Leanster2000 t1_j2yq30v wrote
Reply to comment by lavidadida in Mubasher Saleem 2014 McNair Alum, 29 year old anesthisiology resident, from DTJC, died last week. Many of his fellow residents and classmates tried to revive him by fartuni4
You clearly don't understand the difference between a therapeutic drug and a vaccine. You realize that vaccine doesn't actually attack any virus, right? It is an immune system trigger. It triggers and goes away - mRNA is insanely fragile, it is why it took so many years to make an effective vaccine from it. All known negative side effects for any vaccine in history is within two months. There is no biological mechanism for anything longer. Post-covid vaccine safety survelliance was done by a wide variety of independent university and international labs, all showing the safety profile is as previously stated. Stop hiding behind your lack of knowledge of biology or chemistry as an excuse to spout BS.
That a few countries have decided against spending the $40/shot for boosters for young people is an economic decision that IMHO ignores the impact of long covid on young people, to their peril. There has never been a legitimate study that shows for any age/gender cohort that is more dangerous to take the vaccine than to not.
lavidadida t1_j2z2alf wrote
When did I ever say anything about a vaccine attacking a virus? Or a timeline for vaccine injury? You're just throwing out unrelated facts as if they are a rebuttal to me since you don't want to admit - vaccine side effects are a real, but rare, thing AND the government agencies tasked with regulating the pharma industry have made huge mistakes before.
You chalk up the decisions of other governments to economics but assume the US government makes decisions based purely on science and in the interests of health - the drugs and the USDA food pyramid I listed are exactly the reasons to be suspicious of this.
Anyone who pays attention knows that the claims regarding efficacy and existence of side effects have shifted over time. But we are supposed to believe the current claims 100% and not ask any questions.
For example - May 2021 from CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - “Careful investigation indicates [myocarditis] did not occur more frequently among young people who were vaccinated than among young people who were not vaccinated,” said Dr. William Schaffner, an ACIP member. “So there is no causal link to the vaccination.” https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/25/health/vaccine-myocarditis-kids/index.html
Today - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html
A review of vaccine safety data in VAERS from December 2020–August 2021 found a small but increased risk of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Over 350 million mRNA vaccines were given during the study period and CDC scientists found that rates of myocarditis were highest following the second dose of an mRNA vaccine among males in the following age groups https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
Leanster2000 t1_j2zeo9s wrote
Comparing a vaccine to therapeutics is concrete proof you have no idea what you are talking about. You might as well compare vaccines to vitamins, lead paint, ball point pens.
If you understood statistics, how rare vaccine induced myocarditis is, the slightly modified stance over time makes sense. BECAUSE IT IS SO RARE IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO BUILD UP ENOUGH CASES TO BE STATSTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. If you were an intellectually honest person, you would also note that the odds of myocarditis are far higher, even in the young male cohort, from myocarditis from unvaccinated covid, and that vaccine induced myocarditis is far milder than "natural" covid myocarditis (10x less death rate). But let's not talk about that.
lavidadida t1_j2ziyas wrote
Yes - and in May 2021, you would have said "Stop saying vaccine myocarditis happens - studies show it does not and the CDC says there is no causal link." You would have been wrong, and complaining about how no one knows anything about science.
Re: therapeutics - You either can't read or are deliberately misinterpreting me. I also mentioned processed grains and the USDA food pyramid - you think I was comparing a vaccine to a loaf of bread? It's about the regulatory process and the politics of US health advice.
Leanster2000 t1_j2zqx0c wrote
You need to take another look at the data - for older age ranges myocarditis is at background levels - by May 2021, only older and middle age adults had real access to the vaccine, so the the statement there is no link was 100% true at the time. Only when enough young males got the vaccine was there a statistically significant indication that the rate was higher than background. Nothing nefarious there, just math. And again, repeating the point you so obviously sidestepped, the odds of myocarditis are far higher, even in the young male cohort, from myocarditis from unvaccinated covid, and vaccine induced myocarditis is far milder than "natural" covid myocarditis (10x less death rate).
I am not misinterpreting you. The approval process is totally different for vaccines vs therapeutics. There is zero reason to believe they should be the same or compared. The dangerous politics isn't coming from the scientist. There is only one political party that found it worthwhile to shore up the base by seeding doubt in a lifesaving vaccine at the cost of the lives of their own constituents.
https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000557
lavidadida t1_j30pgfc wrote
You are truly dumb as a rock. The fact that a study had not yet been conducted linking the covid vaccine to myocarditis in May 2021 does not mean that a link did not exist. It did exist then as it exists now - studies are an attempt to determine reality, they do not create facts. Objective reality exists, and scientific studies are attempts to discern that reality. Authorities lied, at minimum about the degree of certainty they could provide.
The FDA runs both approval processes. Feel free to throw out a bunch of irrelevant facts about those processes in response. Kind of like you throw out a complete non-sequitur about political parties and then link to a social science article with absolute garbage methodology. This gives me a good idea of what kind of nonsense you consider science lol. Study of covid mortality that doesn't account for age hahahahaha
Leanster2000 t1_j31qkyh wrote
You are simply not good at math. You realize it is possible that the/any vaccine has a 1 in a 100,000,000 chance of causing _insertyourrarediseasehere_. Until you have a couple of billion doses distributed, you don't know if it is statistically relevant or not. At the point in time the statement was made it was entirely correct with the statistics at that time. The fact that it took a lot longer for these rare side effects to be shown underscores exactly how rare they are and makes my point stronger.
The political impact of covid mortality has been presented by a number of researchers, and the effect is undeniably dramatic, there are others as well, but I guess it is all just a big conspiracy:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30512/w30512.pdf
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/25/coronavirus-pandemics-politics-masks-vaccines-deaths
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments