To be weary of the vaccines?

[PunkyPirate]

Will you be getting it?

Will you be allowing your children to get it?

I'm curious to peoples responses as my social media seems to be full of posts from people mocking those who will get the vaccine.

I'm by no means an anti Vaxer. Myself and my children have had all vaccinations and have the flu jab yearly. My only worry is that not enough is known about the long term side effects.

What do you mean by research @Puzzledandpissedoff? Carrying out scientific research, or googling?

MadameBlobby I meant googling to find the research - my fault for not clarifying

@scottish83

There are a lot of clever people on this thread; people working in the pharmaceutical and other similar industries.

Hopefully someone has some insight they can share with the less educated amongst us, about how the Pandemix vaccine for the swine flu managed to get to the point where it was injected into children, considering all the testing that must have been carried out.

www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/health/23global.html

There was increase in narcolepsy in China and maybe Iceland at the same time in people who did not have the vaccine. There is a connection between H1N1 and Ealing type sickness, same happened after the flu epidemic 1918

Call me cynical but I would hazard a guess that after a grim winter, tens of thousands of more deaths, the end of furlough, millions of job losses and imminent tax increases the biggest moaners about the vaccine will be screaming and elbowing their way to the front of the queue for it.

Mine had the swine flu vaccine in 2010 and I hadn’t heard a thing about any alleged ill effects til this year.

Ultimately though it was same as now. The vaccine was needed to deal with the pandemic. We don’t have years for people to decide they are comfortable with the “long term effects” of the vaccine or years to pass just to appease people saying it is “rushed”. The pandemic is taking place now. The vaccine is required now, not in a few years.

This is why I generally prefer to discuss these issues on fora other than MN, TrufflyPig - I find that those with more enquiring minds are willing and capable enough to research for themselves instead of expecting to be spoonfed

This is why I generally prefer to discuss my baseless claims on my anti-science echo chamber - I find that unqualified people simply accept whatever nonsense I spout without any proof at all.

Fixed it for you.

I'm guessing it's a no on any citations then....

From their position of assumed superior intelligence I'd have thought they'd notice that, until the claims have been peer reviewed, we don't actually know what the real effectiveness is - also to realise that given the profits involved, there's a very obvious motive to "make the most" of the claims

Assuming you’re talking about the 95% claims from Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines, not AstraZeneca who haven’t released results for theirs yet:

Yes we don’t yet have the full data.
So technically yes, they could have lied.
However, given they’re submitting data to regulators very soon (Pfizer already have to some), those lies would be seen through fairly rapidly.

Do I believe that giant pharma companies could be dishonest? yes.

Do I believe that giant pharma companies would be dishonest in a way that would be immediately discovered, result in their vaccine not getting approval, and/or being splashed all over every newspaper in the world under “PFIZER LIED!” headlines? No, that does not seem very likely.

That's your privilege, TrufflyPig; it seems you'll decide whatever you wish to, even if it means "fixing" my words into predictable buzz phrases instead of what was actually said, so despite having offered plenty of things to look up I'll leave you to it

Good to see you back on with the usual balanced reply, GoldenOmber, and yes I agree that, for obvious reasons, pharma companies would be unlikely to risk their vaccines not being approved
However I worry that, with the widespread panic and the money that's up for grabs here, things could be pushed through - fudged, if you like - which would otherwise be subjected to a little more caution

Time will tell though ...

So definitely a no to the evidence of your claims. Got it.

Do I believe that giant pharma companies would be dishonest in a way that would be immediately discovered, result in their vaccine not getting approval, and/or being splashed all over every newspaper in the world under “PFIZER LIED!” headlines? No, that does not seem very likely

it's happened already several times.Pfizer have had enormous fines.

www.corp-research.org/pfizer

www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/biggest-pharmaceutical-lawsuits/

‘However I worry that, with the widespread panic and the money that's up for grabs here, things could be pushed through - fudged, if you like - which would otherwise be subjected to a little more caution’

I think this would be more of a risk if there was only one vaccine in the offing. It wouldn’t be easy to rule against a vaccine if you felt by erring on the side of the caution you were (to put it melodramatically) depriving humanity of its only hope.
However as it is you would just be ruling out one of many, at worst delaying things a little while the many more in development work their way along the line. I don’t think under those circumstances the pressure will be overwhelming.

@Zofrasi

I'm taking part in a vaccine trial. Had my injection yesterday and I feel fine (of course it could have been the placebo).

Thank you!!!!!

I think this would be more of a risk if there was only one vaccine in the offing

I absolutely take your point in that post, TheCountess, and agree that the number of potential vaccines offers more options if one's considered unreliable
I'm not sue any companies who lost out would see it quite that way though

So definitely a no to the evidence of your claims

Not at all; merely an unwillingness to engage further with a poster who's been quite so rude
Goodbye

@Puzzledandpissedoff the problem is if we Google phrases we're likely to be presented with links to sites that could easily have been written by Dave from Doncaster who works as a postie and gets his 'research' from YouTube, conspiracy theory forums and internet memes.

