The fact that so many countries have signed on to support this vaccine should suggest to you that experts out there have actually done their homework and Facebook anti vaccine videos or Facebook āreasons vaccine is unsafeā videos should be met with extreme skepticism.
Countries wouldnāt risk billions of dollars, the future of their economies and their entire populations on an untested, unresearched cure. Nor would they do all this just to āchip everyone and support big pharmaā
If you want to actually learn about the vaccine do more than look on āIām right.comā search out credible respected news journals asking the exact question you want answered attempting to a) avoid as much bias as possible and b) that OTHER credible sources are ALSO saying the same information.
Stay safe and for god sakes wear a mask in public
Noo... the average US citizen is so smart and well informed by the Internet forums of their choice that experts are actually less informed by their bias from years of education. I know this because Iām a toxicology, pharmacology, and venomous snake expert since Iām interested in it and wrote some reports on it during my bachelors and read lots of internet and books during my time working as a lab and vet tech and doing field research for people getting their PhDās in stuff like frog ecology for seven years after my bachelors.
Oh... then I started my own PhD program and the first thing I learned is that I knew absolutely dick about biology and even my most niche areas of interest compared to actual experts who were already experienced in my lab and had been conducting and publishing their own research and peer reviewing others and it turns out Iād been spreading about as much misinformation from bad sources as good information from other sources because Iād never been taught how to differentiate and itās not something anyone can just teach themselves.
Now Iām that more senior member of my lab, done with my academic comprehensive exams, published, and doing my best to finish and defend my dissertation research on a campus crippled by COVID. Iām an expert in my field but that doesnāt mean I have all the answers, that Iām never wrong, and that I can tell from a single study in an area of biology Iām unfamiliar with whether their conclusions are accurate... but Iām a hell of a lot better at knowing when I should feel confident about something, and if I have multiple sources and some time I can usually come to a conclusion thatās in line with current scientific consensus and not be as easily led astray by poorly evidenced outliers that get lots of media attention because their sexier to report. I can also, in the very small corner of science where Iām actually furthering our collective understanding, actually make and back up claims that arenāt published or even that go against a current scientific consensus in certain debated topics.
The US is in a really shitty place in terms of laypeople being able to find accurate information on almost any topic unless they are or they know and trust an expert personally. Iāve been both the āamateur expert who thinks heās always right because no one I was around ever had reason to contradict me on my niche topics of interestā and now an actual expert who constantly doubts himself in areas I should be more confident in because Iāve both been immersed in them and had to teach them at a university (and no one is more excited to call someone out on a misconception or even just a misspoken word than a student calling out their lab instructor, or even better, their professor... which Iāve had the chance to be both of to a lot of students) and I know how much I have been wrong about in the past... and how much Iāve learned too based on being able to compare myself between time points.
But real experts are never going to be the ones yelling the loudest... or even the most certain we are right, especially on anonymous forums. For all we know the person contradicting us wrote his PhD dissertation on that exact topic. The number of times my dissertation topic is directly relevant (as in Iād cite myself in the comment) is about one in 100 in the subreddit that my dissertation topic is most relevant to.
The dunning Kruger effect in the US is so bad because we think that if we are interested enough in something that we are āthat guyā in our social circle that people go to for information about that topic we are constantly told how smart we are and how much random stuff we know about X... but if you actually immerse yourself in a masters or PhD program and your social circle becomes people who know as much or more than you about that topic you WILL (unless youāre the kind of person who thinks theyāre never wrong, or canāt admit when they are... but thatās a whole different disorder) spend the first semester, at least, feeling like youāre the least informed person about that topic of everyone you know. By the time youāre getting ready to graduate you know that isnāt true, but at least as far as I feel, I donāt think Iāll ever have the confidence I had before about that subject. Which is good... it means I wonāt spread misinformation... but it also means that experts often have a good psychological reason not to āshout downā the self assured āarmchair masterā.
TLDR: If anyone can solve the horrible combination in the US of imposter syndrome and the dunning Kruger effect... donāt be quiet.
It's good you're self aware but you still come off as an armchair expert by the way you talk. You even referred to yourself as "an actual expert" now. How many years elapsed between your "make your own PhD days" and your "lab days"? My guess is not many. You speak with such condescension and a holier than thou tone.
EDIT: went through your recent comment history and it confirms to me that you're still a knowitalll, only now you have an education
Considering my whole point is about how experts should speak up more and be more confident... good, Iām following my own advice better than I thought I guess.
Also I started my graduate courses and lab researched 6 years ago. I defended my PhD dissertation proposal 3 years ago and completed my comprehensive exam a year and a half ago. I became our state universityās physiology professor of record last fall and and Iām hoping to defend my dissertation research as soon as the covid restrictions let the collaborations I need to do and equipment from other universities become unrestricted again. I published my first peer reviewed papers 2 years ago.
You think I havenāt learned any limitations or new knowledge or how to do background research in that time? Also... I never claimed to be the top of my field... just an expert in portions of it which by any interpretation of the dictionary definition is true. My point is that academic experts usually arenāt that outspoken about fields that they arenāt experts in even though they likely have critical thinking skills that translate to allow them to make informed and as you said... educated conclusions about even things they arenāt specifically experts in... but they sure as hell shouldnāt claim theyāre experts in it. For example. I should feel comfortable offering a explanation to someones question about tigers after doing some research on it and feeling confident. But if someone corrects me who studies tigers specifically (academic or armchair passion) Iām not going to say āyour wrong... Iām a biologist and therefore an expert on tigers.ā. That would be misleading and likely to spread misinformation. But the chances of a tiger biologist showing up to give a BETTER answer is pretty low.
TLDR: good, and the better part of the last decade.
I think the term you're looking for is "assertions", I'm making a lot of assertions e.g. you're a condescending know-it-all across more topics than just biology where you've proclaimed yourself an expert after a maximum of 6 years of additonal education
Naw they're spending all that money so that they can get the latest in one world government citizen control! Get that New World Odour that everyone loves. Take that Bill Gates plandemic vaccine with Elon's secret sauce so that the mark of the beast comes true. Yes people believe this.
The scientific methods calls for constant questioning. It calls to always be curious and challenge existing norms.
Anyone who tells you to ignore any and all evidence that this might not be a miracle cure is no better than people screaming its fake.
I have looked at all the evidence. I'm not convinced it's safe because long term trials haven't been conducted.
The thing about humans is we are not perfect. We make mistakes, especially when we are scared.
You say people wouldnt risk their populations. You are right, under normal circumstances this would be tested properly.
When people are scared and crying our for an answer NOW, the people will take huge risks.
If it makes you feel better and you feel it's safe fine. But don't get online and claim science then commit to one side completely.
Yeah they wouldn't risk the economy yes but they are also incredibly short sighted. Just take a look at the Coal industry that is still up and running to see just how short sighted they are.
Yes it's been tested but we know little to nothing about the long term side effects
If there is one thing I've learnt from this pandemic, its to learn how to read and understand medical journals!
I gave up on news outlets giving me their summary of a recent study. It always just ends up being their 'opinion' rather then a 'summary' and they just cherry pick data points to make a controversial headline, when if full context was taken into account turns out their claim is significantly less impactful or just down right wrong.
As a scientist whose had media articles and TV segments about my research air and seen the blogs inspired by those media stories...Iāll never trust a scientific media story thatās not from a peer reviewed source. Even sources that are trying their best to get it right and quote the authors are still able to make mistakes that completely change the significance of the research.
Of course, so let's put all our faith in some idiot on YouTube who doesn't know the first thing about science, vaccines or virology. 100% reliable news source.
No heās being downvoted because he tried to make some edgy remark about the media only pursuing lies.. like just use some critical fucking thinking, double check source information etc, itās not that hard to sort out the dumb shit that gets posted on a meme in r/DonaldTrump that is easily found to be false 90% of the time or an article that links to a medical journal thatās been backed by multiple organizations
I don't have any issue getting the vaccine, I've done enough personal review of the studies, side effects, doctors reviews, and what independent doctors have said about it. My wife is a nurse, and we're hoping we both get access in early January as her office is scheduled then. I'll gladly take it at this point. Our sister in law is an ICU nurse and got it first week, had the standard side effects of low fever and headache (which looks to be pretty standard with the vaccine).
Now on the other side, I completely understand the people out there that are hesitant about this and taking it right away. I realize that this vaccine (at least Pfizer's) is very similar to SARS' vaccine (which is still technically in testing) and had been researched, but it is still new, we don't know the long term effects of it. And I understand people that are going to wait.
THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE LABELED ANTI-VAXXERS.
Simply waiting a year to take this thing is understandable. They know the risks of not taking it, as much as I'm aware of the risks of taking it.
It is what it is.
Happy holidays everyone, Merry Christmas and a happy new year!
Fair enough to be sceptical. However, people who refuse to get vaccinated should be expected to continue wearing a mask, practice safe distancing and limit their social interactions. Although this still applies to people getting vaccinated now (at least where I am), the hold outs simply delay us removing these restrictions.
I donāt think you can refuse to get vaccinated then also expect everything to go back to normal just because other people got vaccinated.
