https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
I'm not trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of the vaccines that have been approved. Rather, I'm simply pointing out we don't have much data on the long term effects on humans.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multimedia-article/were-be...
This seems to be at least partially supported by the current risks in regards to currently available non-mRNA vaccines (such as AZ).
Also I'm not really sure what saying "we don't know the long term effect are" accomplishes. It's not really adding much to the conversation.
It doesn't seem like it really matters if adenovirus vector vaccines is an "old idea" - after all, the idea of using MRNA has also been around for a long time. But if we've only started actually using them recently, how different is our knowledge of long-term effects?
The fact that it is an "old idea" is indeed unimportant, but what is very, very important is that large scale study over long periods has already been performed on that vaccination platform so we really do know a lot about it.
That means that the similarity to mRNA is a good thing in terms of any worries about unexpected consequences. Of course it also means that we know that the risk of any unexpected consequences for adenovirus vaccines is also very low.
You are making the claim that there may not be any long term effects to the vaccine, but the information you cite has nothing to do with mRNA-based vaccines. I'm simply suggesting we don't have the data yet to make such claims.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-drugs-found-c...
Your supposition about likelihood bears no resemblance to reality. It's almost as if you're misleading people on purpose. I certainly hope that's not the case.
Fully 1/3 of all medications approved by the FDA turn out to have serious, and some life-threatening, side effects YEARS after the medication was approved.
______
You realize that this new 'vaccine' bears no resemblance whatsoever to any prior vaccinations?
This new Covid Vaccine is not a true vaccine. This is a drug that modifies the inner workings of cells.
That is not a vaccine but a 'new drug'.
I repeat: 1/3 of all new drugs have serious, and sometimes life threatening, reactions attributed to them between 1-5 years after the drug's approval and release to the public.
1/3...
That is not an insignificant number, and it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this new drug will have similar issues.
Vaccines are behaving differently from drugs. Once they took effect, and your immune system reacted, it is over. And with millions of people vaccinated by now, for months, any adverse effects would have shown. That's why we discuss blood clots, under normal circumstances these rare cases would have gone unnoticed for quite a while.
As I understand, the required teratogenicity study in rats with Pfizer is ongoing as of two weeks ago [1]. It’s rather optimistic to claim we’ve seen everything when even animal studies haven’t completed. Vaccine science itself is rapidly developing. Now I don’t think there will be issues with this drug, but surprises may lurk still.
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approv...
Roughly the immune system says "OK, let's attack things this shape" - which is why it's so useful for defending us against a wide variety of viruses - but alas, the shape it's picking in some patients happens to also match Platelet Factor 4, so now they are mounting an immune defence against their own blood clotting mechanism which is bad.
I don't know (perhaps if I read more papers about this I'd find out) whether it is suspected that the immune system makes this bad matching choice based on the spike protein (which we want it to match because of this coronavirus killing millions of people) or the adenovirus (which even if it could replicate in humans, which it can't, basically gives you the common cold so who cares) which is delivering it. If it's the latter, that's showing an advantage to the mRNA vaccines, since they don't need a viral delivery mechanism at all.
The very rare and very serious side effects are tracked closely, and it's likely that for a vast number of medications, even though the very rare side effects are written on the packaging, there actually is no causal connection with the medication whatsoever.
Why would this be any different?
> This new Covid Vaccine is not a true vaccine. This is a drug that modifies the inner workings of cells.
Flagged as misinformation. Complete nonsense.
It's clear with statements like "This new Covid Vaccine is not a true vaccine" that you are just parroting anti-vax talking points. Nobody changed the definition of vaccines and mRNA vaccines fit the definition no matter how you describe them
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-latest-antivax-false-cl...