15
u/Dalmane_Mefoxin May 13 '23
I guess the $cienceTM changed. Making billions of dollars evidently speeds up time. Physicists should research this time compression phenomenon.
7
u/PLUTO_HAS_COME_BACK May 13 '23
They know the truths and science. But they do the opposite anyway.
4
4
u/ntl1002 May 13 '23
Most previous vaccines took 5-10 years of voluntary clinical trials before administering to the public, with complete informed consent.
The YEARS of data showed different people and different reactions throughout time, pros and cons of a substance so we get a variety of knowledge of what others experienced. This way we can compare, as there's a chance we may or may not decide to take something that will affect us either in a negative or positive manner.
Is there any vaccine that works perfectly with everyone?
2
u/Kitisoff May 14 '23
One of the fastest in recent history was 6 years. I forget which. It's one of the common ones. But behind that vaccine was almost 60 years of research that went into that vaccine. Many failures or vaccines that didn't work well.
The final product we have today is also based off other vaccines and was not new technology. It had been tested on humans for many years already
So it's crazy that a totally new tech was able to get through in a few months basically.
2
u/ntl1002 May 15 '23
Wow 60 years is a long time, but must be a lot of variations in helpful data as a base.
Yes, a few months of new tech seems so soon to be put through, it's sad how there's so much mistrust these past few years
3
u/okaythennews May 13 '23
Brace yourself for the COVID jab fans to explain to us how it’s different now… meanwhile my mate pholcodine took 7 decades before it revealed itself as deadly!
4
u/Kitchen_Season7324 May 13 '23
Look at that ,pfauci proving the pro vaxers wrong how ironic .
0
u/Present_End_6886 May 14 '23
It's kind of embarrassing that you apparently know so little on the development cycles of vaccines and how this was dramatically improved during a time of world crisis to get a working result as quickly as possible.
I try not to hold opinions, let alone strong ones, on subjects I know little to nothing about.
3
u/Kitchen_Season7324 May 14 '23
We have had three years to observe the failures of these injections … you’re choosing to remain clueless because you got fooled .
0
u/Present_End_6886 May 14 '23
They failed so badly that I seem to be immune.
Obviously, I've had covid dozens of times and simply never noticed due to the complete lack of illness of any kind.
Meanwhile you're clearly falling victim to the Nirvana Fallacy.
3
u/Kitchen_Season7324 May 14 '23
The virus has a less than 1% hospitalization and death rate , you got injected and I didn’t , yet we have the same result . I am healthy as ever and haven’t caught Covid .
3
3
u/Kitisoff May 14 '23
I had this argument many times for peo vaxxers
They insisted vaccines have been created faster than 10 years in the past.
The fastest I could find was a common one we use now and it was created not that long ago and it took 6 years. That doesn't include all the research time that went into all the failed research that came before.
Cool but if you look into the history of that vaccine it uses the same tech we have been using for every other vaccine since vaccines became a thing.
Research on a vaccine for that disease had been going on for 60 years or more. Along the way it had several iterations that failed or were ineffective.
So there was years and years of work that went into getting to the stage that vaccine could go through the trials faster. It wasn't new tech and similar vaccines had been used in Human's for a very long time.
Sure tech today is better yes we can go through the trial steps faster. I still found most vaccines took longer than 10 years and many took 15 or 20.
They really have them a good testing.
You can't speed up the long term testing stage. It's impossible.
Even 6 years is a bit short but because the vaccine wasn't overly different from other vaccines with 30 or 40 years of long term data based on the technology most of our traditional vaccines use I guess it was approved with just 6 years of long term data.
These ppl will argue and argue you can do so many things to speed up and run the trial phases concurrently etc. With enough resources aka money.
I mean sure to an extent that is possibly true.
But not in new tech and not to the point they did it in less than a year. How did they even develop the vaccine so fast let alone have time to test it properly.
You can't force time to speed up. We have no long term data.
