16 ms·
Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise
- tencentshill 3mo agoGood thing we got [rest of world] to do the hard science work, and America can just benefit from it instead!
- stefanwlb 3mo ago[dead]
- TacticalCoder 3mo ago[flagged]
- petilon 3mo agoYou do what you have to do when people are dying in droves due to a pandemic and morgues are running out of room.
- ses1984 3mo agoThat’s fake news. I had covid and I was fine. /s
- thin_carapace 3mo agopeople indeed were dying in droves. based on the study in sweden the vast majority of those deaths (>90%) were in the age bracket of 70 plus. aged care is already a massive issue thanks to money making being more important than having families and being human - our aging population could have been addressed here. obviously the immunocompromised and the elderly did benefit alongside pharma execs. still this seems like a 'protect the kids' type of excuse. why should I be happy that swathes of the youth had to sacrifice their bodies just so that their grandparents could live a few more years of luxury ? I'm saying this because I know multiple people that were affected negatively by coronavirus vaccines and they were all young.
- netsharc 3mo agoThey did zero trials before those billions of doses! None! Straight from the lab into your veins! /S
- SV_BubbleTime 3mo agoThere wasn’t a single successful phase3 trail of any mRNA vaccine in human or animal before the Covid vaccines were deployed. No /s
- netsharc 3mo agoThere also was never a successful manned landing on the moon before Apollo 11 did it..
- SV_BubbleTime 3mo agoWas the entire world put in that tin can?
- lokar 3mo agoThey 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.
- jleyank 3mo agoThe 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.
- cmrdporcupine 3mo agoOne of the issues that I see looking back was authorities not recognizing the qualitative change that happened when Omicron came on the scene. It spread like wildfire, and its symptoms were relatively mild especially for those who were vaccinated. And at that point the sensible policy choice would have been to drop many of the mandates, but in many places they just doubled down harder and I think it was this final few months that led to the most extreme backlash.
- jleyank 3mo agoThere was no guarantee it was the last significant mutation. Long Covid is a thing which many are still fighting, so delaying eliminating restrictions was a safe decision. Vaccine uptake was not uniform.
- Terr_ 3mo ago> years of work prior to COVID It's worth highlghting the importance of years of basic science-research and testing, all little pieces which were mostly there when we finally needed them, work that was always under-threat from people saying "what use is this, why would we ever need that?" (For which the pandemic is an implicit answe the pandemic answered: "Stuff like this!") Among many of those collective small contributions that create a practical and effective outcome, one example of work thankfully done in advance: > But the thing is, our vaccine is only generating the spikes itself, and we’re not mounting them on any kind of virus body. It turns out that, unmodified, freestanding Spike proteins collapse into a different structure. If injected as a vaccine, this would indeed cause our bodies to develop immunity.. but only against the collapsed spike protein. And the real SARS-CoV-2 shows up with the spiky Spike. The vaccine would not work very well in that case. > In 2017 it was described how putting a double Proline substitution in just the right place would make the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS S proteins take up their ‘pre-fusion’ configuration, even without being part of the whole virus. This works because Proline is a very rigid amino acid. It acts as a kind of splint, stabilising the protein in the state we need to show to the immune system. The people that discovered this should be walking around high-fiving themselves incessantly. Unbearable amounts of smugness should be emanating from them. And it would all be well deserved. [0] https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...
- jleyank 3mo agoThey had done safety and effectiveness testing before deployment back then. These are retrospective studies using a real large dosing and placebo population. The closest to “untested drug matter” that existed was the antibody cocktail that might have kept Trump alive.
- petilon 3mo agoThe science doesn't matter to this administration unfortunately: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74dzdddvmjo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74dzdddvmjo
- petterroea 3mo agoIf we want to solve that we need to stop enabling career politicians whose only life experience is debating
- TylerE 3mo agoWe would be a hell of a lot better off with career politicians than the current batch of grifters and ex-Fox News chuckleheads.
- xboxnolifes 3mo agoRight now, we'd be better off if we even had politicians who could manage an actual debate. Seems like we can't get anything other than mudslinging and strongarming right now.
- dogwalker5000 3mo agoWow, they literally put an antivaccer in charge of the health department.
- zulux 3mo ago[flagged]
- wrs 3mo agoI'm honestly surprised they didn't put a flat-earther in charge of NASA.
