Have you tested positive for COVID?

[formernuke]

CDC "Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns"

Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

"Cutter Incident - 1955
Simian Virus 40 (SV40) - 1955-1963
Swine Flu Vaccine and Guillain-Barré Syndrome - 1976
Hepatitis B Vaccine and Multiple Sclerosis - 1998
Rotavirus Vaccine and Intussusception - 1998-1999
GBS and Meningococcal Vaccine - 2005-2008
Hib Vaccine Recall - 2007
H1N1 Influenza Vaccine and Narcolepsy - 2009-2010
Porcine Circovirus in Rotavirus Vaccine - 2010
HPV Vaccine Recall - 2013"

Note that these are concerns and not all of them led to recall or stoppage of use. More details on the CDC website.

How many of those took a few months to develop and test?

 

[Storker]

How many of those took a few months to develop and test?

Basically every influenza vaccine. In fact, they are on the market only some six months after the virus has been identified. If you don't roll out your vaccine pretty fast, you won't have a market because the influenza virus making the rounds will be another one.

But what we're looking at here is an unprecedented amount of money and effort spent to develop one single vaccine. The dedication, determination and available resources can IMO only be compared to JFK's pledge that the USA would put a man on the moon before 1970. If even that. It's downright amazing how fast technology can develop if we put enough effort in.

Although the short development period makes us less likely to catch long-term unwanted side effects (that's the disadvantage of long-term studies: they take a long time to do), I wouldn't use the development time as a general argument against the vaccines' safety.

 

[Graeme Fraser]

Basically every influenza vaccine. In fact, they are on the market only some six months after the virus has been identified. If you don't roll out your vaccine pretty fast, you won't have a market because there'll be a new influenza virus then.

But what we're looking at here is an unprecedented amount of money and effort spent to develop one single vaccine. The dedication, determination and available resources can IMO only be compared to JFK's pledge that the USA would put a man on the moon before 1970. If even that. It's downright amazing how fast technology can develop if we put enough effort in.

Although the short development period makes us less likely to catch long-term unwanted side effects (that's the disadvantage of long-term studies: they take a long time to do), I wouldn't use the development time as a general argument against the vaccines' safety.

A question for the Covid vaccine naysayers out there. What exactly is the alternative, apart from continued global health and economic decline with no end in sight that is?

 

[formernuke]

A question for the Covid vaccine naysayers out there. What exactly is the alternative, apart from continued global health and economic decline with no end in sight that is?

The end is in site,.deaths are down although cases are up. Some common sense and being careful. Let's not even start on the economic effect these pointless lockdowns are causing.

The fact is most who get it recover fully a few do die, but people also die of the flu every year.

 

[Bottom Surveyor]

Bottom Surveyor , I think you're partly on the right track, but way off base with your arguments

Well, it can't be both; if I'm "way off base with your arguments", I can't possibly be "partly on the right track".

I didn't watch the Youtube video you linked to, because it requires sign-in to watch. But from the context, I guess it's about the thalidomide scandal.

Yes, it's Thalidomide. Only I wouldn't call that a scandal; more like a tragedy. At least for the families involved; I don't think that even a single one of them feels that what happened to them was a "scandal".

To anyone who doesn't know about it, there are plenty of videos on YT about it. Just key in "Thalidomide children". More than 10 000 of them were born.

Your arguments against the Coronavirus vaccines remind me uncomfortably of anti-vax arguments.

Would you care to explain exactly how? What was it that I wrote, that "reminded" you of anti - vaxing?
This is a second time that someone is twisting what I have said and is ascribing to me something I have never written.

So far, people who are urging caution when it comes to receiving a new, hastily - made vaccine, have been told to "get education". Their arguments were called "crack pot theories", and now, those who are putting forward such views (backed up by stats & figures), even "anti - vaxers".

This is coming very close to personal attacks, and it could be argued that, indeed, that's what they are. Either way, it's a very bullish behaviour and it's totally uncalled for.

As someone who has received several vaccines, all of which worked perfectly, I am probably the last person who could be called "anti - vaxer".
At the same time, I don't feel like being used as anyone's Guinea pig. I even accentuated in one of my previous posts that I will not be taking a vaccine in the early stage:

Others who opt out (as I shall, in the early stages),

(Well, the word *early* in my original comment is in italic, and is therefore emphasized; here, it doesn't stand out as, when quoted, the entire txt appears in italic).
But to no avail; people are still ploughing on regardless with their insinucations and thin - vailed insults.

