Why would repeating a study now and getting the same result as when it was first measured in 2020 be a reason to doubt the safety?
I’m also pro-vax, so I don’t think it is correct to equate ignoring the preponderance of current evidence (in 2021 or 2026) for vaccine protection as being careful. That just seems the logical fallacy sold by “vax hesitant” and social media influencers to make people feel smart to ignore statistics and “make their own choice based on intuition”
That you believe in any claims of vaccine efficacy made by the manufacturers or the FDA and are more then willing to have them injected into your body?
If you don't believe every developed countries’ medical bodies on vaccines, where do you get your info on this? (As to the ‘pro-vax’ question, I'd define it as someone who is open to listening the medical bodies of every developed country on the planet.)
If the only entity that you can get information from is an entity that is known to lie, you can trust this entity?
It is not that we know for a fact that X is not safe. It is that we have no reason to believe that the powers that can ensure that, does not have an incentive to do it, and a large financial incentive to NOT do it and instead grease a lot of palms and get it mandated.
This is particularly relevant when the cost to grease the palms is minuscule compared to the profit that can be made by the approval.
And it is particularly relavant when the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.
We are sitting ducks here. But people apparently does not notice.
I think your own logic supports the opposite from your conclusions?
I'm saying that every developed country's medical bodies support that these vaccines are safe.
Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines? That they will be too cautious because they are afraid of approving something that turns out to be unsafe, or the opposite that they have no fear of approving something unsafe?
Are there any examples you'd point to of where developed countries' medical bodies approved something unsafe because they were bribed, as you imply is the norm today?
But most importantly, if you think every developed country's medical bodies should not be used as the source of info about safety vs benefits, what should be?
Or what should be the system even if it doesn't exist today?
> is an entity that is known to lie
What are you referring to?
> the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.
The common man is inundated with info about vaccines from other sources, although much of it is misinformation, etc.
>Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines?
It is a question of how aligned the individual's incentives and the incentives of the medical body in question. And often it is extremely misaligned. So that is what is I mean when I said there is "no incentive".
So what do I mean by that?
When such an organization recommend X, it just mean that if everyone follows that recommendation, the population wide metric, that can be immediately measured or that is often measured will show good beneficial result.
So here if people follow the recommendation two things can happen
1. The number of covid deaths will drop. This is something that will show up immediately, because everyone was focused on daily death toll.
2. A substantial number of people will have adverse effects. This is something that can be managed (in terms of public opinion)
So the incentive of the organization end up being favorable to the recommendation despite the very good chance of point 2 happening. With financial incentives, this is just more pronounced...
It probably means that you take the statistical evidence produced by massive double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials as actual evidence
By late 2020, when they got approved, the vaccines were not scientifically proven safe for mainstream use. No other mRNA vaccine had been through all the trial stages, and certainly not those COVID ones.
Could the vaccines have side effects that became visible after 6 months? Yes and we couldn’t have known that they didn’t.
Could the vaccines have side effects on people with rare conditions? Sure, and we couldn’t have known that either.
My point is that in 2020, the decision to approve the vaccines and pretty much force everyone to get it was a risk tradeoff. It was way more risky to let the disease continue spreading and mutate than it was to release the vaccines. mrna vaccines had been in trials and there was no reason to believe they could have been harmful. But the reality is that we just didn’t know. Biology is complex enough that you can’t just assume everything will be fine without proper testing. And what we deem proper testing is a process that these drugs hadn’t gone through.
I happily got vaxed in early 2021, and did it again 4 times , so I was willing to trust the tradeoff.
But ignoring that it was a tradeoff and hiding behind a sign that says “science” is just taking people for dummies.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 03:39 UTC ·
link
How large a trial do you want to run to capture "rare conditions"? Millions? Billions of participants? How long do you want to run trials? Years? Decades?
There is a process in place that’s meant to capture a certain number of potential problems. I didn’t make that process. The people who are making drugs safe designed the process. There is never zero risk of a treatment behaving badly, of course but when a drug gets fast tracked and doesn’t go through the regular approval process, it just hasn’t been proven to be safe by the regular standard of what experts deem safe.
It’s not very complicated.
trials ok => drug most likely ok
trials not done => we don’t really know.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 05:12 UTC ·
link
Operation Warpspeed addressed that by running a very large stage 3 trial. One reason that isn't normally done is the high cost of such a large trial.
Would that large trial have shown the cancerous effect of smoking?
If not, do you then agree that some possible adverse effects were not checked for and could have slipped through?
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 06:00 UTC ·
link
Don't know. But would standard smaller trials have captured it?
We are kind of back to my initial question that is conceptually unrelated to the vaccine trial: do you need trials to run into millions or billions of participants or into decades if you want to capture certain (rare) things?.
No, it is not about large trials. It is about changing the attitude of medical practitioners and the media that refuse to acknowledge a vaccine could have caused an adverse effect.
I understand that this is to not feed the vaccine hesitancy. But to anyone observing carefully, this is a crucial break in the information chain that can feedback any ill effects of any vaccine back to the creators.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 05:13 UTC ·
link
Who refused to acknowledge there could be adverse effects? I certainly was given information prior to vaccination that outlined possible adverse side effects.
> the attitude of medical practitioners and the media that refuse to acknowledge a vaccine could have caused an adverse effect.