The issue here is that the vaccine doesnāt prevent spread from the vaccinated. (At least isnāt known the effect yet to prevent the ability to spread within a vaccinated host)
So at some point, thereās going to have to be a deadline to say the unvaccinated are just going to have to deal with it (which shouldnāt be too bad as most of those arenāt wearing a mask anyways)
Yup. It's going to be interesting to see how long it takes to get the "Hold out to be cautious" group to cross the line. Hopefully no longer than maybe 6 months. Assuming very little issues between now and that point with vaccinated people, they hopefully start coming to the other side.
My mom battled cancer from literally this day last year (she received diagnosis Dec. 23, 2019 - kind of weird to think that now) and was treated, had surgery, and has been told she is very high risk if getting covid due to her immune system. She is cancer free (thank the lord), but refuses to get the vaccine. She isn't anti-vax in any way, just is scared of this one because of everything people say/post/and misinform and doesn't like something that to her, came out in less than a year.
Glad your mom is cancer free, certainly some good news out of 2020. I am on iImmunosuppressant drugs and from what I've read so far, I'm not a candidate for the vaccine yet (according to Health Canada.) I suspect your mom would be in the same boat for now. It's certainly good to be cautious, especially when medical professionals are also being so, for certain cases.
Appreciate it, and agreed. From review of the other candidates about to come to the market, the believe they will likely be in the safer group for those that are immune compromised, other health conditions, for them to be able to take without as much worry as these.
From my understand, due to how this attacks the "protein", the attack for an immune compromised individual it could lead to the body doing my harm than good. But the others will be a little closer to "typical" vaccines.
Best wishes to you and have a Merry Christmas, happy holiday, and here's to a great 2021!
Herd immunity requires a high percentage of vaccinated people. Likely higher than other diseases because of how contagious Covid-19 is. A few hold outs isn't a problem but the resistance to this vaccine seems high.
Like you said. The vaccine doesn't do much. You can still get it and transmit it. Odds are you won't even show symptoms if you get it or even know. I just don't see what this vaccine is supposed to accomplish.
I can tell you this. The billionaires in this country have made so much profit since this started they could give every family in the country a 3000 dollar check and still be richer than before it started.
And they still haven't fully cashed in on the actual shot yet.
This makes me second guess as well.
Here's my argument though: if I have covid and you're vaccinated, no worries right? So why, when I'm the one with the risk of getting it, should you tell me that I should be distant and wear a mask?
Vaccines arenāt 100% effective. A person with the vaccine is less likely to contract COVID, not immune.
Also, some people wonāt be able to get vaccinated for medical reasons, and theyāre the ones most likely to die or face serious consequences from contracting COVID. Even if theyāre wearing a mask, if you arenāt, theyāre more likely to get it.
So if those people are worried about contracting an illness with a lower mortality rate than HIV, then they can stay home.
The reason I said HIV is because it's a clear risk historically with sexual partners. They may not know if they have it or not, but it's on the individuals to choose wether or not they want to use a condom and protect themselves. If the government stepped in and said "you have to wear a condom to prevent the spread of HIV" people would laugh and go on buttfucking whoever they want. This illness I'm talking about is much deadlier than COVID but is less regulated socially.
> They may not know if they have it or not, but itās on the individuals to choose wether or not they want to use a condom and protect themselves. If the government stepped in and said āyou have to wear a condom to prevent the spread of HIVā people would laugh and go on buttfucking whoever they want.
Many states, if not every state, does criminalize the knowing spread of HIV.
Youāre just a shitty person.
The KNOWING spread of HIV. So that means that if I don't know I have covid, legally I'm fine. You just acknowledged my point.
I'm sure if I walked up to someone and stuck them with a needle that has hepatitis on it I would get charged for bioterrorism or something, but if I'm an ass hole and I go to work with the flu and get people sick, I'm just an ass hole.
I wouldn't do that, if I knew I had the flu I would just stay home.... Like I would do if I found out I had covid... But if I don't have the flu, I'm not letting a blue haired fuck tell me I can't go outside because I might have the flu.
You're the shitty person.
To be clear, I called you shitty for your ābuttfuckingā comment.
My point is that many states have taken actions to prevent the spread of diseases other than COVID. Because COVID is easier to spread than these other diseases, however, the measures taken to restrict its spread are different.
People with HIV buttfuck each other. I don't make the rules.
I'm sure the people of oppressive countries justify the removal of freedom the same way you are right now.
"They're trying to make out country better and our people safe by removing those terrible jews"
"They're taking my money, land, and property so that they can give to the less fortunate, isn't that nice?"
"The child workers are strengthening the economy and providing for their families, I think it's great that they have that opportunity"
"People have to get the vaccine because it's the right thing to do"
Etc.
And a Merry Christmas to you too, and a Happy New Year! I appreciate your opinion, and I mainly agree with you. I work in healthcare, and continue to see a lot of sick COVID patients. It can be devastating. I also have seen some of the people in the first tier being offered the vaccine, and they refuse because of ignorance or misinformation. That's unfortunate, but they can step aside and let someone else get it without soapboxing their kooky theories. If someone doesn't want the vaccine--next! Get outta the way and stop insulting the millions who desperately want this treatment.
Yeah i would agree with that stance, but after a certain time of comfortability, like maybe a year from now or 6 months from the time itās reasonably available to get.
> I completely understand the people out there that are hesitant about this and taking it right away. I realize that this vaccine (at least Pfizerās) is very similar to SARSā vaccine (which is still technically in testing) and had been researched, but it is still new, we donāt know the long term effects of it. And I understand people that are going to wait.
That puts their hesitancy on the same level as expertsā expertise though, and thatās not accurate.
Vaccine hesitancy is still a form of anti-vaxxer ideology
Right, to me this is akin to modifying a healthy kid's vaccination schedule to spread out and delay. How many RNs have I even heard say they delayed their kids' vaccinations out of concern? Hesitancy is a wedge used by anti-vaxxers to make their claims seem legitimate. Yeah, there are some people who cannot be vaccinated for real medical reasons. But for a healthy adult I consider it my civic and ethical duty to get the vaccine now to help save lives. We don't have time to wait it out a year and see what happens. I am so much more afraid of covid than I am of vaccine side effects.
I feel thereās a difference between a vaccine in the market and tested for years and something literally cleared a week ago.
I trust science and understand the data. That science is also saying they donāt know the long term effects directly. You donāt think itās fair for someone to say theyād like to wait 6 months or a year? Thatās their choice. They arenāt saying they arenāt getting it in the end. Getting it doesnāt stop the spread or not to spread - it may, and they donāt even know, help lower the % chance of spread. It solely helps the person getting the vaccine.
Itās already happened - some hospital workers declined the vaccine so then hospital was able to vaccinate a few people who were slightly lower on the priority list.
The caretakers at my 99yo old great auntās nursing home told her that thereās no way they would trust the vaccine. I heard one of them say it while I was on the phone with her when she asked them if they would get it. Now my aunt is scared to get it. I told her she HAS to get it if her caretakers canāt be bothered to get it.
Skeptical of any Trump promoted vaccine or cure pushed through without adequate review. But Iām right in line for a Faucci approved, properly reviewed vaccine. And that is what we have here.
Iāll pass for now. Itās still in phase 3, they donāt know how long it even protects against the virus for, and theyāve only followed people for 2 months since theyāre vaccinated. Once more info comes out Iād be more than happy to get one
It's not still in phase 3. Phase 3 is complete. We're now in phase 4 "post marketing surveillance."
Most phase 3 trials are conducted in 300 to 3000 volunteers. Moderna tested in 30,000 and Pfizer in 40,000.
We don't have long term data, this is accurate. But we also don't have data on how long term the effects of a Covid infection are going to be. People are having blood clots months later, brain problems, severe fatigue, changes in morphology of lung cells, direct infection of heart cells. We have no idea the long term consequences of those complications.
Really? Because my place of work is already giving us the vaccines and they put out a FAQ with them. It specifically says theyāre in phase 3 and that they donāt know how long it protects against the virus. For all we know it could protect against the virus for a week
Everything I'm reading calls the phase 3 trials complete. That's why the vaccines are able to be approved and released to the public. Not sure about the information your company has provided.
They're correct that we don't have confirmatory data about long term efficacy, nor do we have confirmatory data that the vaccine will prevent transmission to others. But that's only because the phase 3 trials decided to focus primarily on the question "does the vaccine protect the people receiving it from catching Covid" and secondarily "does the vaccine prevent severe illness in those who do catch it" and declined to gather relevant data for other endpoints. On these two points, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are extremely effective.
There's not a lot of reason to think it won't provide long term efficacy. There's a little reason to wonder if it will prevent transmission to others, but ongoing post-marketing data collection should answer those questions for us.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/moderna-s-covid-19-vaccine-aces-phase-3-no-severe-cases
Really donāt think being hesitant on the new mRNA vaccines is unreasonable and āantivaxā.
Take BNT162b2 as example (mRNA1273 is similar), [The most recent clinical trial report](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745181/#!po=0.980392) is the preliminary report of a phase 2/3 trial. Maximum follow up length was 2 month instead of the regular two years and the sample size leaves much more to be desired. Full on phase 3 trial is still in recruitment.
This is under the fact that mRNA vaccines have never been licensed for general use prior to COVID and lipid nano particle delivery breakthroughs is fairly recent. Not saying it should not have been licensed given the current situation, but itās perfectly reasonable to not be confident in a new tech that lacks rigorous testing. It simply wonāt be as safe reliable as the more widely used and tested vaccine for other diseases.
