Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by qsera » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:18 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #378

qsera wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They said that if they knew their kid will die without vaccine, they would still skip vaccine to protect the kid from bigger harm.. They probably didn't. Because what is "bigger harm" than death? >You can do that only if you are intent on twisting conversations and meanings into unrecognizable. Eh..what?

> They probably didn't. Because what is "bigger harm" than death? They literally explicitely did. Ask them what is the bigger harm. Anti-vaccine circles have multiple flavors and interview did not went that deep. But this "they could not possibly say X, because I disagree with X" is repeated pattern with conservative and right wing movements.

Please provide credible link to the interview. Just curious...

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

#382

Post by ethbr1 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:19 PM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #135

idiotsecant wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters over time. The old kooks die off and are replaced with people who are relatively sane until they find new things to be old kooks about.

Unfortunately a large number of the "kooks" are GenX and younger.

Agreed. Kooks aren't kooks because they're old.

They're kooks because they live in information bubbles that reinforce their batshit ideas.

And we've let Google / Meta do a fine job of poisoning the next generation's intellect in pursuit of ad revenue.

Say what you want about the tenants of Fox, but at least it has a political ethos...

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

#383

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:19 PM UTC

qsera wrote: post #273

estearum wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably means that you take the statistical evidence produced by massive double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials as actual evidence

That is not really an evidence unless you yourself eliminate any biases or flaws in the trial methodology. Even trained professionals fail to do that regularly...

No, not really. The correct claim is "all evidence is imperfect."

But an FDA approved, Phase 3, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial is the strongest form of evidence that we have for anything at all.

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

#384

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:21 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #337

estearum wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similar for vaccines, just give us the numbers clearly and upfront. You are aware that literally anyone can go and literally find exactly these numbers, correct? The trial results are published!

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?

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

#385

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:22 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #253

estearum wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? My point is the data is all available and always has been.

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.

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

#386

Post by jasonvorhe » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:23 PM UTC

kame3d wrote: post #360

jasonvorhe wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gene therapy. Straight from the mouth of a member of the board of directors of Bayer: https://rumble.com/v210gyq-executive-big-pharma-bayer-stefan... ?

Here's a better source, with video: https://x.com/coenvermeeren/status/1537751313932599296 There's also a "Fact Check" article from Routers that says it is a "false allegation that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy": https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/bayer-executives-... But the same article has the following quote from the above video, from Bayer's executive Stefan Oelrich: > “Ultimately the…

Fact checks are basically validation of the conspiracy theory by now.

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

#387

Post by croon » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:27 PM UTC

anonymousiam wrote: post #256

There are credible doctors and scientists who have a different view: https://maloneinstitute.org/reference-project

Have you actually checked any of the referenced studies in that database? They do not say what Malone claims they say.

I just picked one randomly [0]:

> Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found low incidence rate and largely favorable early outcomes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine–associated myopericarditis in adolescents and young adults from a wide range of populations.

I also did a brief dive elsewhere in thread [1]:

> The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated.

> The incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection was 200/100,000 people (CI95%: 114 to 306 per 100,000).

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

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

#388

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:28 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #307

estearum wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similar for vaccines, just give us the numbers clearly and upfront. You are aware that literally anyone can go and literally find exactly these numbers, correct? The trial results are published!

It’s trivial to publish these so that they’re both easily available and easy to understand. I’m guessing that’s not the case for the CDC, since you didn’t post any link or guideline. A nice example was the EUCDC guidance on AstraZeneca’s vaccine which showed that for young age groups the vaccine was more dangerous than the disease. That allows anyone to make an informed decision for themselves instead of being bullie…

As demonstrated, the people who struggle with this just don't actually have any actual curiosity. "Par for the course" indeed!

Here's a step by step guide for you:

1. Google "Pfizer covid vaccine studies CDC"

2. Click top result: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/grade/covid-19-pfizer-biontech-vacc...

3. Scroll to results:

> Outcomes of interest included individual benefits and harms. Indirect effects of vaccination (e.g., societal benefits) were not considered...

> In the Phase II/III RCT, using data on all blinded follow-up (up to 6 months or the unblinding date of March 13, 2021), the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reduced symptomatic COVID-19 when compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy: 91.1% (95% CI 88.8–93.1%)) (Table 3a). For hospitalization due to COVID-19, 31 events occurred, all in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 100% (95% CI 87.6–100%) (Table 3b). Deaths due to COVID-19 were uncommon, one in the vaccine group and six in the placebo group (83% (-39–98%)) (Table 3c). Numbers of SAEs were comparable between the vaccine group and the placebo group across the two RCTs (Phase II/III: 268/21,926 (1.2%) vs. 268/21,921 (1.2%); Phase I: 1/24 (4.2%) vs. 0/6 (0.0%)); there were no cases of vaccine-associated enhanced disease or vaccine-related deaths (Table 3e). Grade ≥3 reactions generally were not uncommon and occurred more frequently in the vaccine than placebo groups (Table 3f).

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

#389

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:28 PM UTC

ta8903 wrote: post #268

estearum wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they were at low risk. They were actually at far lower risk of harm from the vaccines. It was and remains statistically correct to vaccinate young people.

Should we really be using words like "correct" for something like this? It's just a tradeoff, you could say it's a better solution optimizing for fewer dead people, but it is in no way a morally superior solution. You could just as easily argue that not vaccinating at all and letting COVID spread would be a better solution for a nation since COVID overwhelmingly killed old and unhealthy people who are otherwise a dra…

Sir this is an Internet comment section

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

#390

Post by manwe150 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 1:31 PM UTC

qsera wrote: post #192

no-name-here wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe every developed countries’ medical bodies on vaccines, where do you get your info on this? (As to the ‘pro-vax’ question, I'd define it as someone who is open to listening the medical bodies of every developed country on the planet.)

So what is the logic here? If the only entity that you can get information from is an entity that is known to lie, you can trust this entity? It is not that we know for a fact that X is not safe. It is that we have no reason to believe that the powers that can ensure that, does not have an incentive to do it, and a large financial incentive to NOT do it and instead grease a lot of palms and get it mandated. This is p…

That’s what this article here is about. Yes, FDA is known to make questionable actions, as are other agencies around safety or efficacy of drugs. But here the statistics continue to show they are right about vaccines.