I am genuinely interested to understand how can a scientist claim that the new mRNA vaccine technology is 100% safe and doesn’t have any significant long term health effects?

There is a clear bias in the scientific community, pharmaceutical companies and public health authorities to push one simplistic narrative that the mRNA vaccine is safe and effective. Any dissenting opinion questioning the mRNA vaccine safety or efficacy is labeled idiot, conspiracy theorist and anti-vax.

This toxic scientific debate climate makes critical data gathering and research challenging. Most career driven scientists, medical doctors or researchers don’t want to go against the main narrative and lose their credentials and livelihood.

Questioning the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines represent a threat to the institutions mandating and advocating for that technology. A threat that might lead to vaccine hesitancy, lost in credibility, lost of financial revenue and legal liability.

There are few brave scientists with a good track records of scientific research, publications and citations. I can’t name them all, these are a few top ones that I followed their work on this topic:

There is a clear signal form various public heath safety reporting data bases and scientific research that show an increase risk of Myocarditis after the mRNA injections:

Myocarditis is one advert event among many that Pfizer own clinical trials has revealed even before vaccine mass deployment.

I can’t personally ignore or dismiss renown scientific researchers and medical doctors warnings regarding the vaccine safety and efficacy. I am not against vaccines in general, they truly save lives.

I am strongly against vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, especially since the vaccines were never tested or designed to stop the transmission.

I don’t want to live in a future dystopian technocracy were the state controls all aspects of my life, I am pro choice, liberty and informed consent.

I hope that everyone that took the mRNA shots are and will be alright.

@freemo Dr. Freemo if you reading up to this, I hope you consider the scientific research I shared here, and acknowledge the concerns that some people have regarding the mRNA vaccines.

🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱  
@ringo If i wasnt clear about my position, your an idiot if you still think the shot is dangerous at this point, though I would have agreed with ex...

@voidabyss Now this post is definately starting to encroach on unacceptable conspiracy theory territory. Simply having links to articles and papers in an of itself isnt enough (especially when those papers dont make your core point, which is supported by largely opinion pieces.

Few things:

1) No one claimed there arent rare adverse effects, there are certainly rare, but authentic cases. But they are exceedingly rare compared to any risks from the diseases, to the point of being insignificant in the bigger picture.

2) random individuals with opinions, regardless of their credentials, is not remotely acceptable evidence compared to overwhelming scientific consensus

In the past ive been ok with your post because as I said the last one did address authentic open-questions about COVID. This one does not, it addresses a well established consensus and does so using bad-faith arguments that are quite transparent to anyone operating in a STEM capacity,

Keep in mind this has crossed the line into conspiracy theoty at this point. Please consider this a warning to back it up. If you wish to post anti-Vaccine, covid or otherwise, content this isnt the place unless you have an informed argument to make, which you dont seem to have in this post.

@voidabyss

For the record I am against forced vaccination, and dont mind you debating the philosophical or legal concerns around this.

But dont confuse my stance with anti-vax. Obviously I think you’re an idiot not to get vaccinated (especially when they have non-mRNA vaccines for you to pick so its not like its even an issue). But I also think that bodily autonomy is sacred and people have a right to be idiots.

@freemo
The scientific consensus evolves/improve over time by making observations, data gathering, forming hypothesis, analysis and open honest scientific debate.

How many times a scientific consensus has been disproven partially or completely by a small group of scientists that eventually get vindicated?

I am a little bit shocked and disappointed by your response as you deemed that I am spreading conspiracy theories.

I can’t engage in a productive conversation with you based on that premise.

I never mentioned my vaccination status, and you called me an idiot for not getting vaccinated, even though I got the Sinopharm shots to comply with vaccination mandate.

Thank you Dr. Freemo for this platform and have a good day.

@voidabyss My use of “your” in thsi case was a general statement.. not worded very well but the intention was not to imply you specifically werent vaccinated.. I meant to say I think anyone who doesnt get vaccinated outside of a few fringe medical reasons are idiots.

As for how often scientific consensus is proven wrong… quite rarely in the modern era, youd have to go back before our generation to start finding any significant examples really

@freemo
Every generation deem it-self as modern era going back to the Greek civilization and beyond.