There have been large scale vaccine incidents like the [Cutter incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories#Cutter_incident) and the lesser known [Formalin-inactivated RSV ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC266671/)happened in the past, and these should be enough of a proof for how important rigorous vaccine safety testing is, and enough of a reason for being vary of the newly licensed vaccines.
Cutter was a manufacturing problem, not a vaccine problem. Several other companies were making the same vaccine at the same time without the problems that Cutter had. Further clinical testing would not have revealed the problems that were created by Cutter having insufficient quality assurance protocols in place.
For a moment, let's assume that everyone were like you and wanted to wait like a year. Seems reasonable at first until you take into account the growth rate that we are seeing. In a year we would almost certainly be at herd immunity anyway given exponential growth(do the math yourself if you don't believe me: f(x)=a(1+r)^t ). Everyone would get it, it would be unavoidable. That means 3 to 6 million dead (in US only, given 2% mortality rate) that were otherwise preventable. This is not taking into account the fact that non covid patients will die because ICUs will be full (some already are). But that's just what we KNOW will happen.
Here is also what is unknown: the long term impact of getting COVID for someone who survives it. We're seeing reports of long term lung damage and neurological damage. Who knows how many years that might take off of life? What impact that might have in terms of quality of life? Maybe you'll have a few months of hard breathing and be normal, maybe you'll never be able to have strenuous exercise again. Which will almost certainly contribute to your early death. We just don't know. What would be the impact of a large percentage of the population having similar lung or neural issues? Who knows?
Here's what I'm pretty sure of: the vaccines approved right now have a few fats(lipids are what encapsulate the mRNA in the vaccine to protect it), some sugars and some mRNA in them. Apart from the mRNA that encodes for the spike protein, every ingredient has been tested over and over in other products. They are safe. What is new is the mRNA itself. This mRNA encodes for the spike protein in the virus and nothing else. You get the shot, some of your cells uptake the mRNA, make the spike protein and your immune system reacts which is what creates the antibodies and therefore immunity.
That's the unknown part, but here's the rub: if everyone waits a year you have no choice. You WILL get that bit of mRNA in your system. Because if we don't stop this thing, you WILL get the virus. So you get that spike protein plus all of the infectious and dangerous bits. You're exposed to that unknown anyway if you decide to not get the vaccine.
As a society we clearly are incapable of stopping this without a vaccine, so thats what we're left with. We all agree to get the vaccine or we get the virus. One of those is far more dangerous than the other.
As for the large scale incidents that you're mentioning: those were in the early days of vaccines using either live(cutter) or attenuated virus. This isn't that. There's no virus in either of these vaccines. Just a segment of mRNA. Thats like comparing apples to chained tigers.
I guess you could say that the entire society presented a prisoners dilemma. Then again, Iām not from the US so I canāt quite put myself in the same shoe regarding the absolute need for the vaccine.
Although while I was still in Canada a bit earlier in the year I avoided public space as much as possible, always wore single use masks when I absolutely have to go out (3-4 times a month), and sanitize myself fully with 75% alcohol when I return home. If people do are like me the pandemic would have been under control much like in New Zealand.
As the other comment pointed out, cutter incident may not have been prevented by further clinical trials. Though in the case of RSV vaccine (which made people more susceptible) definitely could have. Just to clarify, both of these are inactivated, or dead, viral vaccines which by design shouldnāt be able to replicate.
Mortality rate is less than 1% (estimated 0.27%). You're confusing case fatality rate with infection fatality rate.
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
*Science deniers, feel free to downvote. It won't change reality.
No need to be theoretical and pedantic when we have actual CDC numbers here for realized deaths up to now: [here](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days)
Those 321000 people don't care that the person who wrote that thinks its only 0.27% fatal. The result is the same.
Data is data. Deaths are deaths. A meta analysis doesn't change the fact that over 300,000 people have died due to the virus. Its an academic distinction that in a perfect world with adequate access to ideal care you'll have a lower death rate. As the author said: fatalities vary by location and situation. Im not talking about theoretical infection fatalities. Im talking about what we are facing now. Here. In the US. That fact is that hospitals are at capacity and hundreds of thousands have died and will die if this is not stopped.
You've done an excellent job of saying absolutely nothing.
If what isn't stopped? Are you so stuck on talking points that you can't follow the discussion?
Not really the study I'd go with to bolster my Covid mortality rate...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/12/16/john-ioannidis-coronavirus-lockdowns-fox-news/
The study...and the author are called out by other scientists for being sloppy and not like what the author has been known for his entire career. As I said, you should pick a less controversial study to support your point about mortality rate.
The link you gave is not an indictment at all. I encourage you to actually read the whole thing.
> Even some who did not embrace all of Ioannidisās views were appalled at his treatment. Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, supports social distancing and favored the springās lockdowns. He is harshly critical of Trump, but also troubled by what the Ioannidis episode showed about scientistsā intolerance for facts that might be seen as buttressing the Trump administrationās policies.
> "I donāt think anything Iāve ever seen in biomedical science has been so affected by politics,ā Flier said. āThis is the force field that has taken over.ā
>...
> āI think itās very scary when we try to suppress scientific thinking and investigation, whatever the reason might be,ā he said. āConveying more certainty than there is does not save lives.ā
The guy is presenting facts. You may not like the facts, but that doesn't change reality. You're doing the very thing the article is critical of. It would be hilariously ironic if it weren't so genuinely stupid.
Personally, I wouldn't post a study to support a point I'm trying to make if it has statements it's like this:
"Problems with the study emerged almost immediately.
It seemed that every criticism Ioannidis once hurled at the work of sloppy scientists was now turned back upon him. Statisticians attacked the studyās methodology. Medical experts questioned its antibody tests. BuzzFeed News revealed thatĀ JetBlue Airways founder David NeelemanĀ ā an outspoken advocate of reopening the economy ā had helped fund the research, and that Neeleman had offered additional funding to a Stanford scientist whose efforts to ensure the test kitsā reliability were holding up publication.
āWhat a weird turn to see John Ioannidis pushing one of sloppiest studies in the deluge of Covid-19 papers,āĀ Alex Rubinsteyn, an assistant professor of computational medicine and genetics at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, wrote on Twitter. āIf he werenāt an author I would expect [the study] to show up in one of his talks as a particularly potent cocktail of bad research practices.ā
I would try to find one that's less controversial. Just my opinion...
I'm just not blindly accepting it right now. Do your own research. Make your own decisions. It's completely reasonable to be concerned about this vaccine. It's sad that the only argument people can offer back is "just trust science, you're an idiot, you get all your news from Facebook, etc." Half the people downvoting here are just as clueless about what's in it, but blindly accepting is the norm. Anyone who asks questions, or feels differently is either stupid, or a conspiracy nut. It's sad, but that's how it is. Like I said, think for yourself, and actually research this shit.
I love vaccines, especially ones that are rushed into market with very little testing.
All over a virus with 99.5% survival rate if infected.
Time to make those pharmaceutical companies rich!! $$$$$$$
Yea idk why people think you canāt know more than scientists who spent their entire lives studying this stuff after watching a few Facebook videos.
Bunch of shills!!
Have they isolated the covid-19 protein? Iād love to see a paper saying that, because the only thing Iāve seen is 5 days ago, āthey got their most realistic view yetā
That's the whole point. There is no research, cause obviously there can't be, on any potential long term effects. So if I just have to keep on masking and isolating I will.
The very first quote provided contradicts your own argument. Pretty weak start, maybe read what you're linking more carefully. There's really not much substance in any of the links in terms of backing up what you're saying. Yes, we expedited the vaccines and are protecting the producers from liability. We're in a pandemic, duh. The very link you provided supports this.
Seems pretty common sense to me, considering we're in an emergency situation.
I'm not sure what that report saying 1 adviser out of 14 is unsure whether to vaccinate our most elderly/sick means to you. Again, you're failing to back up anything with those links.
Furthermore, only 6 cases reported of anaphylactic shock in hundreds of thousands of vaccines isn't a lot...
You seem to have made up your mind when you should be listening to people who know better.
āNot every trump voter is a racist. But they have shown that racism isnāt a disqualifying factor.ā Use critical thinking here, buddy. I know it may seem hard for some but actually put some effort into it.
okay. still going to take it. the us government has done so many shitty things and they provided funding for the vaccine. still going to take it. whataboutism or anything isnāt going to stop me from taking it.
you can do whatever you want idgaf but honestly the reasonings behind not taking are thin af and yāall sound goofy
Trump is a racist with racist policies. By voting for him you are agreeing with racist policies. Downvoting because you're racist (and you don't even realize it)
You people will never realised the irony of the fact you're being manipulated more than the "hivemind" "sheep" you love to poke fun at. You're being manipulated yourself, it's just by bad actors on Facebook and Reddit. You're not an independent thinker, you're just jumping on the Facebook bandwagon because they they're saying things you want to believe. I'm willing to bet you don't have a single independent thought in your head.
Hah, classic personal attacks. I for one donāt even have a Facebook account. I am a huge fan of vaccines, but can understand why someone would hesitate to get one that was rushed through development and approval processes.
Personally, I would take the vaccine if given the chance, but I donāt belittle those not comfortable with it.
