That should be the debates starting point.
- Fauci led NIAID
- NIAID funded EcoHealth (an external non profit)
- EcoHealth sent some money to Wuhan labs
- Maybe Covid comes from a leak of Wuhan labs
You can decide for yourself if Fauci is just a boogeyman or has personal responsibility in this chain of “maybes”
By this logic Trump cause Covid because he was President at the time.
a lab leak doesnt in and of itself prove that gain of function research isnt worth further pursuit, if better care can be taken. there is clearly risk/reward calculations, and not everyone will agree what risk in a pool of risks is worse.
I kind of wish there was a different flag-like option for cases like this. That would mean that it was more than down-voted, but not hidden.
This implies that corners were cut. They were not. They went through the full regulatory procedures.
> many people still sit with the issues they caused
Few medicines are entirely without side effects. The effects of the virus were in general far worse. Millions of lives were saved from the vaccines.
> Not a win
Apart from the millions of lives that were saved.
> at the very least, they reduced the confidence of average people in vaccines and gave credence to the anti-vaxxer
This was thanks to scientific illiteracy, cynical political opportunism, and rancid leadership. The vaccines were a huge success by any reasonable measure.
This is a non-argument if you decide to adjust regulatory procedures for that one case.
what does many in this sentence mean? are you claiming that a large percent of health professionals "suffered effects"?
That's absolutely not true. The standard for new vaccines, iirc, required a period of something on the order of 7 years. Time, in this case, is not a function of procedure that can be expedited in an emergency, but is actually an important element in and of itself. Many issues do not manifest immediately and actually need follow up over time.
The crazy thing about these vaccines was that both mRNA vaccines and the viral vector vaccines were completely new platforms, never deployed at scale. They work entirely differently than all other vaccines. Up until this point, vaccines all delivered the antigen in one of 3 ways: you get a weakened virus, you get a dead virus, or you get the antigen itself (subunit protein like Novavax). Both the mRNA (Pfizer & Moderna) and the viral vector (J&J) vaccines worked by getting either mRNA or DNA (viral vector) into your cells, and then having your own cells produce and express the antigen themselves. Basically the difference between server generated code or shipping the JS for you to run the SPA on your own client.
One of the crazy things about this was that it wasn't obvious what the implications would be of having our own cells expressing the antigens (and thus flagging themselves for destruction by our immune system). This was particularly concerning because the cells that were shown to be doing this, despite the complete lie that kept being repeated of the vaccine staying localized at the injection site, were found all over the body. In the case of the viral vector vaccines, at least they were being delivered by a vessel (living adenovirus) that our bodies have had billions of years of evolution to determine where they might end up. In the case of the mRNA vaccines, though, the vessel was a lipid nanoparticle with an exceptional ability to deliver payloads basically anywhere in the body. Note: the attention these lipid nanoparticles had received prior to their use in mRNA was their ability to deliver payloads to places that are notoriously difficult to reach, notably their ability to cross the brain blood barrier. So you have delivery mechanisms delivering a payload that makes our cells into antigen factories, shown to be producing them all over the body, and targeting themselves for destruction by the immune system/causing an increased immune response in these areas.
And then, for the icing on the cake, there was mounting evidence that the antigen itself was actually likely destructive/problematic.
I could go off forever on this topic. The amount of obfuscation and gaslighting was insurmountable for anybody that was even remotely interested in figuring out what was happening. From a personal perspective, my trust in many institutions was permanently shaken.
Their reaction was anti-science and driven by ideology and things like this is why trust in the media and medical establishment was destroyed because it was highly visible.
Symptoms similar but milder and less frequent is a general expectation of any vaccine, especially early forms of the vaccine. Early vaccines were deactivated or variant forms of the actual disease, and modern vaccines generally contain fragments of the actual disease.
Occurring in roughly 8 out a million doses. (https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availabi...)
You make your own risk assessment, but that seems extremely low risk as a drug that prevents millions of deaths
From the vaccines? Is there any clinical basis for this category of long-term vaccine harm?
Yes. I'm saying now that we've had time to examine those cases and look at the data, how many people are clinically agreed to have actually suffered long-term harms? (I don't believe the myocarditis was a long-term effect.)
Unfortunately, this isn't a claim that can be made. We don't know how many people got the virus, or how many times. And IIRC, the cardiac issues of the virus were mostly in older demographics, the J&J was affecting young a healthy people.
One of the outcomes of COVID was more awareness of post-viral syndromes.
It wasn't made clear enough to the public that these shots were not sterilizing vaccines.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky- March 2021 statement:
Walensky told MSNBC: "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick. And that it's not just in the clinical trials but it's also in real world data."
So to say the clinical trials reflected absence of infection is a deliberate lie. Either they knew what the data said and lied, or they didn't know what the data said and stated they did, which is a lie.
Armed with that knowledge, you're suggesting that the number of people impacted negatively was so high that we should have forgone releasing these?
During the pandemic, the media was talking about how much death there would be in these under-vaccinated countries, and then it turned out their death rates were much lower.
So, let's break that down.
1. Were they rushed out? I think we can all agree that yes, they were rushed out and sped up beyond what we had seen typically.
2. Many people still sit with the issues they caused? I think we can all agree that yes, there were side effects that they didn't let us know about or didn't know about themselves. So, I think some people (maybe young, healthy people especially) wish they hadn't been forced to take the vaccine. I think this is likely... but even if you don't, you can't state that it's a fact that it's untrue.
3. Your statement now, that populations with higher vaccination rates saw fewer deaths and hospitalizations? Yes, I think I can agree with that. That has nothing to do with points 1 and 2 above though. It doesn't invalidate either above point, and it won't invalidate point #4 below.
4. At the very least, they reduced the confidence of average people in vaccines and gave creedence to the anti-vaxxers - not a win? -- I can agree with the above statement as well. Given I believe that all of the above are true, this statement is still true. It's not a win long term to have abused the process (even if the net was a positive) and hide information from people and you can't blame those people for now having doubts or reservations.
I think all of the above can be true at the same time. Just my 2c.
Even Pfizer's own trial data submitted to the FDA showed an all-cause mortality higher in the control group than the product group. Of course, they explain all the deaths away.
What's discouraged is complaining about downvotes.