Current Events > Austalia first country to abandon Covid vaccine due to HIV results

(+) Yeah! (+)

Rika_Furude posted...

but not long term testing for long term side effects

What long term side effects are you expecting exactly? What information do you have that Pfizer/Moderna, the FDA and the CDC overlooked, since your risk assessment differs from theirs?


---

One odd side effect of Hodgkins Lymphoma is it causes you to give false positives on blood tests for Hep C.

That doesn't mean it gave me Hep C

---

So time for Australia to be on no fly list forever

---

Irony posted...

So time for Australia to be on no fly list forever

Dont they only have like one case of covid?
---

Vermander posted...

Dont they only have like one case of covid?

Yeah but they are anti vax now

---

Hornezz posted...

What long term side effects are you expecting exactly

???

what are you trying to suggest with this post? Do you know what a test is?

---

Vermander posted...

Dont they only have like one case of covid?

Which we got from America iirc

---

Rika_Furude posted...

???

what are you trying to suggest with this post? Do you know what a test is?

I'm suggesting your argument is based on speculation and ignorance. Why don't you answer the question?

What information do you have that Pfizer/Moderna, the FDA and the CDC overlooked, since your risk assessment differs from theirs?

---

It feels like nearly no one in this topic actually read what the article was saying. This is about a different vaccine candidate in Australia that clearly didn't pass through testing, so it's being abandoned. It has nothing to do with the vaccines that got approved for use in America/Europe.

---

Hornezz posted...

What long term side effects are you expecting exactly? What information do you have that Pfizer/Moderna, the FDA and the CDC overlooked, since your risk assessment differs from theirs?

To be fair there is a lack of research on what happens if people who have already had or currently have covid take the vaccine. Especially those with long covid.

Also they are recommending pregnant women don't take the vaccine since they don't know what effects it will have on the baby. This may just be a UK thing as we had a bad time with a vaccine in the 60s that caused a load of birth defects.

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

Then there is the growing number of people having allergic reactions to the Moderna vaccine to the point they had to make a PSA to tell people who have history of allergies to be careful.

Vermander posted...

Honestly this does not sound like its going to make any meaningful changes going into 2021, which is disheartening to hear. What truly has made this virus so devastating is how easily it is spread and how most cases are completely asymptomatic. The only way I can see this being effective is forcing the entire population to get it so in essence when they get covid they dont die.

Yeah I agree. Only concern is how much protection does the current vaccine give? We don't know if it gives more than 6 months at the moment.

Edification posted...

Yeah I agree. Only concern is how much protection does the current vaccine give? We don't know if it gives more than 6 months at the moment.

We cant know because it hasnt been tested long enough.
It hasnt even been a year since the virus started.

Hornezz posted...

I'm suggesting your argument is based on speculation and ignorance. Why don't you answer the question?

What information do you have that Pfizer/Moderna, the FDA and the CDC overlooked, since your risk assessment differs from theirs?

im telling you to give us the long term data which you believe exists and negates the need for long term testing

---

Edification posted...

Also they are recommending pregnant women don't take the vaccine since they don't know what effects it will have on the baby.

The reason for this is because they don't include pregnant women as test subjects out of ethical reasons. That doesn't necessarily mean they expect risks for unborn babies.

This may just be a UK thing as we had a bad time with a vaccine in the 60s that caused a load of birth defects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal

...that wasn't a vaccine.

Then there is the growing number of people having allergic reactions to the Moderna vaccine to the point they had to make a PSA to tell people who have history of allergies to be careful.

From what I gather allergic reactions are pretty mild and only happened in rare occasions. The benefits of the vaccine far outweigh these minor inconveniences.

---

69

---

Hornezz posted...

hat doesn't necessarily mean they expect risks for unborn babies.

Not expecting risks is the absolute bare minimum that needs to happen before testing can even begin on people. Just because you dont expect something doesnt mean something wont happen. Thats why you test

---

shockthemonkey posted...

You want them to test on pregnant women?

are you trying to be clever? You arent.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

lol weird dodge

dumb strawman

---

Rika_Furude posted...

Not expecting risks is the absolute bare minimum that needs to happen before testing can even begin on people. Just because you dont expect something doesnt mean something wont happen. Thats why you test

Surely you don't seriously believe the pharmaceutical companies just cobble a few ingredients together and start injecting them in people to see what happens, right? They do plenty of testing before moving to human test subjects.

And again, health risks to unborn babies isn't even a factor here. Pregnant women were excluded from the trials then, and are excluded from being vaccinated now.

---

Edification posted...

This isn't true for the newer RNA vaccines. Anyway I posted a link that explains in more detail that at the moment the current candidates aren't proven to stop transmission.

You can still catch the virus when you're been vaccinated. But the symptoms are reduced. It won't stop you spreading it once you've caught it.

We aren't 100% sure about the second part. Fauci believes there's also a very likely possibility that if you got infected after being vaccinated the virus count would be so low that risk of spreading it would be negligible.

---

Edification posted...

To be fair there is a lack of research on what happens if people who have already had or currently have covid take the vaccine. Especially those with long covid.

True

The first round of vaccines are given to the front line workers at hospitals, and senior centers. Makes me wonder, is it to protect them, or are they our guinea pigs?

---

Rika_Furude posted...

im telling you to give us the long term data which you believe exists and negates the need for long term testing

Are you seriously suggesting waiting 40+ years before we start dealing with COVID, which we already know has way worse long-term effects than any vaccine has a decent chance of having?