- Sabinus 3mo agoIt's a lot harder to claim success with no evidence in the space race than healthcare policy. There's a minimum level of actual competence needed for that job to not embarrass the Trump admin.
- snootypoot 3mo ago[flagged]
- asteroidburger 3mo agoLooking forward to reading about it in The Lancet or another respected medical publication.
- snootypoot 3mo agodo those exist anymore? any publication that accepted the revised definition of natural immunity during the global push for this untested gene therapy mrna injection seems to be discredited. i remember when natural immunity went from being a normal concept to a right wing conspiracy theory.
- Sabinus 3mo agoShouldn't we all by dying from myocarditis or sterile or mind controlled or gay by now according to the conspiracy narratives around COVID? Weren't the lockdowns supposed to go on forever and usher in the WEF Davos future? What happened to that?
- api 3mo agoThe potential for the technology in cancer treatment is what I find most exciting.
- snootypoot 3mo ago[flagged]
- epistasis 3mo agoYes, I've been very excited about that for more than 10 years. It may not pan out, it's far more speculative than infectious disease prevention, but when combined with checkpoint inhibitors, and I fear they may not do the bold thing and do fully personalized therapeutic vaccines, but it does provide a great deal of hope.
- nn43tzl 3mo ago[dead]
- doginasuit 3mo agoI'm not sure this information will sway very many people. I have relatives who are all getting tested for t-cell counts related to mRNA because they are convinced they are the cause of any and all health problems they are facing. It seems like the medical professionals who are administering the tests are at least somewhat responsible for their misapplication.
- tomesco 3mo agoInformation won’t sway someone who’s views aren’t based on information.
- binarycrusader 3mo agoWhat’s the saying? You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themself into in the first place.
- epistasis 3mo ago[flagged]
- alex1138 3mo ago[flagged]
- epistasis 3mo ago[flagged]
- lettergram 3mo ago[flagged]
- shakna 3mo agoRFK's reliance on terrain theory, disproved continually since some five hundred years ago, does much to assist in citations - it is common to cite bad science as evidence where we need to improve public comprehension.
- linzhangrun 3mo agoTwo most populous countries, China and India, seem to have mainly relied on inactivated vaccines.
- epistasis 3mo agoWhich makes sense as they had less access to new technologies, and scaling issues were very hard in the early days. But I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the article...
- ggm 3mo agoBoth economies have massive drug industries and China in particular has advanced manufacturing processes for decades. I suspect they made an economic/risk decision and will be reviewing it in the light of mRNA production lead time. We're way beyond lysenko. China has no intellectual or political baggage in vaccine theory or bio engineering.
- Markoff 3mo agoit's actually more difficult to produce inactivated vaccine at mass scale than mRNA vaccine, which is the reason why they were producing mRNA vaccines and not the old school safe tested ones
- epistasis 3mo agoThat's a tremendous amount of misinformation to pack into a single sentence! There were several companies working on "old school" style vaccines, they take longer to develop! And at least one of the old school style vaccines proved to be less safe than the mRNA vaccines and was withdrawn from market, precisely because there were safer vaccines out there so there was no reason to let a less safe version be sold, even though it was still far better than nothing: https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-dangerous-side-effects-some-covid-19-vaccines-explained https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-dangerous-side-... Further, the very concept of "old school safe tested ones" doesn't even make sense with respect to COVID, because there were no COVID vaccines before COVID existed, and every single vaccine must be tested to evaluate safety. Further, the concept that "its more difficult to produce inactivated vaccine at mass scale" is at best unsupported for the current day, and back in the early day it was 100% false. Mass producing mRNA vaccines was extremely difficult. They were very quick to design and get a prototype, but mass production was a new and very very difficult effort. And as for "the reason why they were producing mRNA vaccines" is that the "they" there was a company that focused on mRNA vaccines so of course they would work on that. And the advantage of mRNA is that it is able to be designed and engineered with purpose, rather than the random chance of trying to get an inactivated vaccine, which is far more laborious and slow. It's so weird to come into these threads on HN and have people just pack so much falsehood into so few characters. Such false information should not be left up uncountered, but it's exhausting to even list what's wrong, much less show all the evidence.