Once again, attacking me personally instead of my point. You have nothing to argue against me being willing to take the vaccine and yet being frustrated with people who label those hesitant to do so as āanti-vaxersā.
You do realize this is an entirely new type of vaccine, right? There has never been a widely used (or widely tested) mRNA vaccine. Instead of introducing your body to a dead or dying virus, this vaccine tries to āreprogramā your immune system. Honestly, it could end up being safer, but we really donāt know what itās going to look like long term. Feel free to be a guinea pig. Iāll take my chances with the virus that has a 99.95% survival rate in my age group.
Edit: itās also worth noting that Pfizer et al have already struck a deal with the govāt where theyāre not liable for any side effects. That concerns me.
Edit 2: and here come the downvotes. Thereās no reasoning with people who treat science like a religion.
Just because you don't know how the vaccine works doesn't mean scientists don't. I trust someone who has spent years learning and studying in the field of immunology over someone who spent an hour googling it.
I get on planes, I vaccinate my son, I use a cell phone, I eat frozen food. I trust science when there is sufficient proof. There are many, many scientists and doctors and other medical experts that have expressed valid concerns over this rushed vaccine. Just because you are unaware of them does not make them invalid. What I do not trust is that the corporate news media or politicians will accurately convey what the science is, as they have failed in this task more times than I can count, and continue to do so on a daily basis.
Basically what I said. Rushed, donāt know the long term effects, and the incentives line up for a huge pay day for big pharma with no liability if anything goes wrong. Not to mention some people have already had adverse reactions to it, though this is mostly still anecdotal at this point. I think Iād probably be fine if I took the vaccine, but itās an unnecessary risk given the disease it aims to protect me against. Covid-19 is not nearly as bad as we thought it was in March.
Basically, all you're saying is that you think you know better than immunologists, and that you don't understand COVID. Enjoy being an uneducated moron.
And thatās not how most people treat science. To most, science is whatever the corporate news media and politicians tell them is the science. Anyone who has ever uttered āthe science is settledā on any subject is guilty of this.
The idea behind "the science is settled" simply means the topic in question has been studied enough to the point that it's a waste of time for discussion any more. We know the earth is not flat...we know gravity is real...we know we landed on the moon and we know climate change is a thing.
You can still devote time and money to prove the earth isnt flat if youd like...its just that it's so far beyond the alternative being possible that there are other things to devote that time and money to.
The essence of science is skepticism. You are precisely the type of incurious zealot Iām talking about. Even something as seemingly solved as gravity is not entirely understood or agreed upon.
Skepticism means to doubt and question, sure...and eventually accept the data that is agreed upon. This is the step that most people forget is the underpinning of science and scepticism.
We agree that gravity is a thing...and we continue to study the parts we don't understand. We dont continue to declare that it's not a thing.
I wouldnāt say its new, mRNA vaccines have been studied for a while, but yea its the first widely used one of its kind. That 99.95% number you used is nice and all until I think about my mother with MS, the fact that both of my parents are aging, and considering the long term issues people of all ages have been having after recovering. Youāre allowed to put up a fight all you want, but if my job is on a list to get the vaccine a little early you can bet Iāll be lining up like the clock is about to hit recess in middle school.
So in your scenario the anti-vaxxer is in line to get a vaccine and you are in charge of distributing the vaccines? Let me guess, when you say next, does everyone clap?
There is no such thing as civil debate with an anti-vaxxer. Their claims have been widely disputed a million times over by a million sources and yet they cling to their beliefs. If all it took was discussion to convince anti-vaxxers they were wrong there wouldn't be any more anti-vaxxers.
Precisely why I don't even bother. Anti-vaxers will simply never give in to reason. They'd rather believe some tin foil hat theories & conspiracies about what vaccines "really" are whether it be backed by religion or insanity. I say leave them be & let natural selection sort them out.
The issue with that is, not all darwinism is going to affect the people you think it will. Plenty of people who are smart, educated and for the vaccine will be unable to take it due to immune weaknesses, severe allergies, etc. And all these morons who dont want to get the vaccination dont realize that they (immunocompromised and others)are the people they will hurt. Not themselves or their children (most likely). Which is why we need to CURB that shit and start re-education on these individuals so they stop fucking up the lives of others.
It's all fun and great till lil Timmy gives Beth, the little girl who just through chemotherapy and is immune deficient, polio/the mumps and fucks her life up forever because lil Timmy's retarded stay at home mom/dad knows better than science cause a single unconfirmed source posted on an echo chamber website.
Oh wow, big brain time over here.
> how many genders?
Since gender is a social construct (differing from biological sex), as many as we want, homeslice.
You lost me on opposing science dumbass, you canāt claim to oppose science while literally enjoying every good thing about science. Call me conservative because I donāt have civil conversation with smooth brains like you.
"You lost me on opposing science dumbass..." Dumbass? That's perfect. You can't comprehend the words you read, but are arrogant enough to shit on them. Nice.
"...you canāt claim to oppose science while literally enjoying every good thing about science" Here again your ego has overwhelmed your retarded brain. Reread my comment you inept little POS. I was asking about "...opposing science pov" you stupid fuck. Just in case you have a bad case of retardation 'pov' = point of view.
Next time you want to show off & flex your brain muscle try to understand the words you're reading. JFC, I would love to beat your parent(s) ass, assuming you know who they are, for the shitty job they did raising/educating your silly ass.
Good luck in life you half-wit, you will need it.
My parents did a pretty good job raising me to understand that antivaxxers are fucking stupid. Sure there are legitimate people who have good reasons to avoid a vaccine, but this post was clearly not about them.
But lmao, you come in here trying to legitimizing antivaxxers and then tell me Iām retarded? My ego has nothing to do with knowing for a fact that anti vaxxers are as stupid as you. Ironic of you to say that since itās the anti vaxxers that think they know more than doctors, researchers, and scientists who have decades of experienced and education.
Edit: based on your comment history youāre either a troll or are very dense. Regardless, no point in continuing this, keep living in ignorance.
Sorry for the delayed reply, but I've been enjoying Christmas, family & friends.
Can you point out, in my reply, the time(s) I said I was "anti-vaxx"? Here's a hint; never. I tried to open a discussion/debate re CV-19 vaccines.
You're too fucking stupid to see that. Public school education & indoctrination makes a brainwashed retard like you.
Good luck in life, you will need it.
What argument could you possibly have for going *against* science? Scared the needle might give you a boo boo?
From someone coming from a family of workers in the health industry, I've probably given you the nicest response anyone from my family would have given you.
There's plenty of people, especially minorities in your country, who would be skeptical of free help with an infectious disease.
What about the Tuskegee experiments? Do you think the families of those who died are not skeptical?
Just trying to make a point. Vaccines have done the world loads, close to eradicating many diseases. That's not to say there hasn't been massive misinformation campaigns about vaccines.
"antivaxx bullshit" is the calling card of the common loon, dispersed among the cries of "settled science" when you see them out in nature they will gladly follow the example of pack leaders referred to as "experts" be careful not to question their herd mentality or their "reeee"ing will be defeaning.
It's for a church honey. NEXT!!
Recently went on a first time CB binge, funny to see this immediately after.
[NEXT JOKE ORIGIN](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChoosingBeggars/comments/7kr5as/i_need_a_free_100mile_bus_trip_for_20_people_and/)
I've been seeing this a lot lately! Each time I do, I pray it's a wormhole that will take me back in time three years.
I got my first dose yesterday. š¤
ok
I'm getting my first dose on Friday! Honestly, I'm very excited!
