MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines were "rushed"

twoggle wrote:

The mRNA drugs are technology that has never been tested in humans on a large scale. There are 5 deaths per month reported for flu vaccines in the U.S. and then 892 deaths per month for the new COVID mRNA drugs (or > 2,800/month adding in the backlog of cases) and similar ratios for other serious effects. Add on top of that drug company trials that don’t come close to independent research results. Finally, the lack of long-term research. Each person has to decide for his or her self if they want to trust the drug companies and take these experimental drugs.

The logical conclusion is thus:

1) vaccine rollout is being extensively monitored for safety (hence the J&J pause for extremely rare toxicity)

2) reporting rates to VAERS are far above normal due to nonstandard vaccination plan (flu vaccines are uninterested and likely suffer from low reporting rates)

3) Drug companies have no reason to misrepresent trial results should there be significant toxicity. They would become the enemy of the entire developed world if they pushed fraudulently toxic vaccines during the worst pandemic in a century.

This is to say, VAERS astrology is generally a waste of time

They've been working on Coronavirus vaccines for years. SARS and MERS are examples of Coronaviruses. With COVID-19 they were simply given the funding and access to get to the finish line. The COVID-19 vaccines out now under emergency approval will be the same vaccines you see when final approved is granted.

Alan

How is this being carried out with the mRNA vaccines?

What do you mean by "nonstandard vaccination plan?" If reporting rates to VAERS are "far above normal" does that mean there are more adverse reactions being reported that otherwise wouldn't be reported?

With billions of dollars at stake - there would still be no reason to misrepresent any trial results? And who reviews all data from the trials? Is there transparency where anyone can access every piece of data from the trials? If so, do you have a link where we can get this information from?

Then what would be your suggestion that people do if they believe they've suffered from an adverse reaction?

*Last question: Do you work in the medical field? Are you an M.D.? Or perhaps do you work for Moderna or Pfizer? Do you have any YouTube videos out or maybe a Twitter account that we can take a look at for educational purposes?

ok bud wrote:

twoggle wrote:

[quote]Limousine Libertarian wrote:

FACT: Vaccines simply didn't take very long to create. They only seem "rushed" compared to drugs that take ten years to chug through the approval process. This is like saying a 5-hour marathon is "rushed" because most people didn't walk 26 miles in all of April.

No long-term tests conducted. But we already know from independent research that the numbers related to serious adverse events in the Pfizer clinical trials are more than 15 times lower than independent research (I believe made up). The Moderna trials numbers are very different from independent research, but a little closer to realty for short-term adverse effects. If you trust drug company research and don’t care about long-term tests, then maybe you’ll believe it’s safe.

Do you believe every flu vaccine is rushed each year? Do consider those dangerous too?

Of course they are dangerous and have killed and seriously harmed many people. What do you think vaccines are? Lollipops?

Sorry I accidentally hit post above. What Harambe means is that if a vaccine is not seen as new or interesting or risky, any adverse event is less likely to make it into VAERS. If a vaccine is seen as novel then any adverse event even if it seems entirely unrelated would likely be reported.

The self-reporting nature of VAERS makes it essentially useless as a resource for quantitative study. Its value would be in generating hypotheses for future rigorous studies.

1) There are over 118,000 adverse reports on VAERS with a backlog of over 220,000 due to COVID mRNA drugs. It’s impossible to monitor. Even something as simple and obvious as anaphylaxis reactions to these drugs, the CDC was off by a factor of 50-100 when independent research was published. Here’s an interview with a widely published doctor/researcher on the subject who also knows that it’s impossible for these reactions and deaths to have been monitored:

2) Even the CDC reports on their own website that the reporting rate for death from COVID vaccine drugs is only 1.13%. Everything else from independent research showing a less than 1% reporting rate to anaphylaxis showing a 1-2% reporting rate proves that the reporting rate really hasn’t changed much this year, but the absolute numbers have skyrocketed.

3) Drug companies are interested in short-term profits and they don’t care if they get fined and suppress bad results. Here’s an example of Pfizer:

Pfizer found no anaphylaxs in their COVID trials. Real researcher found quite a lot compared to zero. Even the CDC’s skewed v-safe system has found a tremendously higher amount of “serious” reactions than Pfizer.

