Why?
They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage.
That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found. If a technology makes your cells produce a biologically active protein, regulators should establish where it goes, how long it can persist, and what prolonged exposure does before mass deployment.
https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccina... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v...
Not true. This was correctly disclosed in the trial results as a super super super tail risk.
Once they realized that the (minuscule) risk could be even further mitigated by simply spacing out the booster schedule, they adjusted that (Feb 2022).
Nobody was "left in the dark"
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
From your own study you linked. The first comment I ever posted on HN was regarding a similar study where there was no control group whatsoever for unvaccinated people.
I can’t get over the sunk cost reaction to this vaccine. No one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it. Period.
And this is just regarding your study.
Remember how the AstraZeneca vaccine (it was called the “Oxford vaccine” before that bad PR) was taken off the market instantly after reports of blood clots.
One can go on endlessly.
Was this knowably true in Q1 2021?
Can you please share the specific, contemporaneously available information that made this knowably true?
If you can't, then it's not "sunk cost" infecting someone else's thinking, it's hindsight bias infecting yours.
I'm not sure why you're bringing the non-mRNA AstraZeneca vaccine into this. Keep your conspiracy theories straight.
How am I a conspiracy theorist when I literally pointed out what the study said. Is it not a fact that the Oxford vaccine was taken off the market almost immediately after effects were concretely found.
which is still the case, even in the Yale study.
> That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found.
there is an even larger gap between basic epidemiology and what the public understands.
Hard science is difficult to communicate on a good day, on a global pandemic with quacks getting tons of airtime and multiple labs finding conflicting results (due to speed to publish and bad experimental parameters) I would say that was communicated by health experts was surprisingly valid and accurate.
Where public health officials "failed" was not having a megaphone loud enough to drown out the game of telephone that most people (as these comment threads consistently show) were actually hearing information through.
Simplest example: People will say that public health officials told them "masks don't work." But no! Only one person did, and that was USSG Jerome Adams (who wasn't credible nor a major player to begin with). What public health officials said was "we do not know if masks work," which is a more nuanced but completely accurate statement.
I think Fauci might have had a statement early.
But tbh every other scientist said the opposite, every doctor said the opposite.
If I am not wrong he later admitted that he said it to gain time for the goverment to adquire enough for basic needs like hospitals.
And that is the kind of error that erodes public trust and it was bad advice shared because the american public cannot be trusted to prioritise medical professionals being stocked and because the american gov was unprepared.
But one bad statement, in march of 2020, done for the wrong reasons due to an unprepared goverment voted in by selfish people who cannot be trusted to help others does not deny that the UK had great advice the entire time, so did China, and Spain and Italy and most of the other initial hotbeds. They said "we dont have enough n95 for everyone, please social distance until they are availeble" instead of "masks are not needed".
Despite that, he was the face of a pandemic plan in a goverment alergic to facts and led by a dude who recommended injecting bleach so in that situation, he did as much as you can and is still paying for it.
What? The Yale study is where the almost two year figure came from. Are you just making things up? Did you read what I wrote, or anything in the study?
yes, the figure that a small sample of people had long period of protein in them. But most people they looked at had none, which was what they expected.
The average time of it was not contested, the long tail was.
My comment was not even that hard to read, makes me wonder what kind of other information you have misread to come to your conclusions