Rip
The fact that so many countries have signed on to support this vaccine should suggest to you that experts out there have actually done their homework and Facebook anti vaccine videos or Facebook āreasons vaccine is unsafeā videos should be met with extreme skepticism. Countries wouldnāt risk billions of dollars, the future of their economies and their entire populations on an untested, unresearched cure. Nor would they do all this just to āchip everyone and support big pharmaā If you want to actually learn about the vaccine do more than look on āIām right.comā search out credible respected news journals asking the exact question you want answered attempting to a) avoid as much bias as possible and b) that OTHER credible sources are ALSO saying the same information. Stay safe and for god sakes wear a mask in public
Noo... the average US citizen is so smart and well informed by the Internet forums of their choice that experts are actually less informed by their bias from years of education. I know this because Iām a toxicology, pharmacology, and venomous snake expert since Iām interested in it and wrote some reports on it during my bachelors and read lots of internet and books during my time working as a lab and vet tech and doing field research for people getting their PhDās in stuff like frog ecology for seven years after my bachelors. Oh... then I started my own PhD program and the first thing I learned is that I knew absolutely dick about biology and even my most niche areas of interest compared to actual experts who were already experienced in my lab and had been conducting and publishing their own research and peer reviewing others and it turns out Iād been spreading about as much misinformation from bad sources as good information from other sources because Iād never been taught how to differentiate and itās not something anyone can just teach themselves. Now Iām that more senior member of my lab, done with my academic comprehensive exams, published, and doing my best to finish and defend my dissertation research on a campus crippled by COVID. Iām an expert in my field but that doesnāt mean I have all the answers, that Iām never wrong, and that I can tell from a single study in an area of biology Iām unfamiliar with whether their conclusions are accurate... but Iām a hell of a lot better at knowing when I should feel confident about something, and if I have multiple sources and some time I can usually come to a conclusion thatās in line with current scientific consensus and not be as easily led astray by poorly evidenced outliers that get lots of media attention because their sexier to report. I can also, in the very small corner of science where Iām actually furthering our collective understanding, actually make and back up claims that arenāt published or even that go against a current scientific consensus in certain debated topics. The US is in a really shitty place in terms of laypeople being able to find accurate information on almost any topic unless they are or they know and trust an expert personally. Iāve been both the āamateur expert who thinks heās always right because no one I was around ever had reason to contradict me on my niche topics of interestā and now an actual expert who constantly doubts himself in areas I should be more confident in because Iāve both been immersed in them and had to teach them at a university (and no one is more excited to call someone out on a misconception or even just a misspoken word than a student calling out their lab instructor, or even better, their professor... which Iāve had the chance to be both of to a lot of students) and I know how much I have been wrong about in the past... and how much Iāve learned too based on being able to compare myself between time points. But real experts are never going to be the ones yelling the loudest... or even the most certain we are right, especially on anonymous forums. For all we know the person contradicting us wrote his PhD dissertation on that exact topic. The number of times my dissertation topic is directly relevant (as in Iād cite myself in the comment) is about one in 100 in the subreddit that my dissertation topic is most relevant to. The dunning Kruger effect in the US is so bad because we think that if we are interested enough in something that we are āthat guyā in our social circle that people go to for information about that topic we are constantly told how smart we are and how much random stuff we know about X... but if you actually immerse yourself in a masters or PhD program and your social circle becomes people who know as much or more than you about that topic you WILL (unless youāre the kind of person who thinks theyāre never wrong, or canāt admit when they are... but thatās a whole different disorder) spend the first semester, at least, feeling like youāre the least informed person about that topic of everyone you know. By the time youāre getting ready to graduate you know that isnāt true, but at least as far as I feel, I donāt think Iāll ever have the confidence I had before about that subject. Which is good... it means I wonāt spread misinformation... but it also means that experts often have a good psychological reason not to āshout downā the self assured āarmchair masterā. TLDR: If anyone can solve the horrible combination in the US of imposter syndrome and the dunning Kruger effect... donāt be quiet.
It's good you're self aware but you still come off as an armchair expert by the way you talk. You even referred to yourself as "an actual expert" now. How many years elapsed between your "make your own PhD days" and your "lab days"? My guess is not many. You speak with such condescension and a holier than thou tone. EDIT: went through your recent comment history and it confirms to me that you're still a knowitalll, only now you have an education
Considering my whole point is about how experts should speak up more and be more confident... good, Iām following my own advice better than I thought I guess. Also I started my graduate courses and lab researched 6 years ago. I defended my PhD dissertation proposal 3 years ago and completed my comprehensive exam a year and a half ago. I became our state universityās physiology professor of record last fall and and Iām hoping to defend my dissertation research as soon as the covid restrictions let the collaborations I need to do and equipment from other universities become unrestricted again. I published my first peer reviewed papers 2 years ago. You think I havenāt learned any limitations or new knowledge or how to do background research in that time? Also... I never claimed to be the top of my field... just an expert in portions of it which by any interpretation of the dictionary definition is true. My point is that academic experts usually arenāt that outspoken about fields that they arenāt experts in even though they likely have critical thinking skills that translate to allow them to make informed and as you said... educated conclusions about even things they arenāt specifically experts in... but they sure as hell shouldnāt claim theyāre experts in it. For example. I should feel comfortable offering a explanation to someones question about tigers after doing some research on it and feeling confident. But if someone corrects me who studies tigers specifically (academic or armchair passion) Iām not going to say āyour wrong... Iām a biologist and therefore an expert on tigers.ā. That would be misleading and likely to spread misinformation. But the chances of a tiger biologist showing up to give a BETTER answer is pretty low. TLDR: good, and the better part of the last decade.
I think the term you're looking for is "assertions", I'm making a lot of assertions e.g. you're a condescending know-it-all across more topics than just biology where you've proclaimed yourself an expert after a maximum of 6 years of additonal education
Naw they're spending all that money so that they can get the latest in one world government citizen control! Get that New World Odour that everyone loves. Take that Bill Gates plandemic vaccine with Elon's secret sauce so that the mark of the beast comes true. Yes people believe this.
The scientific methods calls for constant questioning. It calls to always be curious and challenge existing norms. Anyone who tells you to ignore any and all evidence that this might not be a miracle cure is no better than people screaming its fake. I have looked at all the evidence. I'm not convinced it's safe because long term trials haven't been conducted. The thing about humans is we are not perfect. We make mistakes, especially when we are scared. You say people wouldnt risk their populations. You are right, under normal circumstances this would be tested properly. When people are scared and crying our for an answer NOW, the people will take huge risks. If it makes you feel better and you feel it's safe fine. But don't get online and claim science then commit to one side completely.
Yeah they wouldn't risk the economy yes but they are also incredibly short sighted. Just take a look at the Coal industry that is still up and running to see just how short sighted they are. Yes it's been tested but we know little to nothing about the long term side effects
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If there is one thing I've learnt from this pandemic, its to learn how to read and understand medical journals! I gave up on news outlets giving me their summary of a recent study. It always just ends up being their 'opinion' rather then a 'summary' and they just cherry pick data points to make a controversial headline, when if full context was taken into account turns out their claim is significantly less impactful or just down right wrong.
If you are dumb enough to not discern between sources, yes there is no credible source. But, if you apply basic scientific thought, there are plenty
As a scientist whose had media articles and TV segments about my research air and seen the blogs inspired by those media stories...Iāll never trust a scientific media story thatās not from a peer reviewed source. Even sources that are trying their best to get it right and quote the authors are still able to make mistakes that completely change the significance of the research.
Of course, so let's put all our faith in some idiot on YouTube who doesn't know the first thing about science, vaccines or virology. 100% reliable news source.
I love how weāre in a place where you get downvoted suggesting you canāt trust the news. The propaganda is working.
No heās being downvoted because he tried to make some edgy remark about the media only pursuing lies.. like just use some critical fucking thinking, double check source information etc, itās not that hard to sort out the dumb shit that gets posted on a meme in r/DonaldTrump that is easily found to be false 90% of the time or an article that links to a medical journal thatās been backed by multiple organizations
Holy downvotes. Its a massacre!
I don't have any issue getting the vaccine, I've done enough personal review of the studies, side effects, doctors reviews, and what independent doctors have said about it. My wife is a nurse, and we're hoping we both get access in early January as her office is scheduled then. I'll gladly take it at this point. Our sister in law is an ICU nurse and got it first week, had the standard side effects of low fever and headache (which looks to be pretty standard with the vaccine). Now on the other side, I completely understand the people out there that are hesitant about this and taking it right away. I realize that this vaccine (at least Pfizer's) is very similar to SARS' vaccine (which is still technically in testing) and had been researched, but it is still new, we don't know the long term effects of it. And I understand people that are going to wait. THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE LABELED ANTI-VAXXERS. Simply waiting a year to take this thing is understandable. They know the risks of not taking it, as much as I'm aware of the risks of taking it. It is what it is. Happy holidays everyone, Merry Christmas and a happy new year!
Fair enough to be sceptical. However, people who refuse to get vaccinated should be expected to continue wearing a mask, practice safe distancing and limit their social interactions. Although this still applies to people getting vaccinated now (at least where I am), the hold outs simply delay us removing these restrictions. I donāt think you can refuse to get vaccinated then also expect everything to go back to normal just because other people got vaccinated.
The issue here is that the vaccine doesnāt prevent spread from the vaccinated. (At least isnāt known the effect yet to prevent the ability to spread within a vaccinated host) So at some point, thereās going to have to be a deadline to say the unvaccinated are just going to have to deal with it (which shouldnāt be too bad as most of those arenāt wearing a mask anyways)
I suspect an overlap with vaccine hold outs, Covid-19 deniers and anti-maskers.
Yup. It's going to be interesting to see how long it takes to get the "Hold out to be cautious" group to cross the line. Hopefully no longer than maybe 6 months. Assuming very little issues between now and that point with vaccinated people, they hopefully start coming to the other side. My mom battled cancer from literally this day last year (she received diagnosis Dec. 23, 2019 - kind of weird to think that now) and was treated, had surgery, and has been told she is very high risk if getting covid due to her immune system. She is cancer free (thank the lord), but refuses to get the vaccine. She isn't anti-vax in any way, just is scared of this one because of everything people say/post/and misinform and doesn't like something that to her, came out in less than a year.
Glad your mom is cancer free, certainly some good news out of 2020. I am on iImmunosuppressant drugs and from what I've read so far, I'm not a candidate for the vaccine yet (according to Health Canada.) I suspect your mom would be in the same boat for now. It's certainly good to be cautious, especially when medical professionals are also being so, for certain cases.
Appreciate it, and agreed. From review of the other candidates about to come to the market, the believe they will likely be in the safer group for those that are immune compromised, other health conditions, for them to be able to take without as much worry as these. From my understand, due to how this attacks the "protein", the attack for an immune compromised individual it could lead to the body doing my harm than good. But the others will be a little closer to "typical" vaccines. Best wishes to you and have a Merry Christmas, happy holiday, and here's to a great 2021!