In what alternative group think echo chamber did that happen within?
Here, in the real world, it was acknowledged from the get go that vaccines carried risks and that was why the call went out, from almost the start of 2020, for trial volunteers to find the risks associated with a number of new vaccine variants in the pipelines.
I am talking about a case when there IS some adverse effect, after it happened.
In that case, there is generally an effort from the practitioners that the vaccine could not have caused it, particularly when the said thing is not mentioned in the package insert or in the list of adverse effects from the manufacture.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 06:07 UTC ·
link
First step would be to collect data that is trust worthy regarding potential adverse reactions. And for that the barriers that stigmatize such reporting should be removed.
Basically, for starters, doctors should be free to report the events they see without getting labeled "Anti-vaccine doctor" or fear of getting their licence revoked.
When such barriers exist, no one could/should trust the product.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 07:17 UTC ·
link
What don't you like about current reporting such as VAERS? Where do you see the barriers there specifically? Do you have examples of doctors getting their licenses revoked for reporting something?
I’m also pro-vax, so I don’t think it is correct to equate ignoring the preponderance of current evidence (in 2021 or 2026) for vaccine protection as being careful. That just seems the logical fallacy sold by “vax hesitant” and social media influencers to make people feel smart to ignore statistics and “make their own choice based on intuition”
That you believe in any claims of vaccine efficacy made by the manufacturers or the FDA and are more then willing to have them injected into your body?
If the only entity that you can get information from is an entity that is known to lie, you can trust this entity?
It is not that we know for a fact that X is not safe. It is that we have no reason to believe that the powers that can ensure that, does not have an incentive to do it, and a large financial incentive to NOT do it and instead grease a lot of palms and get it mandated.
This is particularly relevant when the cost to grease the palms is minuscule compared to the profit that can be made by the approval.
And it is particularly relavant when the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.
We are sitting ducks here. But people apparently does not notice.
I'm saying that every developed country's medical bodies support that these vaccines are safe.
Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines? That they will be too cautious because they are afraid of approving something that turns out to be unsafe, or the opposite that they have no fear of approving something unsafe?
Are there any examples you'd point to of where developed countries' medical bodies approved something unsafe because they were bribed, as you imply is the norm today?
But most importantly, if you think every developed country's medical bodies should not be used as the source of info about safety vs benefits, what should be? Or what should be the system even if it doesn't exist today?
> is an entity that is known to lie
What are you referring to?
> the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.
The common man is inundated with info about vaccines from other sources, although much of it is misinformation, etc.
It is a question of how aligned the individual's incentives and the incentives of the medical body in question. And often it is extremely misaligned. So that is what is I mean when I said there is "no incentive".
So what do I mean by that?
When such an organization recommend X, it just mean that if everyone follows that recommendation, the population wide metric, that can be immediately measured or that is often measured will show good beneficial result.
So here if people follow the recommendation two things can happen
1. The number of covid deaths will drop. This is something that will show up immediately, because everyone was focused on daily death toll.
2. A substantial number of people will have adverse effects. This is something that can be managed (in terms of public opinion)
So the incentive of the organization end up being favorable to the recommendation despite the very good chance of point 2 happening. With financial incentives, this is just more pronounced...
> What are you referring to?
Any group of human beings.
Even trained professionals fail to do that regularly...
Could the vaccines have side effects that became visible after 6 months? Yes and we couldn’t have known that they didn’t.
Could the vaccines have side effects on people with rare conditions? Sure, and we couldn’t have known that either.
My point is that in 2020, the decision to approve the vaccines and pretty much force everyone to get it was a risk tradeoff. It was way more risky to let the disease continue spreading and mutate than it was to release the vaccines. mrna vaccines had been in trials and there was no reason to believe they could have been harmful. But the reality is that we just didn’t know. Biology is complex enough that you can’t just assume everything will be fine without proper testing. And what we deem proper testing is a process that these drugs hadn’t gone through.
I happily got vaxed in early 2021, and did it again 4 times , so I was willing to trust the tradeoff.
But ignoring that it was a tradeoff and hiding behind a sign that says “science” is just taking people for dummies.
It’s not very complicated.
trials ok => drug most likely ok
trials not done => we don’t really know.
We are kind of back to my initial question that is conceptually unrelated to the vaccine trial: do you need trials to run into millions or billions of participants or into decades if you want to capture certain (rare) things?.
I understand that this is to not feed the vaccine hesitancy. But to anyone observing carefully, this is a crucial break in the information chain that can feedback any ill effects of any vaccine back to the creators.
In what alternative group think echo chamber did that happen within?
Here, in the real world, it was acknowledged from the get go that vaccines carried risks and that was why the call went out, from almost the start of 2020, for trial volunteers to find the risks associated with a number of new vaccine variants in the pipelines.
In that case, there is generally an effort from the practitioners that the vaccine could not have caused it, particularly when the said thing is not mentioned in the package insert or in the list of adverse effects from the manufacture.
Basically, for starters, doctors should be free to report the events they see without getting labeled "Anti-vaccine doctor" or fear of getting their licence revoked.
When such barriers exist, no one could/should trust the product.
It suffers many of the shortfalls of, say, a Haircut Adverse Event Reporting System (HAERS)