Quote:

---

At one point the subunit vaccine method was never used before. The first subunit vaccine was hep b in the 80s. How long does it take to go from "maybe long term issues down the road" to "tried and true"?

Your second paragraph is both childish and untrue. The world is not black and white, and its easy to believe on the one hand that the FDA does a good job generally but not always, and that they're also probably too conservative on the other. We don't have to worry about most drugs being dangerous or low quality or not working, Aducanumab was probably a mistake, and there are almost certainly good drugs that could save lives that will never come to market because of the 12+ year and $1bn hurdle to get FDA approval. I think the CDC messaging has been bad, I don't think masks are effective NPIs and I don't think children should bear the societal burden to protect the elderly. I do think the vaccines we have are pretty amazing. Are you able to have a discussion without it becoming personal? I bet you can if you try.

---

FDA is too conservative?
Pharmaceutical Companies do make mistakes
From https://www.deconstructingconventional.com/post/18-reason-i-won-t-be-getting-a-covid-vaccine

In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate...3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.

• Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995, 1996, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 (For what it's worth, J&J's vaccine also contains tissues from aborted fetal cells, perhaps a topic for another discussion)
• Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal payout in history. They have lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. You can check out their rap sheet here. Maybe that's why they are demanding that countries where they don't have liability protection put up collateral to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits.
• Astra Zeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. Here's one. Here's another...you get the point. And in case you missed it, the company had their covid vaccine suspended in at least 18 countries over concerns of blood clots, and they completely botched their meeting with the FDA with numbers from their study that didn't match.
• Oh, and apparently J&J (whose vaccine is approved for "Emergency Use" in the US) and Astrazenca (whose vaccine is not approved for "Emergency Use" in the US), had a little mix up in their ingredients...in 15 million doses. Oops.

mRNA Potential side effects
https://rumble.com/vkopys-a-pathologist-summary-of-what-these-jabs-do-to-the-brain-and-other-organs.html

Hepatitis B Vaccine Clinical Trial
Work began in 1970
The first subject was inoculated in November 1978, and by October 1979, recruitment had ended. In May 1980, all trial events were reviewed and classified by an expert panel. In June 1980 the code of vaccine and placebo allocation was broken.
I believe FDA approval was in 1981

Zobel said:

---

At one point the subunit vaccine method was never used before. The first subunit vaccine was hep b in the 80s. How long does it take to go from "maybe long term issues down the road" to "tried and true"?

Your second paragraph is both childish and untrue. The world is not black and white, and its easy to believe on the one hand that the FDA does a good job generally but not always, and that they're also probably too conservative on the other. We don't have to worry about most drugs being dangerous or low quality or not working, Aducanumab was probably a mistake, and there are almost certainly good drugs that could save lives that will never come to market because of the 12+ year and $1bn hurdle to get FDA approval. I think the CDC messaging has been bad, I don't think masks are effective NPIs and I don't think children should bear the societal burden to protect the elderly. I do think the vaccines we have are pretty amazing. Are you able to have a discussion without it becoming personal? I bet you can if you try.

---

Everyone is counting on you to continue posting for the next five to ten years, if you make it, and give us updates.

WestTexAg12 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

blacksox said:

---

Moth dna? No thanks.

---

You have no idea what you are even talking about.

---

Blacksox is the same one who is all for employers forcing vaccines. Funny how he isn't for this one though. Gotta be a troll or one who is hugely invested in the other ones.

---

He's getting paid by ActBlue. Pretty obvious to me.

There is no rational reason to be for vaccines, but not this one.

richardag said:

---

Quote:

---

At one point the subunit vaccine method was never used before. The first subunit vaccine was hep b in the 80s. How long does it take to go from "maybe long term issues down the road" to "tried and true"?

Your second paragraph is both childish and untrue. The world is not black and white, and its easy to believe on the one hand that the FDA does a good job generally but not always, and that they're also probably too conservative on the other. We don't have to worry about most drugs being dangerous or low quality or not working, Aducanumab was probably a mistake, and there are almost certainly good drugs that could save lives that will never come to market because of the 12+ year and $1bn hurdle to get FDA approval. I think the CDC messaging has been bad, I don't think masks are effective NPIs and I don't think children should bear the societal burden to protect the elderly. I do think the vaccines we have are pretty amazing. Are you able to have a discussion without it becoming personal? I bet you can if you try.

---

FDA is too conservative?
Pharmaceutical Companies do make mistakes
From https://www.deconstructingconventional.com/post/18-reason-i-won-t-be-getting-a-covid-vaccine

In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate...3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.

• Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995, 1996, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 (For what it's worth, J&J's vaccine also contains tissues from aborted fetal cells, perhaps a topic for another discussion)
• Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal payout in history. They have lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. You can check out their rap sheet here. Maybe that's why they are demanding that countries where they don't have liability protection put up collateral to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits.
• Astra Zeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. Here's one. Here's another...you get the point. And in case you missed it, the company had their covid vaccine suspended in at least 18 countries over concerns of blood clots, and they completely botched their meeting with the FDA with numbers from their study that didn't match.
• Oh, and apparently J&J (whose vaccine is approved for "Emergency Use" in the US) and Astrazenca (whose vaccine is not approved for "Emergency Use" in the US), had a little mix up in their ingredients...in 15 million doses. Oops.

mRNA Potential side effects
https://rumble.com/vkopys-a-pathologist-summary-of-what-these-jabs-do-to-the-brain-and-other-organs.html

Hepatitis B Vaccine Clinical Trial
Work began in 1970
The first subject was inoculated in November 1978, and by October 1979, recruitment had ended. In May 1980, all trial events were reviewed and classified by an expert panel. In June 1980 the code of vaccine and placebo allocation was broken.
I believe FDA approval was in 1981

---

It's true that bad drugs do seep in.

