Hacker News Reader

Comment by boredprograming | Hacker News Reader

A vaccine that cant replicate is as risky as one thats a weakened version of the live virus? Or an injection of the toxin that causes symptoms?

Not every vaccine is on this list you know. Only the ones deemed risky. They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough to be on the list. If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision there's no point debating you.

"We don't know" should be "I don't know". There's been hundreds of studies on mRNA vaccines and chimeric viruses.

You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not. It's just a way to collect incidents of adverse effects in vaccines with known dangers

View on HN

>They haven't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky enough

Sounds like circular reasoning to me. They have't deemed the new COVID vaccines risky, because they don't have the data from population wide use. And they don't have the data, because they don't consider them to be risky.

>If you don't want to believe the scientists behind that decision

I surely don't want to believe these hypothetical scientists who are afraid of data.

It's really not. It's like mandatory reporting for diseases like whooping cough and west Nile virus. Something only gets on the list if it has known risks.

Afraid of what data? Should we start collecting data on every time anyone gets the sniffles? To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks

>To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks

Please provide citation for this claim.

> To get on this list the vaccines need to have proven risks

If that's true, it seems backwards. It should be that they should be on the list by default until they are proven to not have risks.

But then again, every medical treatment has risks, so they should probably be on the list.

>You're pointing towards this list as if it's some oracle for vaccine safety. Its not.

Quite frankly, that is not the case.

In almost all communication that try to promote covid vaccines, they include a statement that amounts to "All healthcare professionals are required by law to report adverse events...".

And this table kind of prove that to be a lie, and you also seem to agree, at least with respect to that point.

Where does it say that? I've never seen it. And if it's required, does it have to be on this list? I don't see why it matters if vaccine is on some random list or not. How is it a lie if they have to report adverse effects and it's not on the list? There's plenty of things they have to report that aren't on any lists

>"The Reportable Events Table (RET) reflects what is reportable by law"

>Where does it say that? I've never seen it.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availabi...

>In the current pandemic, these reports are being used to monitor the occurrence of both known adverse events, as providers of COVID-19 vaccines are required to report serious adverse events to VAERS.

By the way, this also blows your main argument out of the water.

And I found it on the VAERS FAQ https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

> Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)],

It's not on the pdf because it's either outdated or because COVID vaccines are on emergency authorization. There's not a giant conspiracy because something isn't on a random pdf, like I was saying

Ok, so your opinion is that the PDF might be outdated. Makes much more sense than your original reply to be honest..

Yes. I was wrong. But there's also not conspiracy which is what I was trying to rationalize. There's so much BS on the internet these days that are the modern day versions of astrology. Trying to find patterns in randomness to justify crazy beliefs. Most anti vax "information" is such

Making asserting statements when you don't have any evidence for such assertion is also BS, which sadly adds up to the already existing BS on the internet.

So why not stop adding to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com