guest1178273

It's all clear to me now. Thank you

"I in no way implied, much less stated that no one was qualified to infer anything" -Yes you did. See below. "where's the rational response that argues that the general public is equipped to infer ANYTHING from the VAERS database?" "Sharing your flawed opinion about the safety of these vaccines, in public ways" ...so what's the point of the forum? For everyone to agree? For people to only have opinions that match yours? I'd say your opinion is the one that's flawed here. Also please look up the definition of hyperbole. I don't consider hyperbole a tool of any sort.

You don't need any type of qualification to be concerned about adverse effects people are having to the covid vaccine. But if you want to keep talking about qualifications, I'd say you're not qualified to suggest otherwise. It is tantamount to fear mongering to suggest that there is something there that could be a suggestion of something bad. Here's where we disagree. I call it being cautious. Why do you want people to feel concern rather than confidence in these vaccines when the scientific evidence to date supports confidence? I actually do want people to feel confidence in the scientific evidence. I want to feel confidence in it, too, but there's not enough long term evidence in my opinion. I've already said this. But you can keep asking me the same questions if that's how you enjoy spending your retirement. Apparently you don't think ANYONE is qualified/equipped to infer anything. What do you think is the purpose of VAERS then? Who is it for if not the general public?

?‍♀️ OK then

I understand what you're saying and agree completely. I just think that so many reports aren't to be dismissed offhand and chalked up to something as random as the bird poop in the eye scenario. Some reasonable percentage of those VAERS reports probably are related to the COVID vaccine. Does it mean no one should get the vaccine? No, I'm not saying that either. Not at all. I know whoever reads my posts thinks I'm vehemently opposed to the vaccine, which is also not true. I'm just saying I've seen enough red flags that make me want more information. This apparently makes some people (they know who they are) apoplectic which I can not control, but anyway, I appreciate your rational responses.

I didn't say they were evidence. I didn't isolate specific complaints in VAERS. In fact, I specifically said I knew that all reports weren't factual. I only said there are a lot of people reporting adverse events. This, TO ME, my opinion, please take it or leave it, is concerning and worth paying attention to. That is not fear mongering. It's saying "pay attention, proceed with caution". You disagree. That's OK. You can come post again that your opinion is that it's fear mongering. I will ignore you. It's your opinion, and you won't change my mind about it.

Thanks for clarifying that I left the word "event" out of my response, but I did not put the word "reaction" in its place. I do understand what you're saying though, and that makes perfect sense. I think some people might think an "event" is fairly synonymous with the word "reaction", even though technically, it's not a formal correlation. I do understand that.

I didn't intentionally misinterpret anything. I saw your bullet points. They were clear. I was clear, too. I said being hesitant doesn't make someone "amoral". That's pretty much the gist. "VAERS are not reports of adverse reactions" Um, VAERS = Vaccine Adverse Reporting System. I know what VAERS is. I'm not saying everything reported is factual. I know that it is a system that helps the CDC track adverse events. And plenty have been reported after having received the COVID vaccine.

Because they ARE different. We don't have evidence yet that the amount of mRNA reaching the immune system is efficacious, nor do we know if the mRNA delivery system (nano lipid particle) has any negative side effects yet. It may take more time to know.

I've suggested what might be questionable with long term efficacy, as well as safety of the vaccine. I don't have "facts or evidence to support the notion that there is cause to be concerned", but I also don't have evidence to the contrary because not enough time has passed to know what will happen down the road. You and I have gone down this road before. Let's stop. You are welcome to not reply to my posts.

Why do you think the mRNA vaccines are special in this regard? We've never used mRNA vaccines before. That's why.

What I think is, that we don't have enough long term evidence of safety.

As you like to say, that's your opinion. I don't need to justify anything.

Agreed, but if you fail to the see the sarcasm and intent to belittle in poster's response, there's no reason to comment further.

"Lipid nanoparticle" (LNP) is the scientific word used in the article and in the scientific research. Not my term (I didn't say you said it was, just stating). Not sure why 'nano' suggests something nefarious, but that may just be your interpretation.