What level of testing would make these vaccines non experimental in your mind, and what other vaccine do you know that has had that level of rigour applied? I'm genuinely curious
* the perceived scaremongering and desperation of some governments and media;
* Being a cancer survivor and not having clear, trustworthy research on effects on this subgroup (they're using genetic instructions to hijack our own cells and produce a foreign protein? That sounds really clever but it also reminds me of cancer)...
alarm bells were ringing, right or wrong. I'd welcome any information that helps with my concerns. It's a genuine wrestle.
There's no "level of testing" except for time. The fact is that we won't know what the effects of these drugs are in 10 years until 10 years passes. We can run studies and make educated guesses about what might happen in the future but they are just that - guesses. Given the numbers from the latest study in Israel (the study that was touted as requiring the need for boosters), the odds of a double vaccinated person over 50 being hospitalized from Covid after their "immunity waned" was 2 in 10,000. The chance of death was 6 in 100,000. The chances for younger people are much lower. Given that, how much of an unknown risk is it worth taking for a "booster"? Just how much lower than 6 in 100,000 is that chance worth? Everything we do in life is a series of calculated risks. The people who want to take that risk now, or multiple times per year for the rest of their lives should be entitled to do so. But to pretend that this new, experimental mRna vaccine is risk free because we ran a few short-term trials is absurd on its face. To mandate people, let alone infants and small children who have virtually no risk, to take an endless series of these experimental shots is madness.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...