Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

I wasn't aware that it was expedited, but I also wasn't able to find the documents. I did find that they were sued again to release them in Dec. 2024.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/fda-must-disclose-m...

So, at least until then they continued to hide them.

Do you have a link to the documents, or any subsequent meta study?

And then we still need to resolve the issue of peer review.

> the anti-vax crowd kept talking about being found in the veins/arteries of folks who took the Covid vaccine?

"The deal" is the clot issue was a problem for Astrazeneca. Astrazeneca is not an mRNA vaccine. It came out first, and was offered to a lot of people - until the clots started showing up.

Australia's response (where I live) was to withdraw the Astrazeneca vaccine and go into lockdown instead. They exited lockdown once a safe replacement vaccine was manufactured and could be mass administered, which happened many months later. The safe replacements were predominantly mRNA vaccines.

From memory the final statistics were Astrazeneca, which was only available for a month or two killed 1 in every 1 million doses, the mRNA replacements which now have been used for years have caused about 1 death for every 55 million doses. You wouldn't want to be the unlucky 1 in 55 million, but you would not want to miss out on taking the mRNA vaccines either - they saved 1000's of lives.

In the high risk groups, Astrazeneca turned out to be worth its risks in over-60s in Australia, but killed more people than it saved in the lower risk groups. But Australia was among the best countries to manage the COVID pandemic. In countries like Mexico where the death rates from COVID were far higher, taking Astrazeneca increased your chances of surviving the pandemic, despite the higher complication rate.

The meme that mRNA causes clots seems to be remarkably common, despite being wrong. It is why to this day many people are vaccine hesitant. It's unfortunate. I think the underlying cause of the large number of people with clots was the mass roll out of Astrazeneca as soon as it passed testing. Normally the take up of a new medicine is gradual. The high prices of the early batches mean they are only given to people who stand to benefit most. The less common side effects are caught in that phase. The phase didn't happen for Astrazeneca.

No, government must not do any such thing. They must back away, as my literacy, curiosity and intelligence is not their business in the slightest. Nobody owes anything to government, especially trust. But if "government" insists on importance of things they communicate, it is absolutely on them to ensure it is calibrated to everyone's profile. And I still am not obliged to trust them. Once a liar always a liar.

You're not addressing the issue. 5% of what?

5% of symptomatic COVID cases. So now you have to compare that to only people with injuries from the vaccine.

Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to compare people who got the vaccine to people who didn't, then you need to include ALL people who didn't. Not just the ones who were symptomatic.

And no, you can't include those people who had previous symptoms in the "everyone" group. Obviously those people are way more likely to return for treatment than the average Joe. They are skewing the sample because they are immediately nearly 100% likely to return for treatment. That is not representative of a random sample of people in the general population.

The question was about the general population, and they didn't sample the general population. They sampled people who come to the hospital. That is, only people with symptoms of some sort or another that are bad enough to warrant a journey to get treatment.

So all you can conclude is that people who come to the hospital have a higher frequency of heart conditions. And even that claim is not firmly established by the data, it's just a sensible inference. We expect that people who need treatment are more likely to seek treatment than those that don't need it. But there are countless counter examples there too. Hypochondria, etc.

No doubt if we had the data we'd find more problems there.

Wu's statement is fine, because again, it's not ALL people with COVID. His statement holds for people seeking treatment with COVID which is what they sampled.

Wu has no clue how many people have COVID asymptomatically and how to separate them from people without COVID altogether, and makes no claim about that.

You're simply making a claim that isn't in the research. Vaccination for people without COVID or with asymptomatic COVID is not researched or compared here.

This research, if you want to use it for a comparison, is for vaccination of people already coming to a hospital with symptoms of some kind.

EDIT: forgot to mention this was during a pandemic, so you might see significantly lower numbers for heart conditions if the study was repeated today. And it might be the case that during the pandemic it would have been a good idea to vaccinate everyone coming to a hospital from a statistical standpoint. But an even better take would be to identify what was common amongst the group with bad outcomes and vaccinate them, more specifically.

Regardless, nothing here implies better outcomes for everyone. It's not claimed by and it's not inferable from the research. And certainly not when there is a bunch of research showing contrary results to this study an example of which I linked earlier.

No? It's population cohort study, not a hospital clinical sample. You're simply wrong in your assertions.

You can absolutely track asymptomatic infections through seroprevalence studies which we have been doing since 2020.

> forgot to mention this was during a pandemic, so you might see significantly lower numbers for heart conditions if the study was repeated today.

Yeah, that's making the point for me.