higherup

> it would be impossible to hide.

There is nothing to hide if there is no data collected in the first place. Here in this video, you can see that even injuries sustained by people who took part in the trials are being rejected by the doctors citing as caused by "anxiety".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8

I think people are completely oblivious to this issue, and is under this fallacy that if there was something wrong with the vaccines, then the information will automatically appear in public perception. If you think this, you need to only look at how smoking went on for a long time without the people noticing any problem with it.

With vaccines, we know that the signal is killed right at the point of generation, because the medical practicioners are conditioned (being charitable here) to reject any injury as not being caused by the Vaccines.

The risks of Vaccines is not limited to the AEFI caused by a proper preparation of the Vaccine, but also include the problems with manufacturing such as this as well...

Also, I wonder what the foreign substance was.

>At this point with billions of people vaccinated around the world, the risk profiles are pretty accurate

No. With out no strictly mandated reporting of AEFIs, billions of administrated doses cannot indicate a safety profile..

Even with around 1% events reported, the serious events are around 1 in 5000

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311640

>If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000

They are not. They are like 1 in 5000 (still based on volutary reporting)

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...

>Just get the vaccine, it's not hard.

Getting the Vaccine is easy. What is hard is to trust the what every biased, safety studies done on it and the fact the AEFI reporting system is not strictly mandated, indicating a bias from the authorities to not want to know about potential vaccine injuries.

As usual, this comment will get flagged. If you see this comment check back a bit later to see the shilling on HN.

Envious? I feel pity for them.

Poor suckers might live 200 years in a world devoid of any sort of fun.

>I mean that groups without any conflict of interest can gather population level data and evaluate for themselves how effective the vaccines are,

It won't work because for every such group, there will be 10 groups with high conflict of interest that can counter any finding of your hypothetical group, and journals with conflict of interests will reject the findings of that group, but instead give high visibility to the reports of high-conflict of interest groups..

Quickly no one will dare to research the said topic.

> Who is to stop me doing that?

me.

What do you do when assasins call you an assasin (Apocalypse now...)?

What do you call it when you kill, in the name of saving lives?

No it does not.

Because that would be like saying, just because all you got is a binocular with very limited magnification/resolving power, satelites for jupiter does not exist, because you cannot see them through it.

Someone should name this fallacy.

>The beauty of science is that now that the vaccines are out there it becomes easier to independently access them and move our knowledge further in the right direction.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Yes, you are right. So either way, these vaccines has not passed through proper safety evaluation.

Just because something is not possible, does not make it any less required.

>I am pretty sure Sputnik V is fine. It has been administered to tens of millions inside Russia itself. If there were massive problems with it, we would know by now.

No, we wouldn't. Because most of the Vaccine AEFI tracking is based on voluntary reporting, and is known to only report around 1% of the events.

Even if it was not the case, we wouldn't still know without a control group. Basically this is why systematic trials are done to measure these things.

So this logic does not absolve Sputnik vaccine, or any other current vaccines in use.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2033538

Does not make much sense..

Much more likely is that what they were putting out was simply the truth, and people who didn't like it were calling it propaganda and mis-information...

Can someone tell me why VAERS reports are not strictly mandated for all observed AEFIs?

Anyone who says vaccines are safe, when there is no method to strictly monitor observed AEFIs, is perpetuating a blatent lie.

Without people having an option to reject a vaccine, and without an option to claim liability, and without an efficient AEFI monitoring in place, there is absolutely little incentive for the vaccine producers to ensure the quality. The is economics 101. It is sad that such blatant deceptions are possible in todays world...

And people who are refusing to bend down is fighting against this eventuality...shame on the shills who are making propoganda where they are cutting the branch they are sitting on...

>we do not in fact know that the vaccine is safe

It would go a long way in these discussion if you make it clear which vaccine you are talking about.

>very few people refuse to drive over the unlikely possibility of a fatal car accident, or live in a basement on the remote possibility that a tree or meteor will fall on their home.

That is because there is no media that is fear mongering on these things by reporting 24x7 on every car accident in gruesome details, and run reports on how driving in a car is very dangerous, when there is a chance that one of the thounsand other drivers that you come across on the road might be a crazed, drunk, distracted person that could hit you, support it with "statistics", and just because you survived the last trip, does not mean that you ll survive the next.