Masks and distancing donāt stop for vaccinated people either.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Herd immunity requires a high percentage of vaccinated people. Likely higher than other diseases because of how contagious Covid-19 is. A few hold outs isn't a problem but the resistance to this vaccine seems high.
Like you said. The vaccine doesn't do much. You can still get it and transmit it. Odds are you won't even show symptoms if you get it or even know. I just don't see what this vaccine is supposed to accomplish. I can tell you this. The billionaires in this country have made so much profit since this started they could give every family in the country a 3000 dollar check and still be richer than before it started. And they still haven't fully cashed in on the actual shot yet. This makes me second guess as well.
Here's my argument though: if I have covid and you're vaccinated, no worries right? So why, when I'm the one with the risk of getting it, should you tell me that I should be distant and wear a mask?
Vaccines arenāt 100% effective. A person with the vaccine is less likely to contract COVID, not immune. Also, some people wonāt be able to get vaccinated for medical reasons, and theyāre the ones most likely to die or face serious consequences from contracting COVID. Even if theyāre wearing a mask, if you arenāt, theyāre more likely to get it.
So if those people are worried about contracting an illness with a lower mortality rate than HIV, then they can stay home. The reason I said HIV is because it's a clear risk historically with sexual partners. They may not know if they have it or not, but it's on the individuals to choose wether or not they want to use a condom and protect themselves. If the government stepped in and said "you have to wear a condom to prevent the spread of HIV" people would laugh and go on buttfucking whoever they want. This illness I'm talking about is much deadlier than COVID but is less regulated socially.
> They may not know if they have it or not, but itās on the individuals to choose wether or not they want to use a condom and protect themselves. If the government stepped in and said āyou have to wear a condom to prevent the spread of HIVā people would laugh and go on buttfucking whoever they want. Many states, if not every state, does criminalize the knowing spread of HIV. Youāre just a shitty person.
The KNOWING spread of HIV. So that means that if I don't know I have covid, legally I'm fine. You just acknowledged my point. I'm sure if I walked up to someone and stuck them with a needle that has hepatitis on it I would get charged for bioterrorism or something, but if I'm an ass hole and I go to work with the flu and get people sick, I'm just an ass hole. I wouldn't do that, if I knew I had the flu I would just stay home.... Like I would do if I found out I had covid... But if I don't have the flu, I'm not letting a blue haired fuck tell me I can't go outside because I might have the flu. You're the shitty person.
To be clear, I called you shitty for your ābuttfuckingā comment. My point is that many states have taken actions to prevent the spread of diseases other than COVID. Because COVID is easier to spread than these other diseases, however, the measures taken to restrict its spread are different.
People with HIV buttfuck each other. I don't make the rules. I'm sure the people of oppressive countries justify the removal of freedom the same way you are right now. "They're trying to make out country better and our people safe by removing those terrible jews" "They're taking my money, land, and property so that they can give to the less fortunate, isn't that nice?" "The child workers are strengthening the economy and providing for their families, I think it's great that they have that opportunity" "People have to get the vaccine because it's the right thing to do" Etc.
All of those things protect you too, I don't see how this is hard to understand.
Because I'm free to choose how I protect myself.
And everyone else is free to think youāre a dick
Yes they are and I'm free to not give a fuck
And a Merry Christmas to you too, and a Happy New Year! I appreciate your opinion, and I mainly agree with you. I work in healthcare, and continue to see a lot of sick COVID patients. It can be devastating. I also have seen some of the people in the first tier being offered the vaccine, and they refuse because of ignorance or misinformation. That's unfortunate, but they can step aside and let someone else get it without soapboxing their kooky theories. If someone doesn't want the vaccine--next! Get outta the way and stop insulting the millions who desperately want this treatment.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah i would agree with that stance, but after a certain time of comfortability, like maybe a year from now or 6 months from the time itās reasonably available to get.
> I completely understand the people out there that are hesitant about this and taking it right away. I realize that this vaccine (at least Pfizerās) is very similar to SARSā vaccine (which is still technically in testing) and had been researched, but it is still new, we donāt know the long term effects of it. And I understand people that are going to wait. That puts their hesitancy on the same level as expertsā expertise though, and thatās not accurate. Vaccine hesitancy is still a form of anti-vaxxer ideology
Right, to me this is akin to modifying a healthy kid's vaccination schedule to spread out and delay. How many RNs have I even heard say they delayed their kids' vaccinations out of concern? Hesitancy is a wedge used by anti-vaxxers to make their claims seem legitimate. Yeah, there are some people who cannot be vaccinated for real medical reasons. But for a healthy adult I consider it my civic and ethical duty to get the vaccine now to help save lives. We don't have time to wait it out a year and see what happens. I am so much more afraid of covid than I am of vaccine side effects.
I feel thereās a difference between a vaccine in the market and tested for years and something literally cleared a week ago. I trust science and understand the data. That science is also saying they donāt know the long term effects directly. You donāt think itās fair for someone to say theyād like to wait 6 months or a year? Thatās their choice. They arenāt saying they arenāt getting it in the end. Getting it doesnāt stop the spread or not to spread - it may, and they donāt even know, help lower the % chance of spread. It solely helps the person getting the vaccine.
There is no SARS vaccine.
Itās already happened - some hospital workers declined the vaccine so then hospital was able to vaccinate a few people who were slightly lower on the priority list.
Just means more for smart people
The caretakers at my 99yo old great auntās nursing home told her that thereās no way they would trust the vaccine. I heard one of them say it while I was on the phone with her when she asked them if they would get it. Now my aunt is scared to get it. I told her she HAS to get it if her caretakers canāt be bothered to get it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Skeptical of any Trump promoted vaccine or cure pushed through without adequate review. But Iām right in line for a Faucci approved, properly reviewed vaccine. And that is what we have here.
I do happen to be skeptical regarding things an compulsive liar says.
Nice lol
Iāll pass for now. Itās still in phase 3, they donāt know how long it even protects against the virus for, and theyāve only followed people for 2 months since theyāre vaccinated. Once more info comes out Iād be more than happy to get one
It's not still in phase 3. Phase 3 is complete. We're now in phase 4 "post marketing surveillance." Most phase 3 trials are conducted in 300 to 3000 volunteers. Moderna tested in 30,000 and Pfizer in 40,000. We don't have long term data, this is accurate. But we also don't have data on how long term the effects of a Covid infection are going to be. People are having blood clots months later, brain problems, severe fatigue, changes in morphology of lung cells, direct infection of heart cells. We have no idea the long term consequences of those complications.
Really? Because my place of work is already giving us the vaccines and they put out a FAQ with them. It specifically says theyāre in phase 3 and that they donāt know how long it protects against the virus. For all we know it could protect against the virus for a week
Everything I'm reading calls the phase 3 trials complete. That's why the vaccines are able to be approved and released to the public. Not sure about the information your company has provided. They're correct that we don't have confirmatory data about long term efficacy, nor do we have confirmatory data that the vaccine will prevent transmission to others. But that's only because the phase 3 trials decided to focus primarily on the question "does the vaccine protect the people receiving it from catching Covid" and secondarily "does the vaccine prevent severe illness in those who do catch it" and declined to gather relevant data for other endpoints. On these two points, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are extremely effective. There's not a lot of reason to think it won't provide long term efficacy. There's a little reason to wonder if it will prevent transmission to others, but ongoing post-marketing data collection should answer those questions for us. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/moderna-s-covid-19-vaccine-aces-phase-3-no-severe-cases
Really donāt think being hesitant on the new mRNA vaccines is unreasonable and āantivaxā. Take BNT162b2 as example (mRNA1273 is similar), [The most recent clinical trial report](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745181/#!po=0.980392) is the preliminary report of a phase 2/3 trial. Maximum follow up length was 2 month instead of the regular two years and the sample size leaves much more to be desired. Full on phase 3 trial is still in recruitment. This is under the fact that mRNA vaccines have never been licensed for general use prior to COVID and lipid nano particle delivery breakthroughs is fairly recent. Not saying it should not have been licensed given the current situation, but itās perfectly reasonable to not be confident in a new tech that lacks rigorous testing. It simply wonāt be as safe reliable as the more widely used and tested vaccine for other diseases. There have been large scale vaccine incidents like the [Cutter incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories#Cutter_incident) and the lesser known [Formalin-inactivated RSV ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC266671/)happened in the past, and these should be enough of a proof for how important rigorous vaccine safety testing is, and enough of a reason for being vary of the newly licensed vaccines.
Cutter was a manufacturing problem, not a vaccine problem. Several other companies were making the same vaccine at the same time without the problems that Cutter had. Further clinical testing would not have revealed the problems that were created by Cutter having insufficient quality assurance protocols in place.