Reading about Electromagnetism, how the scientific consensus evolved through out the centuries and still ongoing is quite fascinating and humbling.

@voidabyss There are people alive in the world who both existed before humans ever learned to fly AND witnessed us land on the moon. Comparing modern scientific progress with the past is not even remotely comparible interms of progress. Buy comparison there was a 5,000 year gap between inventing writing and inventing the printing press.

@freemo I am not comparing scientific progress, I am comparing the scientific mindset e.g. Hippocratic Oath “First do no harm” ~400 BC which is still relevant to this day.

@voidabyss I ne er claimed scientific consensus never changed, thats very different than thr picture you suggest where change to the scientific consensus required an individual proposing such change to be in a small minority. Most change is not met with much hostility, assuming the argument has been made correctly.

Take einstein, he proposed a pretty fubdemental and craxy soubdibg proposal but he was met almost immediately with interest and consideration by the majority if the great minds in his field.

@freemo Albert Einstein has faced tremendous challenges not only in this career as a pioneer physicist but also due to his Jewish origin.

Many medical doctors are in fear to lose their job or medical license if they report adverse events or speak against the “scientific consensus”.

Since you deemed questioning the scientific consensus borderline conspiracy theory, I don’t see the point continuing that conversation.

@voidabyss As i explained its not about simply questioning the scientific consesus. Its the fact that you did so in a way that seemed to be both uneducated on the subject and and yet assertive.

@freemo I am not asserting anything, I asked an open question and brought dissenting opinion to the main narrative based on ever-evolving scientific research and renown scientists perspective on the matter.

If you don’t like my approach that’s fine, but find your responses very condescending.

I already stated there is no point continuing this conversation.

@voidabyss I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, which is why the post is allowed of course.

But no this isnt the way to do that.. pointing to some fringe doctors isnt the way to do that.. show well researched science that either passed or should have passed peer review and then you can have a good scientific conversation.

@freemo Have you even bothered to read my post or look up the scientists I mentioned?

I know how to determine the experts in the subject matter and the fringe doctors.

As for peer reviewed research papers there are plenty in my original post:

@voidabyss

When did I say the scientists havent been published? I said you should be arguing with credible studies that make your case, the opinion of a few scientists with exceedinly fringe opinions is not a credible way to argue.. WHO says it isnt what matters if you want to go agains the consensus, the argument you can make (the studies) are what matters.

Now lets address your studies.. All of them show that there is some, very small, risks associated with vaccines (this was never in dispute).. but to claim they are dangerous is a huge leap, nor supported by anything you posted.

You only posted 3 actual studies, none of which actually agree with anything you said. In fact they all show the vaccine to be exceedingly safe. They do point out actual adverse effects, sure, but thats about as far as it goes, none of it suggests any of the known adverse effects pose any significant risk .

The one exception here is pfizer, which is still perfectly safe but a bit less so than the others. For this reason it is not recommended as a first choice for vaccines. Thus how/when it is administered is still with consideration of these risks and perfectly safe.

@freemo

but to claim they are dangerous is a huge leap, nor supported by anything you posted.

I never claimed that the vaccines are dangerous.

The main point of my post is that the safety profile of the mRNA vaccines are debatable and the research on this matter is still ever-evolving as more data is revealed and more studies are conducted.

The second point is regarding mandating the mRNA vaccines and vaccines passports. You already mentioned that you are against vaccines mandates

The forth paper was regarding the initial clinical trials of the vaccines and how they were never tested for the virus transmission making vaccine passports absurd.

@voidabyss

The main point of my post is that the safety profile of the mRNA vaccines are debatable and the research on this matter is still ever-evolving as more data is revealed and more studies are conducted.

This is the only point I take issue with… the myocarditis issue is old knews and known quite a while ago and addressed. Moreover it doesnt actually change the assertion that the vaccines are very safe.

Its important to note, as well, this issue was discovered before the vaccines had final (non-emergecy use) approval. So still well within the time we expect these sort of minor things to pop up.

In short there is nothing to indicate the safety of the vaccine is still in question, quite the opposite that by this point the risks are very well known and its safe to say that it is safe with high confidence.