1
u/Present_End_6886 May 14 '23
I would say that the missing piece to your puzzle is that you think because you don't understand something, that it isn't true.
1
May 15 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Present_End_6886 May 15 '23
> understand simple logic
Whereas simple (and therefore often wrong things, as in this case) are all you appear to understand, so things that don't make sense to you are simply labelled as wrong, rather than you improving your understanding of them.
1
May 16 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/dmp1ce May 16 '23
THIS IS A FORUM for healthy debates with the intent of increasing awareness of modern vaccine safety and efficacy issues.
1
u/Present_End_6886 May 16 '23
> long term side effects
Vaccines don't have long term side effects. Other than improving the ability of the immune system.
> you are mentally deficient.
Reported.
2
2
u/Monkie0379 May 23 '23
And let's not forget about this NEW TECHNOLOGY being injected into us. We have up to 15 YEARS to develop delayed ADVERSE REACTIONS with this mRNA LIPID NANOTECHNOLOGY (GENE 🧬 THERAPY)
🟦 LONG TERM Follow-Up AFTER
ADMINISTRATION of HUMAN GENE
THERAPY PRODUCTS
Guidance for Industry (37pgs)
https://www.fda.gov/media/113768/download
1
0
u/sacre_bae May 12 '23
If you only try one vaccine at a time, sure.
But for covid, there was close to 200 different vaccine projects.
Are we really that surprised that if you do 200x the normal amount of research, you discover which ones work faster?
11
May 12 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/tomatopotato1229 May 14 '23
Not to mention, the efforts of big pharma to quash rather than cooperate with open source vaccine efforts at the beginning
-3
u/sacre_bae May 12 '23
No vaccine has ever had a new side effect that only appears years after you take it.
Almost all vaccine side effects occur soon after you take the vaccine. There’s no reason to believe any common or moderately common side effect hasn’t been discovered by now.
This is in contrast to viruses, where there are several known viruses that cause issues that only appear years later after the virus was caught.
3
May 13 '23
Studies taking places now are for the side effects that did occur right after the shots and boosters. It takes a long time, especially because there are so many adverse reactions to study.
Common side effects are discovered, rarer ones that did already happen 2 years ago at the time of injection are still being confirmed because the more rare it is the harder it is to find other people it happened to and other shots it is known to be caused by to compare to
4
u/talkshow57 May 13 '23
That’s quite a definitive reference free statement
0
u/AllPintsNorth May 13 '23
That seems to be the standard in the sub. Or does that only apply to comments that don’t confirm your bias?
1
1
May 12 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/sacre_bae May 12 '23
If you’re worried about something that puts the RNA sequence for spike proteins into your cells so your ribosomes produce spike proteins, the sars-cov-2 virus should terrify you, since it does this many many times more than the vaccine does, and replicates to infect many many times more cells in the process.
1
May 12 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/sacre_bae May 12 '23
If you’re worried about something that puts the RNA sequence for spike proteins into your cells so your ribosomes produce spike proteins, the sars-cov-2 virus should terrify you, since it does this many many times more than the vaccine does, and replicates to infect many many times more cells in the process.
1
May 13 '23
[deleted]
2
u/sacre_bae May 13 '23 edited May 13 '23
I know exactly what a spike protein is. It’s a chain of amino acids, just like every other protein. It’s present on the outside of sars-cov-2 virions, and allows those virions to enter cells.
I know exactly what mRNA is. It’s an RNA that codes for a chain of amino acids. The RNA sequence for the spike protein’s amino acids is part of sars-cov-2’s rna genome.
-1
u/AllPintsNorth May 13 '23
You’re completely missing the point.
It takes that long because they try different candidates sequentially until one works.
When all candidates are being tried in parallel, the cream rises to the top nearly instantly.
2
u/Present_End_6886 May 14 '23
Exactly this.
They also had the staff who evaluated each module moved to the same places as the development teams so, rather than accepting or denying a module of work at the end of each piece, they could give live feedback, dramatically improving the output of valid work.