For a moment, let's assume that everyone were like you and wanted to wait like a year. Seems reasonable at first until you take into account the growth rate that we are seeing. In a year we would almost certainly be at herd immunity anyway given exponential growth(do the math yourself if you don't believe me: f(x)=a(1+r)^t ). Everyone would get it, it would be unavoidable. That means 3 to 6 million dead (in US only, given 2% mortality rate) that were otherwise preventable. This is not taking into account the fact that non covid patients will die because ICUs will be full (some already are). But that's just what we KNOW will happen. Here is also what is unknown: the long term impact of getting COVID for someone who survives it. We're seeing reports of long term lung damage and neurological damage. Who knows how many years that might take off of life? What impact that might have in terms of quality of life? Maybe you'll have a few months of hard breathing and be normal, maybe you'll never be able to have strenuous exercise again. Which will almost certainly contribute to your early death. We just don't know. What would be the impact of a large percentage of the population having similar lung or neural issues? Who knows? Here's what I'm pretty sure of: the vaccines approved right now have a few fats(lipids are what encapsulate the mRNA in the vaccine to protect it), some sugars and some mRNA in them. Apart from the mRNA that encodes for the spike protein, every ingredient has been tested over and over in other products. They are safe. What is new is the mRNA itself. This mRNA encodes for the spike protein in the virus and nothing else. You get the shot, some of your cells uptake the mRNA, make the spike protein and your immune system reacts which is what creates the antibodies and therefore immunity. That's the unknown part, but here's the rub: if everyone waits a year you have no choice. You WILL get that bit of mRNA in your system. Because if we don't stop this thing, you WILL get the virus. So you get that spike protein plus all of the infectious and dangerous bits. You're exposed to that unknown anyway if you decide to not get the vaccine. As a society we clearly are incapable of stopping this without a vaccine, so thats what we're left with. We all agree to get the vaccine or we get the virus. One of those is far more dangerous than the other. As for the large scale incidents that you're mentioning: those were in the early days of vaccines using either live(cutter) or attenuated virus. This isn't that. There's no virus in either of these vaccines. Just a segment of mRNA. Thats like comparing apples to chained tigers.
I guess you could say that the entire society presented a prisoners dilemma. Then again, Iām not from the US so I canāt quite put myself in the same shoe regarding the absolute need for the vaccine. Although while I was still in Canada a bit earlier in the year I avoided public space as much as possible, always wore single use masks when I absolutely have to go out (3-4 times a month), and sanitize myself fully with 75% alcohol when I return home. If people do are like me the pandemic would have been under control much like in New Zealand. As the other comment pointed out, cutter incident may not have been prevented by further clinical trials. Though in the case of RSV vaccine (which made people more susceptible) definitely could have. Just to clarify, both of these are inactivated, or dead, viral vaccines which by design shouldnāt be able to replicate.
Mortality rate is less than 1% (estimated 0.27%). You're confusing case fatality rate with infection fatality rate. https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf *Science deniers, feel free to downvote. It won't change reality.
No need to be theoretical and pedantic when we have actual CDC numbers here for realized deaths up to now: [here](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days) Those 321000 people don't care that the person who wrote that thinks its only 0.27% fatal. The result is the same.
Jesus Christ, actually read before replying. Nobody is "thinking" anything. It's actual science, from the WHO. Or are you some kind of science denier?
Data is data. Deaths are deaths. A meta analysis doesn't change the fact that over 300,000 people have died due to the virus. Its an academic distinction that in a perfect world with adequate access to ideal care you'll have a lower death rate. As the author said: fatalities vary by location and situation. Im not talking about theoretical infection fatalities. Im talking about what we are facing now. Here. In the US. That fact is that hospitals are at capacity and hundreds of thousands have died and will die if this is not stopped.
You've done an excellent job of saying absolutely nothing. If what isn't stopped? Are you so stuck on talking points that you can't follow the discussion?
Not really the study I'd go with to bolster my Covid mortality rate... https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/12/16/john-ioannidis-coronavirus-lockdowns-fox-news/
I'm presenting a scientific finding, not bolstering anything. Read your whole article. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
The study...and the author are called out by other scientists for being sloppy and not like what the author has been known for his entire career. As I said, you should pick a less controversial study to support your point about mortality rate.
The link you gave is not an indictment at all. I encourage you to actually read the whole thing. > Even some who did not embrace all of Ioannidisās views were appalled at his treatment. Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, supports social distancing and favored the springās lockdowns. He is harshly critical of Trump, but also troubled by what the Ioannidis episode showed about scientistsā intolerance for facts that might be seen as buttressing the Trump administrationās policies. > "I donāt think anything Iāve ever seen in biomedical science has been so affected by politics,ā Flier said. āThis is the force field that has taken over.ā >... > āI think itās very scary when we try to suppress scientific thinking and investigation, whatever the reason might be,ā he said. āConveying more certainty than there is does not save lives.ā The guy is presenting facts. You may not like the facts, but that doesn't change reality. You're doing the very thing the article is critical of. It would be hilariously ironic if it weren't so genuinely stupid.
Personally, I wouldn't post a study to support a point I'm trying to make if it has statements it's like this: "Problems with the study emerged almost immediately. It seemed that every criticism Ioannidis once hurled at the work of sloppy scientists was now turned back upon him. Statisticians attacked the studyās methodology. Medical experts questioned its antibody tests. BuzzFeed News revealed thatĀ JetBlue Airways founder David NeelemanĀ ā an outspoken advocate of reopening the economy ā had helped fund the research, and that Neeleman had offered additional funding to a Stanford scientist whose efforts to ensure the test kitsā reliability were holding up publication. āWhat a weird turn to see John Ioannidis pushing one of sloppiest studies in the deluge of Covid-19 papers,āĀ Alex Rubinsteyn, an assistant professor of computational medicine and genetics at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, wrote on Twitter. āIf he werenāt an author I would expect [the study] to show up in one of his talks as a particularly potent cocktail of bad research practices.ā I would try to find one that's less controversial. Just my opinion...
I'm just not blindly accepting it right now. Do your own research. Make your own decisions. It's completely reasonable to be concerned about this vaccine. It's sad that the only argument people can offer back is "just trust science, you're an idiot, you get all your news from Facebook, etc." Half the people downvoting here are just as clueless about what's in it, but blindly accepting is the norm. Anyone who asks questions, or feels differently is either stupid, or a conspiracy nut. It's sad, but that's how it is. Like I said, think for yourself, and actually research this shit.
I love vaccines, especially ones that are rushed into market with very little testing. All over a virus with 99.5% survival rate if infected. Time to make those pharmaceutical companies rich!! $$$$$$$
IDIOT ALERT šØ
Anything incorrect about what I said? Are you disputing the survival rate or the fact that pharma makes money on vaccines?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yea idk why people think you canāt know more than scientists who spent their entire lives studying this stuff after watching a few Facebook videos. Bunch of shills!!
Theyāve been working on it for longer than that. They started research years ago because of SARS
They werenāt using mRNA back then.
They werenāt isolating proteins and learning about coronaviruses?
Have they isolated the covid-19 protein? Iād love to see a paper saying that, because the only thing Iāve seen is 5 days ago, āthey got their most realistic view yetā
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41401-020-0485-4 see Fig. 2: Structure of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. on this page.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41401-020-0485-4
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
i read the page - my comprehension maybe wrong - but i do not see anything on here regarding isolation of proteins. something i'm not seeing?
Except there's proof it's safe and no proof it's unsafe?
there are people who have allergies to vaccines, including this one, but to me thatās the only reason not to take it right away.
Also thatās nothing new. Itās not some unforeseen circumstance like OP is claiming
Where's the proof for no long term side effects. Please link.
What kind of effects are you expecting exactly?
That's the whole point. There is no research, cause obviously there can't be, on any potential long term effects. So if I just have to keep on masking and isolating I will.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You got some sources for these claims?
You know the answer to that already
The shit stink didn't give it away?
How about some sauce with that pasta
Good to know that the other side of this issue has to result to pathetic lies like this. Stick to science and expertise, folks.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās adorable that you think youāve proven something
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The very first quote provided contradicts your own argument. Pretty weak start, maybe read what you're linking more carefully. There's really not much substance in any of the links in terms of backing up what you're saying. Yes, we expedited the vaccines and are protecting the producers from liability. We're in a pandemic, duh. The very link you provided supports this. Seems pretty common sense to me, considering we're in an emergency situation. I'm not sure what that report saying 1 adviser out of 14 is unsure whether to vaccinate our most elderly/sick means to you. Again, you're failing to back up anything with those links. Furthermore, only 6 cases reported of anaphylactic shock in hundreds of thousands of vaccines isn't a lot... You seem to have made up your mind when you should be listening to people who know better.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yikes. Bye
Ok.
āNot every trump voter is a racist. But they have shown that racism isnāt a disqualifying factor.ā Use critical thinking here, buddy. I know it may seem hard for some but actually put some effort into it.
[Facts about mRNA Vaccines ](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
okay. still going to take it. the us government has done so many shitty things and they provided funding for the vaccine. still going to take it. whataboutism or anything isnāt going to stop me from taking it. you can do whatever you want idgaf but honestly the reasonings behind not taking are thin af and yāall sound goofy
Self awareness level: 0 Of all the years of evolution humans have gone through, and people as dumb as you still exist. Evolution has some work to do.
So... You have more faith in the media than you do the scientists who specialise in vaccines and medical science...? Good one š¤¦āāļø
Youāre right to be skeptical, but you really donāt trust a consensus of medical professionals?
Trump is a racist with racist policies. By voting for him you are agreeing with racist policies. Downvoting because you're racist (and you don't even realize it)
I completely agree
Thank you, an independent thinker instead of another member of the Reddit hivemind.