As to your other points about transmissability and mandates, I have no real issue with that part of the discussion.

@freemo

Its important to note, as well, this issue was discovered before the vaccines had final (non-emergecy use) approval. So still well within the time we expect these sort of minor things to pop up.

I already mentioned this issue in my orignal post pointing to Pfizer own clinical trial data.

In short there is nothing to indicate the safety of the vaccine is still in question, quite the opposite that by this point the risks are very well known and its safe to say that it is safe with high confidence.

I respect your opinion, but I value excess precaution as I am looking forward to more research studies on this matter.

@voidabyss You be as cautious as you want, its just important to be careful about trying to sell that caution as something justified by the science.

To be clear back when the vaccine was new and still emrgency use I would have agreed with you. But at this point it has undergone all the same tests as any medication and there isnt much science to suggest caution is anymore justified than with any other medication or vaccine really.

Follow

@freemo

You be as cautious as you want, its just important to be careful about trying to sell that caution as something justified by the science.

That’s your determination, the scientific research and the clinical trials on this matter are still on going, whether you want to acknowledge that fact or not.

I am relying scientific experts opinion on this topic as well as research studies and case studies therefore my concerns are justified and backed up by science not social conformity or peer pressure.

Expert opinion:

Research studies:

Case studies:

But at this point it has undergone all the same tests as any medication and there isnt much science to suggest caution is anymore justified than with any other medication or vaccine really.

The safety profile of the mRNA vaccines is not set in stone and will continue to be questioned as more data is reveled and research conducted, the same way as any medication really e.g. Bextra.

On April 7, 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the U.S. market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke and also the risk of a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdecox

Pfizer drug breach ends in biggest US crime fine
theguardian.com/business/2009/

@voidabyss of course clinical trials are on going. They always will be, thats how science works, we always keep looking. But that is no way even remotely an indication that there is any concern. Spewing studies that all confirm the safety if the vaccines is intended to prove what exactly?

@voidabyss Please be aware that posting a bunch of studies that show COVID’s safety and claiming its safety is questionable is approaching anti-vax nonsense. It would fall under bad faith arguments.

Noteworthy reanalysis study to update this thread.

3.4. Harm-benefit considerations

In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (15.1 per 10,000 participants) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (6.4 per 10,000 participants). [3] In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs (10.1 per 10,000) was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group (2.3 per 10,000 participants).

Dr. Aseem Malhotra tells Joe Rogan that a reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s original clinical trial data shows that their COVID mRNA vaccines INCREASE your risks of serious adverse events, hospitalization, and death:

This is the highest quality of scientific evidence. Joseph Fraiman is an ER doctor and clinical data scientist from Louisiana. Associate editor of the BMJ, Dr. Peter Doshi. Dr. Robert Kaplan from Stanford. Some real eminence of integrity published this reanalysis, and what they found was this. In the trials that led to the approval of regulators worldwide, you were more likely to suffer a severe adverse event from taking the vaccine, hospitalization, disability, or life-changing event than you were to be hospitalized with COVID.

t.wtyl.live/w/w3tSE1XM848qXoih

@freemo

@voidabyss hows that noteworthy.. not particularly shocking study that doesnt change much as far as this discussion is concerned.

Another study related to mRNA safety and myocardial injury risks.

Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ep

In conclusion, using active surveillance, mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated mild transient myocardial injury was found to be much more common than previously thought. It occurred in one out of 35 persons, was mild and transient, and more frequent in women versus men.

@freemo

Cancer Genomics Expert Dr. Phillip Buckhaults Testifies to the SC Senate on the DNA Contamination Found in mRNA COVID Vaccines

t.wtyl.live/w/wMK5KH8UqBFKydis

youtube.com/watch?v=IEWHhrHiiT
@freemo

@voidabyss If you want me to watch something youhave to explain to me, at a minimum, why I care and what the video is saying that might motivate me to watch it.

The one quote from the video that seems to sum it up, to quote the doctor:

“The pfizer vaccine did a pretty good job of keeping people from dying… It was deployed mostly in good faith”

Ok sure.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.