Vaccines Save Lives

[Hammster]

Seems unlikely, as there wouldn't be any drugs at all if we were required to test them for 20 years before release. Wonder what the negative long-term effects of acetaminophen and asprin are....oh, right, nobody cares.

Are pharmaceutical companies normally required to do long-term testing? Are there such things as two- and five-year studies? Or do they just get to say “yeah, this is good, trust us”?

 

[topher694]

Oh now I understand, you do not know the meaning of "long term". Is it both words you don't get, or just one of them? You also don't understand the difference between science and law.

Oh, then please enlighten the rest of us exactly how you know there are no long term effects of the Covid vaccine(s)? And how the rest of us can reproduce your results.

As for science and law. I'll let you in on a little secret. When trying a case they have scientists give testimony to prove the case.

 

[topher694]

Is there any evidence at all that it wasn't just my opinion? I mean, before you added your lack of understanding to the mix.

You know what a scientific name for opinion is? Hypothesis.

 

[Sparagmos]

So you got the vaccine? So are you immune to covid 19 now? And the vaccine prevents the spread of the disease right?

I think what they said was "they save lives."

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Strathos]

Hey, here's a great idea - let's never invent anything new ever again, because we don't know what the long-term consequences of using it will be. Back to living in caves it is then!

 

[Lost4words]

Has any vaccine ever been as rushed through as the covid one?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

VACCINES SAVE LIVES!!!

So do commas, but you don't hear about them 24/7 do you?

(Sorry, I am so Covid-ed out!)

 

[Hammster]

Hey, here's a great idea - let's never invent anything new ever again, because we don't know what the long-term consequences of using it will be. Back to living in caves it is then!

Would you buy a car that never went through any testing? Or a house that wasn’t inspected?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Would you buy a car that never went through any testing? Or a house that wasn’t inspected?

Rationality has been thrown out the window. The powers have been pushing their fait accompli with abandon, using the strongholds of media/education/science/etc. to tighten the noose on any dissenters.

 

[Strathos]

Rationality has been thrown out the window. The powers have been pushing their fait accompli with abandon, using the strongholds of media/education/science/etc. to tighten the noose on any dissenters.

I waited a month or so for its effectiveness to be proven. It was, and it continues to be. Suggesting we wait years is ridiculous when so many people are dying per day.

 

[Hammster]

I waited a month or so for its effectiveness to be proven. It was, and it continues to be. Suggesting we wait years is ridiculous when so many people are dying per day.

What if it causes cancer after five years. Would it be worth it?

 

[mama2one]

Or a house that wasn’t inspected?

actually quite a few people are waiving inspections in our area due to competition for houses!

someone bought my parent's home last year- no inspection and $17,000 over asking price

 

[Strathos]

What if it causes cancer after five years. Would it be worth it?

What vaccine has ever done that? And what biological mechanism could cause that to happen?

We can play with fanciful 'what if's all day, but they are not based on reality.

 

[JSRG]

The problem I think I have with the argument of "well there might be really bad side effects later on!" is that it would seem this applies to COVID-19 as well. How does someone know that there won't be some really dangerous side effect of COVID-19 that only manifests a few years afterwards?

 

[Strathos]

What people don't seem to realize is that this is a new, rapidly spreading, rapidly evolving virus. The vaccines we have so far are already less effective against the delta variant. You can't develop a vaccine against something like this and wait 20 years to use it, as not only will tens of millions of people die in the meantime, but by then the virus will have mutated enough to make the 20-year-old vaccine worthless.

New flu vaccines have to be created every year for the new strains, why is no one making these same complaints about those?

 

[Strathos]

The problem I think I have with the argument of "well there might be really bad side effects later on!" is that it would seem this applies to COVID-19 as well. How does someone know that there won't be some really dangerous side effect of COVID-19 that only manifests a few years afterwards?

We already have evidence of many debilitating long-term side effects of the virus, as opposed to absolutely none for the vaccine.

 

[Hammster]

actually quite a few people are waiving inspections in our area due to competition for houses!

someone bought my parent's home last year- no inspection and $17,000 over asking price

And that’s stupid.

 

[Hammster]

What vaccine has ever done that? And what biological mechanism could cause that to happen?

We can play with fanciful 'what if's all day, but they are not based on reality.

I would say that no vaccine has done that because they go through testing.

 

[Tanj]

Are pharmaceutical companies normally required to do long-term testing? Are there such things as two- and five-year studies? Or do they just get to say “yeah, this is good, trust us”?

Fair question. The first 3 phases of drug development are entirely mandatory. No drug will be approved for any indication in any western world without an appropriate phase III trial. After a drug comes to market, the next step, unsurprisingly, is a phase IV trial looking for wider effects of a drug in real world use.

What phase IVs get done and by whom is very variable. Some are mandated in some situations, others are voluntary. One "limitation" of a phase IV is that you have to decide before hand what it is you are looking for so you can build the appropriate statistical plan. In other words, you might set up a phase IV trial to see if your drug causes heart attacks, but that study will never find out if your drug causes kidney failure.

The other question is what incidence rate is low enough that you consider it reasonable to let pharma off? Take the Az blood clot, as an example. That occurs in ~ 1 in 250 000 people. So to have actually have found it, Az would have had to run a trial on 1 million people, something that is logistically and fiscally impossible.

ETA to your post above, no-one has done any studies to see if "vaccines cause cancer in 5 years" for any vaccine, it a study that is physically impossible to perform in part because cancer is 2 million diseases, not one.