Megan Green72 said:Nothing I said contradicts that at all. ☕
The level of evidence regarding safety at this stage is way lower than what we see with mandatory vaccines that have been used for years, even if it stays above the threshold we decided was acceptable.
And those "long-standing" mandatory vaccines were also new once upon a time.
That mostly comes down to definitions. Here are the facts that don't care about your definitions:
- the vaccine doesn't meet the requirements for standard MA
- data—not just the long-term stuff collected for all drugs and vaccines, but the kind of data required for regular MA—is still being collected
- using that same dataset, the vaccine in the USA received emergency approval, which is basically an authorization to use an experimental vaccine.
There's no such thing as CMA in the USA, so it's not clear how a vaccine that cleared all major phases and met its primary endpoints for safety and efficacy gets fast-tracked without it being an EUA.
btw go study the difference between full FDA approval and an EUA.
https://vaccine.unchealthcare.org/sc...-fda-approval/
An EUA does not affect vaccine safety, because it does not impact development, such as research, clinical studies and the studying of side effects and adverse reactions. Instead, it speeds up manufacturing and administrative processes.
If a vaccine lacks safety evidence, it’s experimental—period. I don't care how much mental gymnastics people try to pull to spin it otherwise.
Whether you call it experimental, semi-experimental, or non-experimental doesn't matter—those labels don't change the reality.
I'm not calling it experimental or semi-experimental. I'm calling it a vaccine that got CMA/EUA based on efficacy and safety data, and that's exactly how I'm going to treat it. Calling it "experimental" or trying to soften it with "semi-experimental" is malicious because it's nowhere near the truth.
Nah, you're just quoting a post that compares potential unknown long-term vaccine side effects against the possible unknown long-term consequences of the virus itself.
Yeah. Basically.
Vaccine safety and testing levels asymptotically approach 100%, but you only actually hit 100% at infinity.
The likelihood of stumbling upon some unknown side effect depends entirely on how extensively a vaccine has been tested and how widespread its use has become. Mind you, there's a specific subset of side effects that simply don't overlap between those two categories.
Take, for example, when the FDA was first weighing in on blood clots related to the AstraZeneca vaccine; the agency basically admitted they hadn't performed an analysis broken down by age groups because the member states hadn't submitted the necessary data. In the context of a formal clinical trial, failing to collect that kind of data would tank the whole thing—it wouldn't even pass a basic peer review.
Here’s another scenario: it might be demonstrated that a certain side effect occurs frequently enough once antibody levels hit a specific threshold that vaccinating those individuals becomes counterproductive (they end up facing a higher risk with less net benefit due to their existing antibodies). A rigorous clinical trial would perform that specific analysis, but in the real world, we aren't checking people's antibody levels before they get jabbed. Consequently, it becomes incredibly difficult to detect such a side effect because we're only looking at total incidence rates, rather than having the baseline data needed to identify that it's disproportionately affecting a specific subgroup.
Then there’s the second type of side effect that mass observation simply cannot catch: long-term issues that require time to manifest, such as various autoimmune diseases. These can wreak havoc on the body while symptoms only surface after the damage has already accumulated. Whether you have 5,000 people or 5,000,000, the symptoms won't show up until enough time has passed.
Even those mandatory vaccines we've used for decades were once considered new.
Nobody is claiming they weren't new. The real question is whether they were being rolled out on a massive scale while they were still "new," and whether there was a push to make them mandatory the moment they hit the market.
I'm not going to call it experimental or semi-experimental; I'll call it a vaccine that received CMA/EUA based on facts regarding efficacy and safety, and that is exactly how I will treat it. Calling a vaccine "experimental," or your attempt to soften it by calling it "semi-experimental," is malicious because it is nowhere near the truth.
I've done my homework on the differences. As I've already told you, I don't actually care what labels you want to use, but the moment you try to equate them with drugs that have standard Marketing Authorization, I'm going to shut you down because they simply do not possess the same level of safety. If they did, the CMA wouldn't exist in the first place.
