Vaccines only become vaccines when they are 'sufficiently tested'? I think it's bloody obvious by now that these vaccines are by and large effective. The only question is around safety.
An unsafe vaccine is not not a vaccine. The live polio vaccine was also unsafe to some extent, but it was still a vaccine.
It may be comparable to a cold for an 18-year-old, but not for an 80-year-old. So the benefits of the experimental medicine definitely outweigh the risks in that case.
A standard cold, can still knock an 80 year old into complications. Covid doesn't have anything special about it that only affects the aged. The aged die from complications of seasonal illnesses all the time. We didnt see governments lockdown entire countries and "rush" to Find a cure for the cold or flu.
You're falling for the "Won't someone think of the elderly" trope.
Callous of me? Perhaps. But survival is a bitch, and this is being said by someone who knows fully well, they're part of the 90% who couldn't make it wild.
Or instead of taking experimental bullshit they could take other drugs that have been tested for years if not decades and proven to be effective against it like HCQ, Ivermectin or however ya spell that shit, etc.
Vaccines are run through trial testing, not to prove they are safe, but to learn how to adjust them TO make them safer. These are not calibrated, they haven't been stress-tested for flaws, it's all theoretical!
Guess what Bill Gates didn't do with his shitty live-attenuated oral polio vaccine that should have been scrapped in place of the standard proven safe inactivated injectable polio vaccine.
As the vast majority of people understand the term, a vaccine is an injection of deactivated microorganisms designed to trigger prevention of infection and transmission. The entire concept of herd immunity via vaccination is derived from this definition of the term.
An injection that merely reduces symptoms of a disease is not a "vaccine" as the term is used and understood by the vast majority of people. Such an injection is also incapable of triggering herd immunity or protecting vulnerable members of society who cannot handle the injection.
Given the stated purpose of covid-19 vaccines is to reduce symptoms - not to prevent infection or transmission - all policies based on "percentage of vaxxed" are baseless and dishonest.
All claims that the vaccines do prevent infection/transmission are suspect because:
The CDC deliberately stopped reporting breakthrough cases two months ago, so we have no idea how many vaccinated people are catching/spreading covid-19
The only data we do have to support the claim that vaccines reduce infection/transmission come from Pfizer, a company that has already received the largest fine in US history for lying about their products
In the event that these vaccines do end up preventing infection/transmission, we would then have evidence that the injections are doing something other than what they were ostensibly intended to do. There is no guarantee that all such side effects will be positive.
As far as testing goes: a vaccine becomes a safe vaccine when it has been sufficiently tested. They've been trying (and failing) to get FDA approval for these vaccines for over a decade. They only obtained Emergency Use Authorization because pharma pulled strings and had HCQ and Ivermectin declared ineffective treatments for covid-19. A drug cannot receive EUA if an effective approved treatment already exists.
If covid-19 vaccines end up having no long-term side effects for the vast majority of users, that will be good a thing. It won't change a damn thing with regard to the lies and abuses that were committed to rush these shots to market and coerce people to take them.
Vaccines only become vaccines when they are 'sufficiently tested'? I think it's bloody obvious by now that these vaccines are by and large effective. The only question is around safety.
An unsafe vaccine is not not a vaccine. The live polio vaccine was also unsafe to some extent, but it was still a vaccine.
They haven't finished human trials. That's sometime in 2023.
I think it's safe to say we shouldn't take experimental drugs to deal with a minor cold.
It may be comparable to a cold for an 18-year-old, but not for an 80-year-old. So the benefits of the experimental medicine definitely outweigh the risks in that case.
A standard cold, can still knock an 80 year old into complications. Covid doesn't have anything special about it that only affects the aged. The aged die from complications of seasonal illnesses all the time. We didnt see governments lockdown entire countries and "rush" to Find a cure for the cold or flu.
You're falling for the "Won't someone think of the elderly" trope.
Callous of me? Perhaps. But survival is a bitch, and this is being said by someone who knows fully well, they're part of the 90% who couldn't make it wild.
Or instead of taking experimental bullshit they could take other drugs that have been tested for years if not decades and proven to be effective against it like HCQ, Ivermectin or however ya spell that shit, etc.
So yes these 'vaccines' can go fuck right off.
Glad someone is saying this. Safety and efficacy and risk are just numbers. There is a calculation to be done for each demographic.
From the downvotes I guess some people seriously believe that covid is “just a cold” for the 80+ demographic? Insane.
Vaccines are run through trial testing, not to prove they are safe, but to learn how to adjust them TO make them safer. These are not calibrated, they haven't been stress-tested for flaws, it's all theoretical!
Guess what Bill Gates didn't do with his shitty live-attenuated oral polio vaccine that should have been scrapped in place of the standard proven safe inactivated injectable polio vaccine.
As the vast majority of people understand the term, a vaccine is an injection of deactivated microorganisms designed to trigger prevention of infection and transmission. The entire concept of herd immunity via vaccination is derived from this definition of the term.
An injection that merely reduces symptoms of a disease is not a "vaccine" as the term is used and understood by the vast majority of people. Such an injection is also incapable of triggering herd immunity or protecting vulnerable members of society who cannot handle the injection.
Given the stated purpose of covid-19 vaccines is to reduce symptoms - not to prevent infection or transmission - all policies based on "percentage of vaxxed" are baseless and dishonest.
All claims that the vaccines do prevent infection/transmission are suspect because:
The CDC deliberately stopped reporting breakthrough cases two months ago, so we have no idea how many vaccinated people are catching/spreading covid-19
The only data we do have to support the claim that vaccines reduce infection/transmission come from Pfizer, a company that has already received the largest fine in US history for lying about their products
In the event that these vaccines do end up preventing infection/transmission, we would then have evidence that the injections are doing something other than what they were ostensibly intended to do. There is no guarantee that all such side effects will be positive.
As far as testing goes: a vaccine becomes a safe vaccine when it has been sufficiently tested. They've been trying (and failing) to get FDA approval for these vaccines for over a decade. They only obtained Emergency Use Authorization because pharma pulled strings and had HCQ and Ivermectin declared ineffective treatments for covid-19. A drug cannot receive EUA if an effective approved treatment already exists.
If covid-19 vaccines end up having no long-term side effects for the vast majority of users, that will be good a thing. It won't change a damn thing with regard to the lies and abuses that were committed to rush these shots to market and coerce people to take them.