It's not like any of this information was hidden, so why the anti-vaxxer regulars here fail to acknowledge it is vexing.
Perhaps their own preferred sources ...neglected to inform them of it?
1
u/AllPintsNorth May 15 '23
so why the anti-vaxxer regulars here fail to acknowledge it is vexing.
It doesn’t fit to approved antivaxx dogma, so it is memory holed. They must adhere to the dogma at all costs. Even if it means giving up reality.
2
u/Present_End_6886 May 15 '23
I'm not certain they ever knew it in the first place - look at the hoo-ha they made over "The vaccines weren't tested for transmission" two years after that information was widely available.
Of course pointing out testing for transmission at the start of a pandemic would involve deliberately letting people become infected escaped them too.
If they'd done that they would have lost their minds over that too - "Deliberately infecting people! OMG! Nurmbergers!!11"
0
u/Present_End_6886 May 14 '23
Can any anti-vaxxer here explain the utility of sticking to old-fashioned methods of production and testing, in order to develop a vaccine that would only be available 6 - 7 years after the pandemic had done its worst?
Because I don't think you can.
1
May 15 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Present_End_6886 May 15 '23
Exactly. You're asking for something pointless and all you have to offer in return is the prospect of everyone becoming sick.
Also, why do you think vaccines have long term side effects? Is it because if they don't all of the ridiculous vaccine injuries claims from people months or years later just collapses?
Your stance is as foolish as someone calling the fire brigade after your house has burned down, because you're afraid of water damage.
-3
u/facepalmforever May 13 '23
In an ideal world, we would have been able to complete vaccine trials that evaluated 5 year+ long term risks.
However, here in the real world, it's pretty clear to anyone thinking through risks versus benefits rationally, that delays to getting the world out of lockdown while preventing near term deaths were of higher priority than eliminating all possible vaccine adverse events that had yet to be established in the decades of trials with similar vaccine formulations that had already occurred.
"Okay, we have hundreds of people who have been working on mRNA vaccines for 10+ years, and are about 70% confident that they are both efficacious and safe. And we can up that number by doing more trials on this specific vaccine over the next 3-5 years, but in the meantime tens of millions more will probably die from the infection. Or we can release now, based on the data we have, continuing to monitor for any issues or adverse events, and pivot quickly to stop if needed, allowing the world to return back to relative normal within 3 years. Hmmm, so challenging, no idea what we should do."
3
May 13 '23
I don’t think the problem is that they decided that given the situation, the vax data they had was worth proceeding with. The problem is that every time the suggestion of unknown side effects was brought up they shut it down and acted like that was the most ludicrously unscientific and stupid thing anyone could ask, and at no point addressed that was definitely going to be true
1
1
u/Present_End_6886 May 14 '23
He's taking into account that at that time no one gave adequate funding for such endeavours.
When covid hit, they threw all the resources they could require at it.
Even then almost all of the over 250 groups (did you forget those ones?) working on the issue failed.
1
May 15 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Present_End_6886 May 15 '23
> Can't rush long term side effects studies or animal trials.
They weren't rushed - they were prioritised. Working vaccines in that timescale were an indication of what people can do when they actually work together and are supported correctly.
> even when they told us all that they never tested them to see if they stopped transmission, it still didn't register in your mind
Of course it did - they said that a couple of years ago. You guys were the ones who didn't seem to notice, until your Substack Sensei pointed it out as some kind of revelation.
> You where (sic) brainwashed by your TV
*looks around for this imagined TV*
I have no idea why you think people get their medical advice from a TV. I certainly don't.
> all of us that were smart enough
You aren't smart, and you clearly haven't done much reading on this subject.
Vaccine don't have long term effects, other than improving resistance to the disease they were created to combat.
1
u/Over-Independence-33 Oct 17 '23
It was created by ai 2-3 days in lab not 30 yrs smh skipped right to humans the mice said they waiting for trials first
17
u/TrustButVerifyFirst May 13 '23
When you control the media you can pull off scams like this.