- squeedles 3mo agoManufacturing matters, and six years ago, I said that one side effect from the pandemic is that mRNA technology, which had been lab-scale stuff, suddenly had dump-trucks full of money appearing to help them scale their manufacturing. They apparently settled on the the sequences for the original covid vacs in a weekend. Going from that design to billions of doses is one of the hardest things to do, but once done, will persist. And it is ready to be deployed for the next hundred applications that we find for this. Flu vaccines is an obvious application, since the prior egg-based manufacturing required about six months lead time and millions of eggs, but nobody wanted to invest in anything better.
- TimXare 3mo ago[dead]
- helsinkiandrew 3mo ago> but nobody wanted to invest in anything better. Not sure if you mean nobody wanted to develop mRNA flu vaccines, but at least Moderna and Pfizer are: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5863570/flu-vaccine-mrna-moderna-fda https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5863570/flu-vaccine-mrn...
- irjustin 3mo agoThe parent is talking about pre-covid, no one wanted pay the upfront cost to bring mRNA out of the lab.
- estearum 3mo ago> They apparently settled on the the sequences for the original covid vacs in a weekend. Going from that design to billions of doses is one of the hardest things to do, but once done, will persist. No no. They had a candidate for the vaccine. Scaling manufacturing is hard, sure, but the actual barrier was proving the candidate worked. We conducted (by far) the most time-efficient clinical trials in history to prove the vaccines were safe and effective. Until that happened, we could not have known the candidate drug was actually correct.
- yieldcrv 3mo ago> The researchers emphasize that, like all vaccines, mRNA vaccines can have side effects. They found that serious adverse events—such as myocarditis, which occurs more frequently in younger males—are rare and consistently outweighed by the vaccines’ protection reminder to the myocarditis-maxxies, the actual virus causes that too and the 2020-2021 variants caused it worse if we were all going to drop dead (I think 2 years ago now, I’m waaaaiting!) for whatever the vaccine did, it would apply to a broader population due to covid exposure
- antonvs 3mo ago> if we were all going to drop dead (I think 2 years ago now, I’m waaaaiting!) Channeling Monty Python: ... I got better
- vlian2088 3mo ago[flagged]
- ifyoubuildit 3mo ago> reminder to the myocarditis-maxxies, the actual virus causes that too and the 2020-2021 variants caused it worse Do you know if the vaccine prevented the virus-induced myocarditis? Cause the vaccine didn't do much to stop people from getting covid, multiple times even. So many people frame this as either/or, you either had the risk of covid induced myocarditis or you had the (supposed) lesser risk of myocarditis from the vaccine. But if you got the vaccine (x times) and then covid (y times), isn't your risk roughly x + y?
- yieldcrv 3mo agoI want to empathize with you, plenty of medical professionals used really reductive and inaccurate language that should be rightfully criticized. stopping people from getting covid being one of those things none of those were goals of the vaccine, so its a fruitless exercise to build on top of they communicated poorly at all levels the one time society needed them to communicate effectively, and lost the public trust The goal was to reduce the spread overall, lessen the symptoms for individuals, have your own body fight it faster instead of becoming a factory for it, de-risking cytokine storms
- swingboy 3mo agoSerious question in good faith: what was the deal with the “calamari” (clots?) the anti-vax crowd kept talking about being found in the veins/arteries of folks who took the Covid vaccine?
- wetpaws 3mo agoNothingburger like pretty much everything that antivaxers talk about
- dehrmann 3mo agoDismissing people like this is part of what fuels the antivax movement. Vaccines are generally effective, but they're not perfect and have side effects, and failing to acknowledge that when someone is asking in in good faith polarizes people and makes it look like someone's trying to hide something.
- Schiendelman 3mo agoIt was a nothingburger. It wasn't even a side effect of the mRNA vaccines. You don't have to care about the people who aren't interested in science. Sure, you have to protect immunocompromised people from those people, and we can do that.
- mullingitover 3mo agoDismissing people who dismiss the antivax movement like this is part of what fuels the anti-anti-vax movement.
- shermantanktop 3mo agoI see you’ve played knifey-spooney before!
- jrflowers 3mo agoIt is okay to dismiss negligible things. People sustain a lot of injuries and die in their bathrooms but it would be insane to both-sides somebody’s campaign against taking shits https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6022a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6022a1.htm
- diego_moita 3mo agoIn the end, do facts even matter in politically charged discussions? This sounds a bit like providing evidence for global warming, gun control or evolution. The "skeptics" just want to remain ignorant. No amount of evidence will change them. The silver lining about vaccine skeptics, though, is the Herman Cain award[1]. What this means is that conservatives die more than liberals from preventable diseases [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_Award [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-026-02474-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-026-02474-9
- declan_roberts 3mo agoReally glad they confirmed this, about 5 years after I was forced to take one at threat of job loss despite 1) already having had natural Covid and 2) working a fully remote job. But better late than never I suppose.
