@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?
- Dr. Peter A McCullough, MD, MPH
- Citations 67165
- h-index 122
- i10-index 492
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LzqEaOkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

- Dr. Robert W Malone, MD
- Citations 13671
- h-index 32
- i10-index 53
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ

- Dr. Aseem Malhotra
- 21 Publications 591 Citations
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aseem-Malhotra

I know how to determine the experts in the subject matter and the fringe doctors.
- Jeffrey Phillips Freeman
- Citations 29
- h-index 2
- i10-index 2
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Gbd9WfgAAAAJ

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

>- Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2109730
>- Cardiogenic shock revealing myocarditis after mRNA vaccination against covid-19: Case report and brief review for the first case in Morocco
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8716151/
>- Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/
>- Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037.long

@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.

@voidabyss The reason im taking this all on good faith and arguing with you and not classifying it under conspiracy theory from a moderation perspective is... well, good faith. For now I am assuming you read the papers, heard some scary language, and reacted as a lay person.. I am assuming you simply didnt understand that the papers you read verified the safety of the vaccine overall and thus am willing to discuss and hoping I can knock some sense into you that way,. At the very least after this conversation you cant blame a lack of understanding for your misinterpritation of the studies.

@freemo
👍

@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.

>- CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

>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.

@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.

* A Phase 1/​2/​3 Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of an RNA Vaccine Candidate Against COVID-19 in Healthy Children and Young Adults
https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04816643
* Moderna mRNA-1273 Observational Pregnancy Outcome Study
https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04958304

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:

* Paul A. Offit, MD
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Paul_Offit
https://www.fda.gov/media/117731/download
Member of FDA advisory board
* Bivalent Covid-19 Vaccines — A Cautionary Tale
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780%EF%BF%BC

Research studies:

- The Incidence of Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Post COVID-19 Unvaccinated Patients—A Large Population-Based Study
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219
- Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
- **Myopericarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Among Adolescents and Young Adults
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis December 5, 2022**
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2798866?guestAccessKey=849e80f0-4a29-4d04-9e1f-34c73224f8c9&utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=car_weekly_highlights&cmp=1&utm_medium=email
- Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
* Extended SARS-CoV-2 RBD booster vaccination induces humoral and cellular immune tolerance in mice
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222017515

Case studies:

- COVID-19 Vaccination-Induced Ventricular Fibrillation in an Afebrile Patient With Brugada Syndrome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9623033/
- Case report: Myocarditis with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in a female adolescent
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9720276/pdf/fped-10-995167.pdf
- Torsades de pointes following vaccination for COVID-19
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8993415/

>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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdecoxib

Pfizer drug breach ends in biggest US crime fine
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine

@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.

* [Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9428332/)

>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](https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Aseem-Malhotra/4180209) 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.

https://t.wtyl.live/w/w3tSE1XM848qXoihiqENRR

#COVID #COVID19 #vaccines #mrna #vaccine

@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
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

> 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