The trials, while large, of course cannot compare to the number of people who are getting vaccinated now. You could pretty much guarantee there would be some cases of anaphylaxis, as one would expect with ANYTHING put in the body. You could also pretty much guarantee that there would be some deaths due to Covid after being vaccinated even though that wasn’t picked up in the study due to its large but not gargantuan size.

The study does indicate that those numbers would be a very low percentage. As of April 20th. 88 deaths over a term when approximately 200,000 have died due to Covid. That is consistent with the study results.

trashcan wrote:

Sorry I accidentally hit post above. What Harambe means is that if a vaccine is not seen as new or interesting or risky, any adverse event is less likely to make it into VAERS. If a vaccine is seen as novel then any adverse event even if it seems entirely unrelated would likely be reported.

How would someone know if it's unrelated or not? If a person was feeling fine when they took the vaccine but say a day or two later they were feeling very ill - do you consider that unrelated and therefore should not be reported to "VAERS?"

trashcan wrote:

The self-reporting nature of VAERS makes it essentially useless as a resource for quantitative study. Its value would be in generating hypotheses for future rigorous studies.

If "VAERS" is essential useless, then what would be your suggestion that people do if they believe they've suffered from an adverse reaction?

Its value is in generating hypotheses for future rigorous studies

One can have a pretty good idea on whether adverse events might be related based on the nature of the event and the mechanism of the intervention.

Also, as H noted, this could just be seen as under-reporting to VAERS on more established vaccines.

Had my J&J vaccine yesterday.

I feel fine today.

A couple coworkers feel bad but not severe.

Alan

The previous record for vaccine development was the mumps vaccine. It took 4 years to develop. The main reason vaccines have taken so long to develop is not the testing and approval process. Most of the time is dedicated to finding what works with many, many, many failed attempts that do not make it out of phase 1.

The genetic sequence for the COVID 19 virus was completed in about a week and made available to everyone in the world to use in vaccine development. This helped vaccine developers in their decision to target the spike protein in the first vaccines to go to trials. This combination of light years worth of advances in science and a good bit of luck made it possible to get an approved vaccine in record time.

trashcan wrote:

Sorry I accidentally hit post above. What Harambe means is that if a vaccine is not seen as new or interesting or risky, any adverse event is less likely to make it into VAERS. If a vaccine is seen as novel then any adverse event even if it seems entirely unrelated would likely be reported.

The self-reporting nature of VAERS makes it essentially useless as a resource for quantitative study. Its value would be in generating hypotheses for future rigorous studies.

Yes, this. Thank you.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

*Last question: Do you work in the medical field? Are you an M.D.? Or perhaps do you work for Moderna or Pfizer? Do you have any YouTube videos out or maybe a Twitter account that we can take a look at for educational purposes?

I used to hold office hours at the Cincinnati Zoo. No longer...

>100 million Americans are fully vaccinated. You'd expect something like 2500 of those to die EVERY DAY just based on baseline mortality rates.

Moreso because we prioritized elderly and unhealthy groups for the vaccine first.

Any sort of VAERS astrology that doesn't even attempt to factor in baseline morbidity is fearmongering.

Harambe wrote:

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

*Last question: Do you work in the medical field? Are you an M.D.? Or perhaps do you work for Moderna or Pfizer? Do you have any YouTube videos out or maybe a Twitter account that we can take a look at for educational purposes?

I used to hold office hours at the Cincinnati Zoo. No longer...

Why the sarcasm? I've been asking you legitimate questions about the vaccines. You seem very knowledgeable with the mRNA vaccines as well as extremely passionate about everyone getting vaccinated. So, why the avoidance in answering the these questions?

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I used to hold office hours at the Cincinnati Zoo. No longer...

Why the sarcasm? I've been asking you legitimate questions about the vaccines. You seem very knowledgeable with the mRNA vaccines as well as extremely passionate about everyone getting vaccinated. So, why the avoidance in answering the these questions?

Credentialism is boring/useless on anonymous message boards. Harambe could be anyone, can claim to be anyone, even a gorilla doctor. You should be able, on some level, to assess evidence regardless of the qualifications of the provider.

There's plenty of places for you go speak with or be informed by a non-anonymous "certified" doctor or whatever you want. LRC just isn't that place. Harambe doesn't owe anyone anything and is not playing into your game to attempt to discredit them.