Comment by defaultprimate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by defaultprimate | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Long enough for there to be a sufficient amount of statistically significant data that demonstrably proves that mRNA techniques are safe with no deleterious long term side effects especially compared to the afflictions they are supposed to mitigate, and in spite of their disastrous results in animal trials over the past few decades. You don't need a specific time because we have specific ways of determining statistically significant effects over time and populations. The amount of data that currently exists is 0.

Non eradicating vaccines during a pandemic of disease with transmissibility as high as COVID are actually a terrible idea for the same reason not finishing your antibiotics is: It applies selective pressure that promotes immune escape and treatment resistance.

>By virtue of its distribution these vaccines have already been tested far more extensively than any other vaccine in history at the time of their release. If you don't trust this vaccine then you should never trust any future vaccine.

This is a new level of newspeak. Releasing without testing is testing. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.

It’s completely normal for all medications and especially vaccines to be monitored very closely after they are first approved (also called "phase 4").

This is a completely normal part of the approval process, simply because (phase 3) studies with a couple thousand participants will miss very rare side effects (if they exist) because, you know, statistics.

Of course you can trust a vaccine much, much, much more if it has been administered to a couple billion people as opposed to a couple thousand people, with no serious side effects being observed (or the side effects that are observed accounted for and reacted to).

You implication that this is somehow newspeak is deeply weird and irrational.

Long term data doesn't exist, period.

Newspeak isn't newspeak. Got it.

Cloud you please explain your point more clearly and actually respond to what I have written?

I'm not sure how you want me to respond to what you stated since it has nothing to do with what I stated.

Long term data doesn't exist. There's no evidence the vaccines are safe long term. They also experienced greatly accelerated trial periods with data and time that would have been woefully insufficient for any other medical intervention. The data, results, and methodology for the trials is currently embroiled in scientific and ethical controversy.

To state they are "the most well tested vaccines ever" is blatant gaslighting. Widely distributed is not tested.

The request for the other poster to "actually respond to what you have written" is somewhat ironic given that you didn't do the same for them. They specifically said they wanted data on the "long term side effects" which you then completely ignored in your reply, and instead talked about how it had been "administered to a couple of billion people".

This is something that I see authoritarian pro-mandate people do all the time and it genuinely confuses me. Why do you do this? Do you think that testing with a billion people for a year will give you the same data as testing a hundred million people for ten years? Or is it just a genuine mistake?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com