So, to anyone who wishes to reply to me in future: please be civil, stick with what I've said and disist from pejorative terms.

Yes, drugs & devices, not just vaccines, which is what the discussion is about.

But why are you looking to split hairs? I assume that to those who end(ed) up being harmed, it doesn't matter too much whether what harmed them was a dodgy vaccine, a drug, or a device.

So, you are looking to split hairs. OK, at least we've established that.
But then again, you could be right; to the unfortunate ones who end up affected, it might really be terribly important whether it was a dodgy vaccine, a drug or a device that harmed them.

How many of the 4500 are vaccines? How many of the 139 are vaccines?

My previous comment to you (directly above) applies.

 

[Storker]

What exactly is the alternative, apart from continued global health and economic decline with no end in sight that is?

That has been one of my favorite arguments for lockdowns. Sure, a lockdown will hurt the economy, but if we don't lock down we can't be certain that there will even be an economy to save.

Case in point: The Nordic countries. As we all know, Sweden chose a quite different strategy than the others, trying to protect their economy. Right now, their infection and fatality numbers are the worst of all of us, with no better economy than the rest of us.

 

[Storker]

Well, it can't be both; if I'm "way off base with your arguments", I can't possibly be "partly on the right track".

Yes, you can. I think that you're kinda, sorta, partly right in how I read your opinion. But quite a few of your arguments are polarizing and extremely one-sided.

What was it that I wrote, that "reminded" you of anti - vaxing?

A couple of examples:

So, if this happen all the time (when pharma companies are not pressed for time), what is the likelihood of their getting it right when they are, like they are now?

Therefore, the answer to your question is: both. They don't strictly adhere to the FDA guidelines even when they have the time. And now that they don't... Well, you draw your own conslusion. At stake is only your health, and that of your family.

almost every 2 days a drug that has the potential to cause serious harm or death is withdrawn from use.

This doesn't read like a sober assessment of risks, to me it reads like fear-mongering. This is a very serious situation which should be discussed dispassionately. The only thing that brings my blood to a boil here is anti-vax crap. That's literally deadly, and not just to the anti-vaxers. They have lives on their conscience (as if they care).

 

[divinh]

So, you are looking to split hairs. OK, at least we've established that.
But then again, you could be right; to the unfortunate ones who end up affected, it might really be terribly important whether it was a dodgy vaccine, a drug or a device that harmed them.

The numbers you cite broadly include many FDA related recalls without separating out vaccines, which is what is under discussion. The CDC site lists 10 of these safety concerns over the last 60+ years.

 

[formernuke]

Basically every influenza vaccine. In fact, they are on the market only some six months after the virus has been identified.

Wrong. The vaccinations have been around a long time. About 6 months before flu season CDC and WHO predict or guess which strain is most likely and order PRODUCTION of it to give given out. Actual new strains ie bird and swine when they hit a new vaccine must be developed which takes years.

 

[Bottom Surveyor]

That has been one of my favorite arguments for lockdowns.

Finally, we agree on something.

This doesn't read like a sober assessment of risks, to me it reads like fear-mongering.

Well, I've corrected that to read "almost 2 1/2 days" (2.62 to be precise, for the benefit of the hair - splitters).
However, those are facts, not "scare mongering". You may not like them, but they are still facts.

It's a very sober assesment of risks; on the contrary, those who ignore those figures are not thinkng soberly.

This is a very serious situation which should be discussed dispassionately.

And how am I being "passionate"? I've provided hard, official figures to support my argument. I've not used any "passionate" words (whichever they may be); just cold, hard figures and facts.

Indeed, it is an extremely important issue. People deserve to get informed properly and to know all the facts. And that also includes the associated risks.
All the figures and data that I presented are genuine, I didn't pluck any of them from thin air.

The only thing that brings my blood to a boil here is anti-vax crap. That's literally deadly, and not just to the anti-vaxers. They have lives on their conscience (as if they care).

I've asked you to explain how you've concluded in your previous post that my views "resemble anti - vaxing". You've not done that.
Now you are mentioning it again, while quoting me, and addressing me (despite my very clearly stating in my previus post that I am not an anti - vaxer). So, just to clarify: are you calling me an anti - vaxer?