However, the FDA is FAR AND AWAY the most conservative drug regulator on the planet. By a factor of 6 months to 4 years behind EU and Asian regulators.

I get where you are going, but I'm not sure "seep" is the right word here.

Yeah, I think in general the FDA is too conservative. We enjoy the upside of really really really safe drugs, clear understanding of side effects, and you don't generally have to worry about whether the meds you take actually do what they are supposed to or not. But that comes at an opportunity cost.

Here's a recent article that I think probably swings too critical of them, but you get the idea.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/adumbrations-of-aducanumab

Sully Dog said:

---

I get where you are going, but I'm not sure "seep" is the right word here.

---

How about sneak, the word I meant to type.

C@LAg said:

---

if it also gives me wings and let's me fly , I am in.

---

Drink it with a Red Bull!

I got Pfizer and then got Covid.

I'll get this next maybe.

I'm immune af.

Zobel said:

---

At one point the subunit vaccine method was never used before. The first subunit vaccine was hep b in the 80s. How long does it take to go from "maybe long term issues down the road" to "tried and true"?

---

40 years seems like a pretty good amount of time. Definitely better than a few months.

My personal risk for COVID is probably in the 99.9% survivability range. There's a pretty good chance that I've already had it anyway. Further, I suspect that there's at least a one in a thousand chance, probably somewhat higher, that the mRNA vaccines have pretty serious long range health consequences from mechanisms that we don't fully understand yet.

As long as all the probabilities are so small it's hard to make really smart decisions (the error bars overwhelm the estimate), and when I can't figure out the right thing I tend to default to inaction.

I've never been in the camp that thinks it's really high probability that the vaccines are dangerous (although I know more people who have gotten sick from the vaccines than from COVID), and I don't think it's part of a plot to control populations or whatever.

Is it normal for every company under the sun to make vaccines for things? Or is this special because of all the fearporn driving it over this weakass virus that is less deadly for the vast majority of humanity than the flu?

What are you basing your greater than 1 in 1000 chance of serious long range health consequences suspicions on? This is like pre test probability, so what are we comparing it to? All new treatments ever?

I also don't think "a couple of months" is a correct description of our understanding of mRNA therapies etc. This has been an area of research since the 70s and serious research including in humans for over a decade. There has to be a first broad use sometime. Doesn't mean you need to volunteer, but it does mean someone has to - or we would never benefit from new treatment methods.

And I might also note you're comparing risk of death from covid to risk of serious health consequences from vaccines, which are not the same categories. Your odds of some complication other than death from covid are much higher than dying (morbidity vs mortality). Which is not to say covid presents a serious health risk for morbidity for you either, to be clear.

I started out trying to be thorough but that was going to be a thousand words so I cut it back. However, to be more precise on one statement that is probably key:

When I say one in a thousand chance of long term significant issues from the vaccine, I don't mean that there is evidence that one in a thousand who get it have an issue. I mean a one in a thousand chance that years from now a significant issue manifests itself due to some mechanism in the immune system / genetic propagation pathways we don't fully understand yet. Something we can't test for in any way other than a lot of people having tried it decades ago, as you point out.

Pure tail risk from a new technology; unquantifiable, small, but real. Very different from "Bill Gates adenochrome virus shedding heavy metals sterilization 100% sheeple!"

My main point is that it's all very low probabilities which makes it really hard to tell. For me in particular, I am pretty young which means a LONG time for any downsides to show up and a very low risk from the virus itself. If I were 80, the same calculation would indicate a strong preference to get any vaccine.

I understand completely. I guess I'm trying to figure what would be a good analog to try to actually guess at a pre-test probability. Would it be the propensity of any drug that hits phase 3 trial to cause long term harm? Or something else entirely? It's an interesting question.

Zobel said:

---

I understand completely. I guess I'm trying to figure what would be a good analog to try to actually guess at a pre-test probability. Would it be the propensity of any drug that hits phase 3 trial to cause long term harm? Or something else entirely? It's an interesting question.

---

I doubt that enough data exists to accurately measure the risk. I think what you said is the right approach, but there have probably been a lot of phase 3 trials that don't look anything like the first mRNA vaccine. E.g., a bunch of really similar antidepressant drugs activating the same basic mechanism have gone through trials. Do those get to count individually or just the first one? Or on a different axis, the phase 3 trial for a topical analgesic probably doesn't do much to help us understand the risks of duping the immune system this particular way. And you need a lot more data to measure very low probabilities than very high probabilities.

Super interesting problem that the right data may not exist for yet. It will in 20 years.

It here has to be something. What drugs work by facilitating protein production? Those would be a good start. Subunit vaccines probably are a reasonable analog as well.

The fact that the half life is known, the duration and amount of protein expressed is known and inherently self limiting, and the actual "selection" of the protein itself is controlled makes me think this is probably a lot safer than a lot of treatments. It seems safer on a fundamental level than the J&J vector approach, at any rate.

Once the mRNA is gone, it's gone.

Zobel said:

---

It here has to be something. What drugs work by facilitating protein production? Those would be a good start. Subunit vaccines probably are a reasonable analog as well.

The fact that the half life is known, the duration and amount of protein expressed is known and inherently self limiting, and the actual "selection" of the protein itself is controlled makes me think this is probably a lot safer than a lot of treatments. It seems safer on a fundamental level than the J&J vector approach, at any rate.

Once the mRNA is gone, it's gone.

---

I agree that it sounds safer in multiple ways according to what we currently know.