Did you just pull a “I know you are, but what am I?”
Again, a really good listen (from CBC’s Frontburner podcast), that discusses a lot of what you’re bringing up. Including why thing process was much quicker, how that happened, and why it has moved so much faster than potential drugs and vaccines for other viruses.
And by the way, you still haven’t referenced any evidence to support that the pharmaceutical companies can confidently state the vaccine is safe. And that is because they can’t hence why all of them are insisting on liability waivers or caps.
That is correct I was not involved in making the vaccine. I am a critical physician and I am involved in the distribution of the vaccine and was asked to be of the reviewers of the vaccine data.
However the question as to if there is a serious side effect 2 years out exists no one can answer. Even if you make the vaccine - the disease itself has only been out a year.
The rush to market is because the options were either wait 2 years and release it with 2 years of COVID spread or test for 4 months and if it appears safe and effective five start rolling it out because the disease itself is so horrible.
We do have data a year out on people with serious COVID (estimated to be about 5 percent of all infections).
The odds that a serious side effect that effects more than 5 percent of all takers is worse than what we already know these 5 percent are experiencing now is very small.
Again it’s a personal choice and if you feel that you have done your due diligence and decided against it that is your choice and should be respected.
However the reasons we don’t have long term data isn’t a conspiracy to cover up something or make money before a side effect is discovered. It’s because the known is likely worse than the unknown.
I wouldn’t say when I think it would be safe to take as that would be years and years down the road. I would be more likely to accept the risk/benefit ratio 12 months after the first doses have been administered assuming no major side effects have been reported.
As an example of the low testing standards, how could Pfizer not have identified the anaphylactoid reaction during the trials?
If you guys wanna not vaccinate and give up the privilege of attending live sports events and concerts; taking trips on airplanes, trains, or other mass transit; attending public institutions like schools and universities, etc… that’s on you. Personally I’m gonna be first in line for this thing and hopefully the reduced demand for tickets due to anti-vaxxers being forced to hide away from society will lead to some good deals on pricing when shit finally starts getting back to normal.
Also, there are plenty of COVID vaccine candidates that wont’ be approved, nor will make it out of early clinical trial phases. There are many vaccines in various stages of trial. This is one of I believe 46, that has made it through the trials.
So let’s stop acting like there is major oversight and a rush to market here.
On the Bell’s Palsy situation…
Bell’s palsy affects about 1 in every 5,000 people. In a trial with over 40,000, there will be people who suffer from medical issues that aren’t tied to the vaccine. As such, that’s why I believe this isn’t actually tied to the vaccine, or regulation.