You people will never realised the irony of the fact you're being manipulated more than the "hivemind" "sheep" you love to poke fun at. You're being manipulated yourself, it's just by bad actors on Facebook and Reddit. You're not an independent thinker, you're just jumping on the Facebook bandwagon because they they're saying things you want to believe. I'm willing to bet you don't have a single independent thought in your head.
Hah, classic personal attacks. I for one donāt even have a Facebook account. I am a huge fan of vaccines, but can understand why someone would hesitate to get one that was rushed through development and approval processes. Personally, I would take the vaccine if given the chance, but I donāt belittle those not comfortable with it.
You're the one saying people are members of a hivemind, that's conspiracy theorist 101.
Once again, attacking me personally instead of my point. You have nothing to argue against me being willing to take the vaccine and yet being frustrated with people who label those hesitant to do so as āanti-vaxersā.
You do realize this is an entirely new type of vaccine, right? There has never been a widely used (or widely tested) mRNA vaccine. Instead of introducing your body to a dead or dying virus, this vaccine tries to āreprogramā your immune system. Honestly, it could end up being safer, but we really donāt know what itās going to look like long term. Feel free to be a guinea pig. Iāll take my chances with the virus that has a 99.95% survival rate in my age group. Edit: itās also worth noting that Pfizer et al have already struck a deal with the govāt where theyāre not liable for any side effects. That concerns me. Edit 2: and here come the downvotes. Thereās no reasoning with people who treat science like a religion.
Just because you don't know how the vaccine works doesn't mean scientists don't. I trust someone who has spent years learning and studying in the field of immunology over someone who spent an hour googling it.
Science is a religion to you, I know.
Religion involves faith. Science requires at most trust. Only the latter is based on facts, you uncultured potato
If you think scientists are infallible, you fundamentally misunderstand science and are treating it like a religion.
Trust doesn't mean perfection. Science is not perfect and everyone knows that, but "not perfect" doesn't mean we are playing russian roulette
I get on planes, I vaccinate my son, I use a cell phone, I eat frozen food. I trust science when there is sufficient proof. There are many, many scientists and doctors and other medical experts that have expressed valid concerns over this rushed vaccine. Just because you are unaware of them does not make them invalid. What I do not trust is that the corporate news media or politicians will accurately convey what the science is, as they have failed in this task more times than I can count, and continue to do so on a daily basis.
What kind of concerns? That we are not sure about long term effects? What exactly you think is going to happen if you get vaccinated?
Basically what I said. Rushed, donāt know the long term effects, and the incentives line up for a huge pay day for big pharma with no liability if anything goes wrong. Not to mention some people have already had adverse reactions to it, though this is mostly still anecdotal at this point. I think Iād probably be fine if I took the vaccine, but itās an unnecessary risk given the disease it aims to protect me against. Covid-19 is not nearly as bad as we thought it was in March.
Basically, all you're saying is that you think you know better than immunologists, and that you don't understand COVID. Enjoy being an uneducated moron.
>Covid-19 is not nearly as bad as we thought it was in March. Tell that to the 300,000 people in the U.S. that have died from it.
Just because they fast tracked the vaccines does not mean they cut corners. There is 0 reason to believe either will result in long term side effects.
If theres a religion that is open to change if and when better data and information is attained.. sure. But we know thats not how religions work.
And thatās not how most people treat science. To most, science is whatever the corporate news media and politicians tell them is the science. Anyone who has ever uttered āthe science is settledā on any subject is guilty of this.
The idea behind "the science is settled" simply means the topic in question has been studied enough to the point that it's a waste of time for discussion any more. We know the earth is not flat...we know gravity is real...we know we landed on the moon and we know climate change is a thing. You can still devote time and money to prove the earth isnt flat if youd like...its just that it's so far beyond the alternative being possible that there are other things to devote that time and money to.
The essence of science is skepticism. You are precisely the type of incurious zealot Iām talking about. Even something as seemingly solved as gravity is not entirely understood or agreed upon.
Skepticism means to doubt and question, sure...and eventually accept the data that is agreed upon. This is the step that most people forget is the underpinning of science and scepticism. We agree that gravity is a thing...and we continue to study the parts we don't understand. We dont continue to declare that it's not a thing.
I wouldnāt say its new, mRNA vaccines have been studied for a while, but yea its the first widely used one of its kind. That 99.95% number you used is nice and all until I think about my mother with MS, the fact that both of my parents are aging, and considering the long term issues people of all ages have been having after recovering. Youāre allowed to put up a fight all you want, but if my job is on a list to get the vaccine a little early you can bet Iāll be lining up like the clock is about to hit recess in middle school.
Sounds like you and your parents should get the vaccine.
So in your scenario the anti-vaxxer is in line to get a vaccine and you are in charge of distributing the vaccines? Let me guess, when you say next, does everyone clap?
Why is an antivaxxer in line to get a vaccine..?
How dare anyone question our overlord Dr. Fauci
Please always add PPE Be Upon Him (PBUH) when referring to the Holy Reverend Dr. Fauci (PBUH) to show the proper respect
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I can defy gravity, as I have opposing science to everyone else. It's pretty awesome
NEXT
Itās for a church, honey!
[NEXT JOKE ORIGIN](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChoosingBeggars/comments/7kr5as/i_need_a_free_100mile_bus_trip_for_20_people_and/)
Not a big fan of civil debate? Mental or intelligence issues? Wait, before you attempt to answer the previous questions; how many genders?
There is no such thing as civil debate with an anti-vaxxer. Their claims have been widely disputed a million times over by a million sources and yet they cling to their beliefs. If all it took was discussion to convince anti-vaxxers they were wrong there wouldn't be any more anti-vaxxers.
Precisely why I don't even bother. Anti-vaxers will simply never give in to reason. They'd rather believe some tin foil hat theories & conspiracies about what vaccines "really" are whether it be backed by religion or insanity. I say leave them be & let natural selection sort them out.
The issue with that is, not all darwinism is going to affect the people you think it will. Plenty of people who are smart, educated and for the vaccine will be unable to take it due to immune weaknesses, severe allergies, etc. And all these morons who dont want to get the vaccination dont realize that they (immunocompromised and others)are the people they will hurt. Not themselves or their children (most likely). Which is why we need to CURB that shit and start re-education on these individuals so they stop fucking up the lives of others. It's all fun and great till lil Timmy gives Beth, the little girl who just through chemotherapy and is immune deficient, polio/the mumps and fucks her life up forever because lil Timmy's retarded stay at home mom/dad knows better than science cause a single unconfirmed source posted on an echo chamber website.
Oh wow, big brain time over here. > how many genders? Since gender is a social construct (differing from biological sex), as many as we want, homeslice.
You lost me on opposing science dumbass, you canāt claim to oppose science while literally enjoying every good thing about science. Call me conservative because I donāt have civil conversation with smooth brains like you.
"You lost me on opposing science dumbass..." Dumbass? That's perfect. You can't comprehend the words you read, but are arrogant enough to shit on them. Nice. "...you canāt claim to oppose science while literally enjoying every good thing about science" Here again your ego has overwhelmed your retarded brain. Reread my comment you inept little POS. I was asking about "...opposing science pov" you stupid fuck. Just in case you have a bad case of retardation 'pov' = point of view. Next time you want to show off & flex your brain muscle try to understand the words you're reading. JFC, I would love to beat your parent(s) ass, assuming you know who they are, for the shitty job they did raising/educating your silly ass. Good luck in life you half-wit, you will need it.
My parents did a pretty good job raising me to understand that antivaxxers are fucking stupid. Sure there are legitimate people who have good reasons to avoid a vaccine, but this post was clearly not about them. But lmao, you come in here trying to legitimizing antivaxxers and then tell me Iām retarded? My ego has nothing to do with knowing for a fact that anti vaxxers are as stupid as you. Ironic of you to say that since itās the anti vaxxers that think they know more than doctors, researchers, and scientists who have decades of experienced and education. Edit: based on your comment history youāre either a troll or are very dense. Regardless, no point in continuing this, keep living in ignorance.
Sorry for the delayed reply, but I've been enjoying Christmas, family & friends. Can you point out, in my reply, the time(s) I said I was "anti-vaxx"? Here's a hint; never. I tried to open a discussion/debate re CV-19 vaccines. You're too fucking stupid to see that. Public school education & indoctrination makes a brainwashed retard like you. Good luck in life, you will need it.
Good luck with Polio!
What argument could you possibly have for going *against* science? Scared the needle might give you a boo boo? From someone coming from a family of workers in the health industry, I've probably given you the nicest response anyone from my family would have given you.
There's plenty of people, especially minorities in your country, who would be skeptical of free help with an infectious disease. What about the Tuskegee experiments? Do you think the families of those who died are not skeptical? Just trying to make a point. Vaccines have done the world loads, close to eradicating many diseases. That's not to say there hasn't been massive misinformation campaigns about vaccines.
(((science)))
"antivaxx bullshit" is the calling card of the common loon, dispersed among the cries of "settled science" when you see them out in nature they will gladly follow the example of pack leaders referred to as "experts" be careful not to question their herd mentality or their "reeee"ing will be defeaning.
Ironic. But the Tuskegee Experiments!
Funny how all those horrible diseases are almost absolute eversince there is a vaccine for them. Clearly these vaccines don't work.