- epistasis 3mo agoThey confirmed this when the vaccines were authorized. And as part of every drug, there's continual, ongoing, review of the data to ensure that safety is maintained, and that nothing has changed about the drug and its manufacturing. This is the "phase 4" of a drug, continual ongoing monitoring.
- SV_BubbleTime 3mo ago> They confirmed this when the vaccines were authorized No. They didn’t. They said it. You were the Phase3 trial. You can probably debate the ethicality, the decisions made, but do not pretend they had 5 year data before deploying to the entire world. Facts matter.
- estearum 3mo agoYou're aware that most drugs are approved without 5-year data, correct? Why did you draw the line there? Why not wait for 10-year data? What about 20- or 50- or 100-year data? Do we need 75-year data for Viagra too? 30-year data for aspirin? What's the logic tree here?
- epistasis 3mo agoIt's quite odd for a person to assert falehoods while also saying "facts matter." Dec 11 2020- publication of phase 2/3 trial results, meaning not only was the study fully completed, but it made it through peer review too: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Dec 11 - 2020: first authorization https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/health/pfizer-vaccine-authorized.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/health/pfizer-vaccine-aut...
- d--b 3mo agoYou mean the stuff the whole world got injected with in 2020? Good to know! Seriously though, I am very pro-vax, but the fact that studies like these come out now is just confirmation that people had the right to doubt the safety of mRNA back then. Many people shamed others for being anti vax but everyone has the right to be careful.
- alex1138 3mo ago[flagged]
- add-sub-mul-div 3mo agoPeople have rights but they also have the responsibility to be scientifically literate enough to know that analyzing data about the vaccine was prudent regardless of anything and does not suggest their prostration to antivax demagogues was smart.
- vfclists 3mo agoBruh??
- manwe150 3mo agoWhy would repeating a study now and getting the same result as when it was first measured in 2020 be a reason to doubt the safety? I’m also pro-vax, so I don’t think it is correct to equate ignoring the preponderance of current evidence (in 2021 or 2026) for vaccine protection as being careful. That just seems the logical fallacy sold by “vax hesitant” and social media influencers to make people feel smart to ignore statistics and “make their own choice based on intuition”
- vfclists 3mo agoWhat does being "pro-vax" mean? That you believe in any claims of vaccine efficacy made by the manufacturers or the FDA and are more then willing to have them injected into your body?
- ggm 3mo agoShorter lead times in the face of viral mutations will be helpful. Tailored vaccines for things like cancer are a game changer. I live in hope of a semi-universal flu+related vaccine. I live in fear of the measles induced "immune amnesia" effect.
- _heimdall 3mo ago[flagged]
- epistasis 3mo ago> Even during the pandemic response it was eventually acknowledged that early claims of vaccines preventing infection or even spread weren't supported by the trials. To the very best of my knowledge this is just misinformation. If you have a citation here, please provide it.
- _heimdall 3mo agoIs your concern with what the studies tested or whether it was acknowledged? I can find you links, though it will be directly to the original studies done for the covid vaccines. The studies were well written and clearly called out their methodology. The problem was with how the studies were interpreted and explained to the public, not with the studies themselves.
- _heimdall 3mo ago[flagged]
- defrost 3mo agoThe issue specifically is: early claims of vaccines preventing infection or even spread weren't supported by the trials. Who made such stupid claims and __why__? My own recollection, from Australia watching the US, was the the US political administration of the time turned any scientific based discussion into a complete shit show - many images of cowered CDC employees sucking their faces in while Trump v1.0 babbled on about bleach and sunlight. From my first free of politics encounters with world class epidemiologists in 1980 or so I've not heard one claim that any vaccine had a 100% efficacy rate for both disease prevention and for eliminating spread - it has _always_ been a numbers game, like seat belts, of statistical reduction. Your own link agrees: Conclusions: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. 95% protection is pretty good, but for all manner of reasons it's unusual to expect any vaccine to prevent 100% of all infections across millions of people or animals. Typically, in educated countries, phrases such as "prevent infection and spread*" are understood to mean that in the same manner as "seat belts prevent death and injury*" ( * exceptions expected )
- nn43tzl 3mo ago[dead]
- willmadden 3mo agoThe link in the article does not show the study, just a list of references, a summary and the researchers who published it. How many of the researchers who published this study have conflicts of interest? Where is the full study for review?
