411–420 of 533 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rushed clinical trials were only done with 122 people and a control group. During the very short trial, 1 person died in the first group, 2 in the other. The “conclusion” was its better to be vaccinated and it protects you better. 12 months later AstraZenica vaccine pulled from market everywhere ….
This is not true lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the point of science/health communication sources is to communicate . People aren't going to spend an afternoon figuring out where to find medical trial results, learn how to read them with a bunch of unknown terms, and form a risk tolerance analysis. I know this. You know this. Everyone know this. The health and science communicators must improve how they communicate with the public.
That's why they say: "these medicines are found to be safe and effective after thorough study, and for patients who meet X Y Z criteria, they are worth taking, and for patients who meet P Q R criteria, you should consult your doctor." It's perfectly clear. Or are you arguing that people need to know the numbers but have no obligation/ability to actually figure out what they mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the point of science/health communication sources is to communicate . People aren't going to spend an afternoon figuring out where to find medical trial results, learn how to read them with a bunch of unknown terms, and form a risk tolerance analysis. I know this. You know this. Everyone know this. The health and science communicators must improve how they communicate with the public.
Hence things like the US FDA's major statement / CCN standards: https://www.fda.gov/media/184312/download Providing accurate-in-effect summarized information is a difficult balance to strike. Ultimately though, if people really care, they should be parsing through study results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did all the normal steps in the US. It was faster because they had the full attention of the FDA (so zero admin delays), and they did some parts in parallel, risking wasting money if things did not work out. The mRNA approach already had years of work prior to COVID, and was already reviewed for safety.
The world was lucky the omicron mutation chose virulence over lethality - it could outcompete the older, more “effective” strains. This coupled with vaccines, isolation and antivirals (and treatment changes) kept the count down. A different roll of the mutation dice might have made a sars that spread easily. That would have thinned out the middle aged folks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, fighting the movement doesn't do anything for anyone. We both agree you need to fix the regulators - that's the thing you can change, and the actions that help there look nothing like arguing with the movement.
The problem with the recent (Tuesday) Supreme Court overturning of Humphreys Executor^ is that it makes Congressionally-intended independent regulatory agencies (read: FDA) much more behold-to and controllable-by any current President. Which turns "fixing the regulator to use facts" back into "convincing enough people to elect a President who believes in the scientific method." ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphre…
If your goal is to get more people vaccinated, the best thing you can do is going to be local. Funding or volunteering at free vaccination drives. Getting vaccination science into your local school curriculum early. Asking your local health department what they are struggling with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some data is, some isnt. Most people dont look for it and public health communications isnt data focused. Nobody was was claiming that people cant google. I dont know why you bring this up as a gotcha when someone said public health communications should share more data.
All of the required data is shared. Please identify what pieces of data are missing for what specific drugs/trials.
Can you find one that even links to the trial results?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vaccines have always been about preventing the spread of the disease and “the definition of vaccines” has not changed. This is easy to prove. Simply find a high school biology textbook printed before Covid.
Vaccine the word came from vacca for "cow", and cowpox virus being weakened and injected to prevent cowpox. MRNA is not weakened virus, it's a spike protein in this case. Or so that's the argument.
Inoculation is where a weakened pathogen is introduced to create immune resistance against that same pathogen (see inoculation parties).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the risk for healthy young people was minuscule Arguably so was the risk from the vaccine. About 17400 people under 20 died of covid. According to this paper https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8875435/ all the people who died from side effects of the covid vaccine were over 22 (its possible that is not exhaustive, but i can't seem to find any examples of confirmed deaths related to the vaccine for children. I…
Why do people keep saying 22? There's more than 22 videos of people suddenly falling to the ground after the vaccine mandates. Does no one remember? I can't be the only one...
> falling to the ground
Someone fainting at the sight of a needle (or the injection), is not something i, or most people, would consider a dangerous side effect.