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.

Thanks for the articles. I do believe that mRNA vaccines can be effective, absolutely, IF the mRNA is able to trigger the immune response effectively. I'm attaching another excerpt of a "letter to the editor" from the BMJ. (*not saying this is scientific proof, but does raise some questions): At present, relatively little has been reported on the tissue localization of the LNPs used to encase the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-encoding messenger RNA, and it is vital to have more specific information on precisely where the liposomal nanoparticles are going after injection, both in concurrent animal studies and in the two ongoing mRNA vaccine human trials. This process can be commenced in straightforward fashion through cell culture and animal-based investigations, by supplying mRNA expressing a fluorophoric reporter gene (such as green fluorescent protein) delivered via the same LNP formulations as used in the two vaccine trials, and tracking its ingress into varied cells and tissues. The mRNA vaccines represent a remarkable and promising technology, with potential to expedite the development of immunization protocols for future epidemics, but this promise will evaporate if unanticipated safety issues and side effects emerge to weaken public trust in the new modality. Cellular and tissue localization data on the vaccines’ tissue tropisms, obtained and confirmed across multiple independent laboratories, would constitute a valuable step to reinforce public confidence in this regard.

I didn't say I think I'm being lied to. I don't think anyone "collaborated to keep the truth" from me. ? Quit with the conspiracy theory labeling. Yes, lots of vaccines have been given. That doesn't mean we know what the long term effects will be.

Yeah, in my opinion. So what. And as far as the rest of your post, I don't know what you're talking about. "Incredible reporting from anonymous people on the internet"?? Questioning the safety of a new vaccine does not = sowing doubts or fears. And to answer your question, your suggestion that "the reported cluster of side effects were inflated or unbelievable" is both a blunt appraisal AND belittling a person.

I've never said, nor do I believe, that there are tiny robots or computer chips in the vaccine. You may be surprised to hear this, but just because someone questions the efficacy and safety of a vaccine does not automatically mean A: that they are an antivaxxer, and B: that they think there are computer chips or robots in the vaccine. I personally think that assertion is ludicrous. You're very quick to put me in the conspiracy theorist box it seems. Thanks for the link to the fact check article. It doesn't pertain to my line of thinking, however. Yes, from what I've studied, mRNA is very fragile, hence the need for the nanoparticle to protect the integrity of the mRNA so it can do its job once it gets into our system to create an immune response. That's why it's reasonable to question a few things: Is the lipid nanoparticle able to maintain its integrity long enough for the mRNA to get where it needs to go, and are the components of the LNP causing adverse effects in people? I think these are reasonable things to consider.

This statement is not helpful or useful. And those who "liked" your post must share your sentiment of trying to belittle people who do not think the same way you do.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines use nanoparticle encapsulation to protect the mRNA enclosed in the vaccines until it can get into the immune system. There have been some concerns about the lipid nanoparticles containing components to which some people are reacting to with anaphylaxis, and other adverse reactions. Below is an excerpt of an article that discusses the lipid nanoparticle, and also a link to the article I found it in, which is interesting, as it also discusses the stability of the mRNA vaccine: Lipid nanoparticles—where do they go and what do they do?

100%. I'm not opposed to vaccines at all. In fact, I'm in favor of them. I've administered hundreds. But there isn't enough data at this point for the FDA to officially approve any of the covid vaccines, and I read in one article in the British Medical Journal about vaccine efficacy, that they are continuing the trial until 2022. Also, I know some people think that VAERS is somehow completely worthless, but there are enough adverse reactions reported that give plenty of rational people concern. Being hesitant does not mean one is "amoral". https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/

wow..judgmental aren't we

Which other vaccines have evidence of long term side effects? Why is that new standard suddenly a source for concern with the Covid vaccines...is it because of disinformation from a few people that is creating doubt and concern? We're not talking about other vaccines. Vaccines that have been around for decades are not in question. ONLY the Covid vaccine. Please don't muddle the issue. The "source of concern" is that there is no LONG TERM safety evidence. Short term, maybe. Long term, zero. And how do you know it's "disinformation" ? (I'm so sick of that word)

She's NOT fearful or afraid as she already stated. And she absolutely does have the right to suggest to other people that "it's reasonable to be concerned". IT IS reasonable to be concerned!! The science and the data are minimal at best, and do NOT reflect long term effects. Period. This is indisputable.