- z3ratul163071 3mo ago[flagged]
- willmadden 3mo agoI've heard that one before.
- optionalsquid 3mo agoThe first link in the article goes straight to the study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(26)00512-X/abstract https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- willmadden 3mo agoI saw that and described the page you linked. The actual study is gate kept behind a paywall or "institutional access". "Get full text access - Log in, subscribe or purchase for full access."
- optionalsquid 3mo agoYes, it's unfortunate that the Lancet is not an Open Access journal. But, as you say, you can just purchase the paper if you wish to read it
- willmadden 3mo agoThen, therefore, this article is making broad, bold claims without accessible proof.
- nikolay 3mo ago[flagged]
- nn43tzl 3mo ago[dead]
- tlogan 3mo agoIf these mRNA vaccines had not been pushed or mandated, more people would probably think they are safe: there will be no need for any of these reviews. But because they were pushed by the government, many people do not trust them. Sure, they were pushed and mandated for good reasons, but the problem is that a lot of people have already lost trust in the government. That trust was not lost because of one big decision. It was lost through many small, unrelated government decisions that may not seem noticeable or measurable on their own, but over time, they build up. I do not know how this trust can be rebuilt but definitely not by publishing more reviews.
- guywhocodes 3mo agoNo I don't think they are safe because I still suffer from the damage it did to my heart
- katbyte 3mo agoI’m pretty sure it was lost via billions spent on a sustained propaganda campaign no country was willing to stand up to.
- raincole 3mo ago> But because they were pushed by the government, many people do not trust them. Sure, they were pushed and mandated for good reasons, but the problem is that a lot of people have already lost trust in the government. In the case of COVID, the effectiveness of vaccines was quite exaggerated at first[0]. That absolutely didn't help government rebuild the trust. > I do not know how this trust can be rebuilt but definitely not by publishing more reviews. At this point, quite sure more reviews will only trigger people's confirmation bias and make those who already don't trust vaccines trust them even less. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-government-and-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-46a270ce0f681caa7e4143e2ae9a0211 https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-governm...
- Krssst 3mo agoVaccines were very effective against the first variant, and got less effective with later ones. People forget about the timeline. Article mentions the delta variant at which time vaccines were still very effective IIRC. There were some breakthrough cases as the article mentions but that's to be expected with anything short of 100% efficacy.
- vfclists 3mo agoWe synthesise evidence on vaccine components, manufacturing quality controls, and regulatory standards that underpin safety, alongside data from randomised trials, post-authorisation surveillance, and active pharmacovigilance systems. "synthesize???" With almost 200 references and the use of "synthesize???" it sound like AI generated slop. The article is behind a paywall in any case so why so many positive comments about it?
- mndrpemndrpe 3mo ago[flagged]
- mchusma 3mo agoI really feel that many of the issues with mRNA vaccines and health studies in general are generalizations like “safe and effective”. Everything has statistical risks and benefits, and we should just share those front and center with people. Eg test results for X mean you have a Y% chance of having X, given your history and symptoms and other results. Here are low cost low risk marginal things you can do to improve statistical significance. Similar for vaccines, just give us the numbers clearly and upfront. This bypasses regulators from having to make claims beyond “we reviewed the data and agree with these numbers and feel that this should not be banned.” I do think it would also help to separate something “not banned” and being “required to be covered by insurance” or “required for professions like the military”. I think trying to simplify things makes things worse, because this abstraction is not real.
- junofan 3mo agoYep, those regulated marketing terms could use an update. Regulators don’t make cures. There’s room to improve on that side of the system. Especially as emerging approaches seem to be trending more systems-thinking-oriented, eg “this will strengthen your immune system to fight lots of diseases.”
- estearum 3mo ago> 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!
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoSounds like a oppurtunity for health educatation. 99%+ of people dont know they can look in the USPI for this data. However, it isnt the best and most up to date, which the regulator and FDA would have and are unlikely to share.
