Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[CJJon]

A vaccine is a type of medication, though. Vaccines are considered a type of drug, and drugs are a type of medication.

No they are not.

Thanks for playing though...

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

I think zero long term data is a pretty reasonable description of what we have with this vaccine, though. There's no way to have long term data on something that hasn't been around for a long term, so zero long term data is appropriate.

Semantics though - define long!

What there is is 19 months of data and plenty of experience with the vaccine methods used in other areas. Also the knowledge about how even the rare longer term problems with vaccines show up pretty soon after vaccination. 3.44 billion doses and counting gives you plenty of data to work with. You don't honestly think that secondary effects of vaccination have not been considered up to this point and this is a new concern ?

This is a proven vaccine that has saved millions of lives, are you suggesting we stop using it now (never mind the fact that poorer nations are yet to benefit from it) because a small number of people MIGHT get a problem later in life?

 

[CJJon]

This vaccine hasn't. Just because the technology has, doesn't mean this vaccine has had long term studies. I'm pretty confident we do studies on every new vaccine regardless of how long the technology has been around.

I'm not afraid of long term side affects from this vaccine, or I wouldn't have gotten it. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize that the possibility exists.

Good grief.

Except all the experts say otherwise. You are making shit up to be concerned about.

This vaccine has been the most studied in history.

Full stop.

 

[Gregs24]

A vaccine is a type of medication, though. Vaccines are considered a type of drug, and drugs are a type of medication.

I think the point he was trying to make is that vaccines do not treat (medicate) a disease or condition. A vaccine will not act on a virus or bacterium, it stimulates the host to produce an immune reaction.

There are technical and legal definitions, but for example the FDA considers vaccines a unique pharmaceutical product, distinct from other medicines such as drugs that act directly within the body. Certainly lumping vaccines in with other drugs and deducing the likelihood of side effects is a folly

 

[Gregs24]

This vaccine hasn't. Just because the technology has, doesn't mean this vaccine has had long term studies. I'm pretty confident we do studies on every new vaccine regardless of how long the technology has been around.

I'm not afraid of long term side affects from this vaccine, or I wouldn't have gotten it. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize that the possibility exists.

You need to understand the vaccine technology behind these COVID vaccines to really appreciate why previous iterations do provide help in assessing the risk of side effects. Interestingly use of this technology is already being trialled for treatment of other diseases such as cancer where a specific payload for you as an individual is used, you will get a unique or tailored vaccine as a form of treatment. Knowledge of how this process works is key to understanding the risks.

 

[Hobohunter]

No they are not.

Thanks for playing though...

Yes, they are.

From an article in Pediatrics, it has clickable references at the end of the quoted sentence.
"Vaccines are a unique class of pharmaceutical products that meet the statutory definition of both a drug and biological product."
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/Supplement_1/S23

 

[CJJon]

You need to understand the vaccine technology behind these COVID vaccines to really appreciate why previous iterations do provide help in assessing the risk of side effects. Interestingly use of this technology is already being trialled for treatment of other diseases such as cancer where a specific payload for you as an individual is used, you will get a unique or tailored vaccine as a form of treatment. Knowledge of how this process works is key to understanding the risks.

This.

We are about to see some truly remarkable things in medicne soon. Especially so with mRNA type "Biologics".

 

[Gregs24]

This vaccine hasn't. Just because the technology has, doesn't mean this vaccine has had long term studies. I'm pretty confident we do studies on every new vaccine regardless of how long the technology has been around.

I'm not afraid of long term side affects from this vaccine, or I wouldn't have gotten it. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize that the possibility exists.

The existence of a possibility does not define the risk. It is possible you will be killed by the solar flare that is ongoing, but you probably will not. Possibility and probability are two very different things, and scientifically quite involved subjects.

If you never do anything because of the possibility it will go wrong you will never get out of bed in a morning (although even that could possibly cause a DVT with time). The probability is what really matters.

 

[Gregs24]

This.

We are about to see some truly remarkable things in medicne soon. Especially so with mRNA type "Biologics".

Shame the antivaxxers will miss out !

 

[Hobohunter]

Semantics though - define long!

What there is is 19 months of data and plenty of experience with the vaccine methods used in other areas. Also the knowledge about how even the rare longer term problems with vaccines show up pretty soon after vaccination. 3.44 billion doses and counting gives you plenty of data to work with. You don't honestly think that secondary effects of vaccination have not been considered up to this point and this is a new concern ?

This is a proven vaccine that has saved millions of lives, are you suggesting we stop using it now (never mind the fact that poorer nations are yet to benefit from it) because a small number of people MIGHT get a problem later in life?

Of course not. I'm just saying that it's pretty sensible to say that we don't have long term data on this vaccine. We can't have that data until an actual long period of time has passed.

 

[Hobohunter]

I think the point he was trying to make is that vaccines do not treat (medicate) a disease or condition. A vaccine will not act on a virus or bacterium, it stimulates the host to produce an immune reaction.

There are technical and legal definitions, but for example the FDA considers vaccines a unique pharmaceutical product, distinct from other medicines such as drugs that act directly within the body. Certainly lumping vaccines in with other drugs and deducing the likelihood of side effects is a folly

I'm sure he was.

 

[Hobohunter]

The existence of a possibility does not define the risk. It is possible you will be killed by the solar flare that is ongoing, but you probably will not. Possibility and probability are two very different things, and scientifically quite involved subjects.

If you never do anything because of the possibility it will go wrong you will never get out of bed in a morning (although even that could possibly cause a DVT with time). The probability is what really matters.

I know that. We do studies on vaccines both to see how effective they are, and for safety.

 

[Hobohunter]

You need to understand the vaccine technology behind these COVID vaccines to really appreciate why previous iterations do provide help in assessing the risk of side effects. Interestingly use of this technology is already being trialled for treatment of other diseases such as cancer where a specific payload for you as an individual is used, you will get a unique or tailored vaccine as a form of treatment. Knowledge of how this process works is key to understanding the risks.

I have no doubt that they provide help in assessing risk of side effects, no doubt at all. But simply because we know how the mechanism behind this vaccine works doesn't negate the need to study this vaccine. We still require new vaccinations to undergo testing regardless of how proven the mechanism behind the vaccine works for a reason.

 

[CJJon]

Yes, they are.

From an article in Pediatrics, it has clickable references at the end of the quoted sentence.
"Vaccines are a unique class of pharmaceutical products that meet the statutory definition of both a drug and biological product."
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/Supplement_1/S23

Statutory definition = Regulation

Equating 'drugs' and 'vaccines' regards clinical efficacy and risk is what I am talking about. Clinical definition, not one that allows regulation of what would otherwise not be considered a drug.

 

[CJJon]

Of course not. I'm just saying that it's pretty sensible to say that we don't have long term data on this vaccine. We can't have that data until an actual long period of time has passed.

You are seeking what is not needed. There has not been a vaccine in history that has had unknown long-term side effects. Again, you are basing your thoughts on a false premise - that there is a significant clinical risk in not obtaining long term data.

Sponsored