomide is an entirely appropriate comparison. Thalidomide was fully approved and was used for years before the birth defects issue was identified.
The reason why thalidomide was never stopped before approval is because a fetus is only susceptible during a certain growth phase. And in rats (where the teratogenicity was tested) that period is hours, not weeks like humans.
I grow tired of this. Put up or shut up. Show me a mechanism for action anywhere in any application of mRNA, which has been studied and in use for decades, that even shows an indication of the possibility of this.
We know how mRNA works. We know what protein is being coded. We know that it codes that protein correctly. We know that the mRNA flushes when it's done. I'm not asking for a smoking gun. I'm asking you to substantiate even the possibility of it with actual peer-reviewed science and not hyperventilating, middlebrow fearmongering.
Bring something real to the table. For once. Any of you.
> Show me a mechanism for action anywhere in any application of mRNA
Again, would such a mechanism have been possible to show for thalidomide? Can you point to any peer-reviewed science that shows any danger of thalidomide, that's dated before the birth defects actually started happening? If your standard of unsafety couldn't be met for something that we now know for sure is unsafe, it's obviously a bad standard to use.
Please explain where mRNA therapies have been used for decades in humans? They haven't been, the mRNA vaccines are the first example and they aren't even fully approved.
And as a good example, please explain why COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of heart attacks? Oh, you can't? That's because we don't know the mechanism, but have data to prove they are harmful.
No. It isn't. VAERS just dumps people who have any medical condition at the time of vaccination. Neither correlation nor causation can be inferred from the data. The data has no reporting standards, no verifiability. It is not a study on vaccine side-effects (of which there have been many).
Using VAERS as proof of anything is a literal demonstration that the person in question has no idea what he's talking about.
VAERS is basically a self-reporting facility for any adverse condition that occurred vaguely in the vicinity of being vaccinated, and its quality should be assessed as such.
In other words, VAERS data should be treated as at most a "this may be worth looking into," and certainly nowhere near a level of "this is a definitive proof something goes wrong." Especially in a time when tens of millions of people are getting vaccinated with the same vaccine at the same time, you're going to get lots of reports of people falling ill with something just by sheer coincidence.
I think it's weird when people take this hyper confident, hyper dismissive black and white "thanks for asking!" stance on an extremely complex topic.
My spicy hot take: this shit is fantastically complicated. At the very least, I think it has to be acknowledged that accurate medical reporting at scale is apparently a Hard Problem and not at all as solved as we would like to think. I don't know how you're defining sources with a "credible tether to reality," but I'd point to the problem with establishing such things _as itself a problem_. VAERS is a perfect example of such a problem. Despite all the hubris in this thread acting like they've blown the case wide open, VAERS folks are well aware that their data is trash.
It is absolutely a hard problem. It is a hard problem being hit with the full weight of a fantastic amount of money and intellect to get it right the first time.
When the contrary position is not generally the position of either genuine goddamned loons or the much more unfortunate case of people given historically very valid reasons for hesitancy that in this case no show sign of being true, there might be a reason to re-evaluate that stance.
literally no--evidence from a credible source to suggest that the possibility exists in terms of actual pathways to a long-term problem.
As someone who works in drug development, the FDA would laugh you out of the room if you said this. Nobody gives a shit what your theories are. Drugs are approved based on hard data, not theories and handwaving about what could or couldn't go wrong. Way too many drugs have been pulled off the market for reasons nobody could predict.
Bextra, a COX-2 inhibitor used for arthritis, was approved in 2001 and wasn't withdrawn until 2005 when it was found to increase the risk of heart attacks. It took 4 years and millions of people dosed before they found that long-term effect.
Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't get vaccinated against. I'm vaccinated. But playing it off like the risk of long-term complications is zero is just foolish.
Further, I am also asserting that the fearmongering to the contrary is foolish and worth immediate discount. And given that literal disinformation ops are trying to recruit YouTubers to take a ninety degree swerve from tech or whatever they normally do to talk very seriously about the just asking questions about vaccination, I am okay with being pretty damned hard on this.
Thanks for asking!