- estearum 3mo ago100% of people who Google something like "how do we know the covid vaccines are good" would discover that the tool we use to figure that out is called a "clinical trial." Then they can look up "covid vaccine clinical trial results." The reality is none of these "do your own research" or "just asking questions" people are actually curious whatsoever. Curiosity requires more than zero effort. Simply saying you're "doing your own research" and "just asking questions" while regurgitating the last thing you saw on your TikTok feed is super easy and gives you all the same sense of intellectual superiority.
- wopwops 3mo ago[flagged]
- z3ratul163071 3mo ago[flagged]
- z3ratul163071 3mo agohow exactly were the vaccines effective, if every single person i know who got them got covid?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- nesarkvechnep 3mo agoDid they die?
- Markoff 3mo agowould they die if they didn't take the vaxx? plenty people who got vaxx died anyway, plenty people who got COVID died as well, some of them from COVID, most of them were just infected while dying and COVID had really nothing to do with their death, but it was needed to pump those numbers about scary dangerous COVID so govs can go on powertrips while taking pocket money from pharma lobby
- xboxnolifes 3mo agoAt a population level, people who were vaccinated died at lower rates. We have numbers on this stuff. It was pretty easy to find during covid and I imagine you could find it with a quick Google search now if you'd like.
- davidhalter 3mo agoThe hospitalization of unvaccinated people vs. vaccinated people was 10.5 times higher [1]. Lethality was 7 times higher if you did not take the vaccine [2]. I think we also have to remember that hospitalizations where the reason why a lot of mandates where enacted in the first place. Politicians where afraid that the hospitals would run out of capacity. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9459904/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9459904/ [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9786706/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9786706/
- fivetenpen 3mo ago
- anonymousiam 3mo agoThere are credible doctors and scientists who have a different view: https://maloneinstitute.org/reference-project https://maloneinstitute.org/reference-project
- mikeyouse 3mo agoI’m confused because you said credible doctors and then linked to one of the biggest cranks on the internet.
- anonymousiam 3mo agoYou may think Malone is a crank, and I will not disagree with you. The page I linked is a repository that Malone set up for peer-reviewed papers describing MRNA side effects. Those papers are not authored by Malone, and there are presently over 700 of them on the site. I believe he did this because authors of those and similar papers have faced political backlash for their scientific contributions. For some reason, many world governments have censored, and advocated censorship of content such as this, and similar content that questions things such as the CoViD-19 point of origin, which for years has been riddled with misinformation. So you can go ahead an claim that more than 700 peer reviewed papers were all authored by cranks, but my purpose was to point out that the parent article's claims of absolute "safety, effectiveness, and promise" are not unanimously accepted.
- croon 3mo agoHave 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/2798866 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/
- uslic001 3mo agoI am a doctor. Pfizer Covid vaccine gave me a left leg DVT plus a peripheral neuropathy. I will never take another mRNA vaccine again.
- Server6 3mo agoThere are peer-reviewed case reports for both DVT and neuropathy related to Pfizer's mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but they are consistently described as 'rare' or 'extremely rare' across sources/studies. As a doctor (if you actually are one), you should know better than to perpetuate anecdotal evidence.
- spopejoy 3mo agoYou being a doctor matters how? Plenty of idiot antivax doctors out there.
- srid 3mo agoProbably so they thought it would circumvent insults and other wily rhetoric from those emotionally sensitive on this subject ... and yet, going by your own use of "idiot" on a website enabling otherwise intelligent discussions, it would seem that was futile consideration on OP's part.
- krmboya 2mo agoYes, they being a doctor matters because it is a filter for someone who engages with scientific material and their opinion is more valued than some rando crackpot. That said, what are your credentials? Perhaps I'm enganging some rando crackpot myself.
- tsoukase 3mo agoI am also a doctor (neurologist). I don't doubt the diagnosis and the cause, as I have seen such cases in 2021/2. I only say being a doctor and having such a side effect are independent so you must be one of a few cases in the world.
- ChoGGi 3mo agoI've heard the mRNA vaccines turn frogs gay. I'll stick with bloodletting thanks.
- tsoukase 3mo agomRNA seems to me as the perfect method to insert controlled, short lived proteins to the bloodstream. Simple, clean, deterministic and seemingly safe and it turned out to be such. In vaccine development, if the technique has similar maturity and application as the traditional egg-based one, I am sure it will rival it in safety, speed, cost, width of diseases.