Re: Cable Forum Vaccinations (Booster)
 

It is only a [serious] argument if you can provide authoritative, peer reviewed evidence that shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Covid is less dangerous than the vaccine for the age/risk group you are focussing on. I see no evidence seriously being debated & concluded in the public domain.

Don't forget, repeat serious infection from Covid, infections that are mitigated by vaccines, risk Long Covid which can include long term degradation of your immune system with all the consequences that entails.

Re: Cable Forum Vaccinations (Booster)
 

This paper - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 is our friend here. It looks at the relative risks of the various vaccines and SARS-COV-2 infections. For the over 40s, the risk of myocarditis is higher with infection vs. vaccines. For under 40s, there is a higher risk with the Moderna vaccine than with infection.

Note that this is for myocarditis which is often mild. For pericarditis and arrhythmias, there seems to be no significant risk with vaccinations but there is for infection. Pericarditis and in particular arrhythmias tend to be more dangerous than myocarditis.

This paper looked at risks of heart issues only. COVID has many more risky symptoms than just heart issues.

Re: Cable Forum Vaccinations (Booster)
 

But researching something and publishing it takes time to build up the evidence, get enough examples and stuff for it to be done, then write it all up - peer reviewing means after it's published then other research groups studying similar examine it and see if there are other findings or not.


This process usually takes a lot longer than we have had covid vaccines as science generally doesn't move that quickly. In some cases such as the longer side effects of either vaccination or infection the evidence isn't even there yet. It can take years for an article to be published in a journal and then even longer for peer review of this research to take place. We have had covid vaccines for little over two years.


As for discussing it in an open forum - well, they keep to their journals. Popping things on twitter doesn't really count, a lot of the time this stuff is echo chamber or abuse where if anyone suggests the vaccines might be bad they get jumped on by multiple accounts abusing them, calling them an anti-vaxxer, or a covidiot, or something else even if they actually have evidence. And you get the other side too where people encouraging the vaccine uptake get abused. We see the same on even places like this when there's a spike and the usual people want to start everyone wearing masks again or social distancing and there's others saying why because it doesn't really stop anything... when you're on about views not facts it is important to respect others. Even some people on SM have been banned for "spreading misinformation" when they simply are questioning the official line... That environment isn't conducive to sensible debate.


And we don't know how severe the link is or how the link is going to work long term with vaccines and any side effects, whether these are milder than covid or not...

Re: Cable Forum Vaccinations (Booster)
 

Not quite sure what your point is here :( If you are going to question the "official line", it should be based on a rational, evidence-based position. If not, what is your argument except just opinion?

Going back to Jon's post, he mentions that there is a concern regards the Moderna vaccine and younger age groups which is why, I believe, these people, at least in the UK, are given Pfizer as a precaution (although I'm not 100% on this).

Re: Cable Forum Vaccinations (Booster)
 

What journals take years to review a paper? The paper I linked to up there was submitted in October 2021 and accepted in November 2021. Peer review can take time but in an emergency, reviewers will bump up the reviews in their ‘to do’ list. I have a few papers to my name and longest to get published took about three months as a reviewer really didn’t like one of our conclusions.

The case of COVID vaccine approval has frustrated the pharmaceutical industry somewhat. Once a potential drug is patented, the clock is ticking to make some money from that drug before the patent expires. Generally, the patent process is started before clinical trials start so drug companies want to run through these as quickly as possible and get approval to start making some money. Modern drugs can cost up to $2bn to bring to market so the longer you have sole rights to make and sell a drug, the better. The COVID vaccine case showed what could be done to accelerate drug approvals. The safety trials went first but phase II and III trials ran almost concurrently. The trials were performed normally but the gaps between trials were hugely reduced. It wasn’t a lack in the stringency of the trials which sped things up, it was the efficiency of the process.

I did look up the safety trial for the Pfizer vaccine and it looked like it ran for 17 weeks in total. This was purely the safety trial. Of course, safety was still looked at through the phase II and III trials and continues to be looked at through post marketing surveillance. I then checked another modern vaccine - Gardasil for HPV. With that vaccine, safety trials ran for 14 days!