Since you've already found all the reputable sources we're asking if you'd share the findings here, to cut through the crap?

If I worked for the regulator now I'd be doubling down on the standards I'd expect in terms of safety, data etc. If there were to be some kind of widespread issue (I don't think there will be but hypothetically) the regulator would be nailed to the floor and they know it. If anything I think it will raise standards not lower them.

if we Google phrases we're likely to be presented with links to sites that could easily have been written by Dave from Doncaster who works as a postie and gets his 'research' from YouTube, conspiracy theory forums and internet memes

I doubt Dave would get his ramblings published on the actual research sites, but yes I get where you're coming from

Give me a day or so and I'll ask again for something from those in a position to know to post on here ... it can't be "confidential" if they've shared it already, so I'll do my best

[quote Ophelia2020]Do I believe that giant pharma companies would be dishonest in a way that would be immediately discovered, result in their vaccine not getting approval, and/or being splashed all over every newspaper in the world under “PFIZER LIED!” headlines? No, that does not seem very likely

it's happened already several times.Pfizer have had enormous fines.

www.corp-research.org/pfizer

www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/biggest-pharmaceutical-lawsuits/[/quote]
sigh

Yes, Pfizer have had fines. Like I said, I do not think big pharma companies are above dishonesty or ethical shenanigans of various types.

But, okay, imagine that everyone involved in Pfizer’s vaccine work is a dishonest sociopath who just wants to make as much money as they can. If they lie about their data for the most eagerly-awaited vaccine in 50 years, they won’t make their money. All they will succeed at doing will be tanking their company’s reputation, forever.

So even if you think they only care about their bottom line, why would you imagine they’d lie about their data, just before handing that data to the regulators who would immediately notice the lie? It would be pointlessly self-defeating.

So even if you think they only care about their bottom line, why would you imagine they’d lie about their data, just before handing that data to the regulators who would immediately notice the lie? It would be pointlessly self-defeating.

You mention imagining a lot. I'm not sure why.

They have previously lied about data. Several times.

Why do you think they did that? And why didn't the regulators notice?

What went so terribly wrong and what has been put in place to prevent this happening again?

Not at all; merely an unwillingness to engage further with a poster who's been quite so rude

I find this a standard response when I repeatedly ask for evidence of claims from conspiracy theorists in general, go on the attack when you can't defend. If you had anything you would be desperate to prove me wrong and it's not that difficult to post a few links.

But now because I've been 'rude' it seemingly removes the obligation that the burden of proof is on the claimant. I doubt you'll be back with anything substantial.

If there were to be some kind of widespread issue (I don't think there will be but hypothetically) the regulator would be nailed to the floor and they know it

In principle perhaps, but in too many sectors there's a long and depressing history of regulatory failure, often with little done about it except the commission of an everlasting "public inquiry" and the spouting of "lessons will be earned"

To be clear I'm absolutely not saying such a catastrophe will happen, only that the haste is leaving rather too many unanswered questions for my taste

There aren't really going to be long term effects - that's not how vaccines work

What puzzles me is, some of these novel mRNA 'procedures' should perhaps not even be called 'vaccines' as per the strict definition of the word:

A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins.

This does not seem to be how mRNA technology works

So it would not be correct to assume that what we know about traditional tried and tested vaccines to date would also be applicable to these new technologies

@Ophelia2020

So even if you think they only care about their bottom line, why would you imagine they’d lie about their data, just before handing that data to the regulators who would immediately notice the lie? It would be pointlessly self-defeating.

You mention imagining a lot. I'm not sure why.

They have previously lied about data. Several times.

Why do you think they did that? And why didn't the regulators notice?

What went so terribly wrong and what has been put in place to prevent this happening again?

The biggest Pfizer controversy I’m aware of is the Nigerian antibiotic trials, where the issue does not seem to be that they lied to the regulators about data, but more that they lied to the people/parents of the people in the trial and ran it without proper regulatory oversight.

Think for a minute about what a lie over efficacy data would mean here. Pfizer have calculated that efficacy based on the number of volunteers in vaccine vs placebo group, and the number who got the virus. So sure they could have lied and said “oh only 9 people contracted the virus” when actually 47 did. But how on Earth would the MHRA not spot that immediately when looking at the data? Do you think the MHRA are going to go “oooh that’s a BIG pile of paperwork. Let’s not bother reviewing this one, we’ll just wave it through based on the press release?”

Do you think the MHRA are going to go “oooh that’s a BIG pile of paperwork. Let’s not bother reviewing this one, we’ll just wave it through based on the press release?”

Exactly! They aren't just pulling numbers out of their behinds, they'd get very quickly shown up on the world stage if they did.

Of course, there are regulators in different countries- all the vaccines will have to be passed by the FDA as well as the MHRA. If the outcomes are different people are going to be asking questions.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I'm not sure there has ever been a comparable situation to this. We're talking about multiple regulators, assessing a vaccine that will be given to a large proportion of populations across the world. Honestly, I really can't see this being "waved through", I really can't.