They will also run stories about these "anti-walk" persons who took a car or bike, but died in a horrible crashes.

The point is, everything is a line between risk and benefits, and when the risk and benefits are a matter of perception, media has great potential to come in and set where that line is..

As I said in comment above, we know that drinking water cannot be bad for us, because all organism drank water all through their evolution, and if it was bad in some way, natural selection would have selected those that incurred damages caused by water drinking...

But it didn't happen even after so many years, so we know that drinking water did not make us less capable.

Yes, you are absolutly correct.

The reason for this is that living things are evolved, rather than designed.

We have seen that even in very simple hardware, when using a genetically evolved design, we end up having circuits that functions as per the requirement [1]. But it ended up being very hard to figure out how the thing actually worked, and when components were removed that seemingly did not have any purpose, the thing stopped working.

And this, in my opinion, points to a very important aspect of evolved systems. We can only have a statistical assessment as you say. But no way to say for sure that, "This and this alone will be the only effect of an intervention".

But we can have some idea, depending on the type of intervention. For example, we can say that something that was part of the evolution, will not interfere with its working, simply because evolution has taken it into account during the process. And here comes the concept of something being "natural" to the organism. So we can say that stuff that is taken orally, is much safer than injected stuff. All through our evolution, we have been taking stuff orally. So a Vaccine is much more like throwing a spanner into our workings, than taking something taken orally. Similarly stuff that were part of our natural environment, during evolution can be considered as safer, as opposed to stuff that were not.

I think this is why mocking the concept of "natural", by saying, "Everything is natural, because it is found in nature", is embarrassingly missing the point..

[1] https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

Two questions.

Was there ever a phase 2 trail for this Vaccine?

Is the full clinical trial data published?

It was a joke.

>You are not a horse. You are not a cow.

No, you are sheep.

The image of horse in the article tells a lot about the quality of the article and how it intend to influence the readers. Shame that this is coming from FDA.

>Why even stop smoking if it does not stop 100% of all cases of cancer?

If the intend to ban smoking in a population was to reduce the incidence of lung cancer, and the incidence does not drop after smoking ban, then ban was useless.

>Anything they're likely to get in a rich country will be safe and effective.

Can you show me a rich country where all vaccine AEFIs are strictly reported and followed up and serious ones investigated?

If not, then I am not sure how you can make that claim.

Can someone give a good reason why VAERs reporting of AEFIs is not strictly enforced?

> they are doing the job.

As per https://spectator.com.au/2021/08/most-covid-patients-at-isra...

>Dr Kobi Haviv, medical director of Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, stated that the majority of coronavirus patients in an Israeli hospital are fully vaccinated, including those with severe disease.

>Dr Haviv further specified that: “95% of the severe patients are vaccinated,” adding “85-90% of the hospitalizations are in fully vaccinated people” and the hospital is “opening more and more COVID wards.” This has led him to conclude that “the effectiveness of the vaccine is fading out.”

Note that I am not point out the fact that 95% is vaccinated. But that they are still overwhelming the hospitals, so it seems that your point no longer hold.

Also from the same article

> In other words, the TGA never saw or requested the patient data from Pfizer and simply accepted their reporting of their study as true.This means that when the head of the TGA John Skerritt said that “the safety evidence is pretty thorough” on February 6, his words would ring hollow to most Australians who have assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the TGA had actually looked at the patient data before granting any such approval. As noted by Doctors for Covid Ethics on its website, it is currently not known whether any of the major government agencies around the globe (FDA, MHRA or EMA) has independently verified, or attempted to verify, Pfizer’s data, before proceeding with provisional/emergency authorisation of Pfizer’s mRNA therapy vaccine.

>the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure.

Like when someone say "vaccines are safe and effective", "vaccines are safe and effective", repeatedly, when the statement itself is very wrong because of the generalisation of "vaccines"...

>It's not something strictly limited to vaccines.

I think it is the case if the vaccine does not provide sterilising immunity..

Its called ADE and if Vaccine generated anti-bodies are not sterilising (as current COVID vaccines are), then the antibodies with the bonded virus, can take the virus to places that otherwise would be off limits to it, making it much more lethal..