---

Rika_Furude posted...

Because people like you insist theres no danger in getting a rushed vaccine that has had 0 long term testing performed and people like you are dangerous. So who are you trying to fool? Fuck off

these new types of vaccines don't use inert viruses, but a sort of chemical "shape" of the virus.

the basis for this type of vaccine has been in the works for about 15 years now without long-term problems. the issues have not been with safety, but with the accuracy of the chemical shaping.

our RNA gets changed by interaction with the viruses anyway; what the vaccines do is change it without the need for the virus itself.

Thats one reason why it's able to be put out so quickly -- there are fewer immediate side effects than typically experienced by people receiving a vaccine. this is predictable, since they aren't being injected with eggs or horse blood, or even with the virus itself.

the other big one is just a matter of statistics: COVID-19 spreading so quickly makes it easier to run clinical trials. if more of your sample group contracts the virus more quickly, that shaves time off the study duration.

---

Edification posted...

Then there is the growing number of people having allergic reactions to the Moderna vaccine to the point they had to make a PSA to tell people who have history of allergies to be careful.

Thats my biggest concern.
Who is made responsible when people end up in the hospital from a severe allergic reaction to this?

Jx1010 posted...

Thats my biggest concern.
Who is made responsible when people end up in the hospital from a severe allergic reaction to this?

No one? The VIS for any vaccine tells you outright "If you have a history of allergies to so-and-so, you should not have this vaccine." Before getting any vaccine, you fill out a brief questionnaire that asks if you have those allergies. If you don't have any known allergies, you get the vaccine, and then there's a monitoring period before you leave if there's a higher risk of a reaction from that particular vaccine. But why would you think that someone should be responsible for an allergic reaction that literally cannot be predicted from someone with no known allergies? That's like expecting a restaurant to be liable because you had an allergic reaction when you tried a totally new food there.

---

Jx1010 posted...

It wont allow for everything on topic title

Righttttt

---

What does Q tell you about the vaccine, though, TC?
---

Topic title implies the very concept of a COVID vaccine is giving people HIV

Jx1010 posted...

Thats my biggest concern.
Who is made responsible when people end up in the hospital from a severe allergic reaction to this?

Who is responsible when you have an allegic reaction to any vaccine?

---

Hornezz posted...

Surely you don't seriously believe the pharmaceutical companies just cobble a few ingredients together and start injecting them in people to see what happens, right? They do plenty of testing before moving to human test subjects.

And again, health risks to unborn babies isn't even a factor here. Pregnant women were excluded from the trials then, and are excluded from being vaccinated now.

You surely dont believe that the few months of testing they have done already equates to legitimate long term trials?

---

Rika_Furude posted...

You surely dont believe that the few months of testing they have done already equates to legitimate long term trials?

how have these trials differed?

Edification posted...

how have these trials differed?

Length

---

BabyBilly posted...

Here in California, our congress reduced intentionally indicting someone with HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor. Hence why I stopped donating blood here.

yet another dumb fuck who has no idea why or how this law works

---

metralo posted...

yet another dumb fuck who has no idea why or how this law works

Calm down

Rika_Furude posted...

Length

1) I want some details man. How long do normal trials last compared to this?

2) One of the points you mentioned was about how we don't know what the effects are going to be 40 years down the line. Well I'm assuming you don't expect trials to last 40 years.

Australia already hates Moronson.

---

Edification posted...

Can you link to some of the posts you're talking about? I've not seen this myself.

Edification posted...

1) I want some details man. How long do normal trials last compared to this?

2) One of the points you mentioned was about how we don't know what the effects are going to be 40 years down the line. Well I'm assuming you don't expect trials to last 40 years.

18 months is already an absurdly short amount of time to get a vaccine out to the public. We arent even approaching 18 months yet. No it shouldnt take 40 years but it shouldnt be less than 1 year or even less than 2 years. You have to realise this is an excessively accelerated vaccine development and even if you dont anticipate any risk (which no professional ever does) that doesnt mean that you can just skip a large portion of your testing and call it a day like what we are seeing with the covid vaccines. You test so you can verify your assumptions and discover anything overlooked before releasing it to the public

---

Rika_Furude posted...

18 months is already an absurdly short amount of time to get a vaccine out to the public. We arent even approaching 18 months yet. No it shouldnt take 40 years but it shouldnt be less than 1 year or even less than 2 years. You have to realise this is an excessively accelerated vaccine development and even if you dont anticipate any risk (which no professional ever does) that doesnt mean that you can just skip a large portion of your testing and call it a day like what we are seeing with the covid vaccines. You test so you can verify your assumptions and discover anything overlooked before releasing it to the public

there's a few reasons why they're being developed so quickly. skipping testing is not one of them. it is not, in fact, what we are seeing

one big one: if more of the sample group contracts the virus more quickly, the amount of time necessary for the study is reduced. that's just a matter of statistics

---

averagejoel posted...

there's a few reasons why they're being developed so quickly. skipping testing is not one of them. it is not, in fact, what we are seeing

one big one: if more of the sample group contracts the virus more quickly, the amount of time necessary for the study is reduced. that's just a matter of statistics

Theres no getting around the fact you have to wait X amount of time after the vaccine to observe any side effects X amount of time after being vaccinated. 100 construction workers cant make cement dry any faster than 10 construction workers can.

---

Rika_Furude posted...

Theres no getting around the fact you have to wait X amount of time after the vaccine to observe any side effects X amount of time after being vaccinated. 100 construction workers cant make cement dry any faster than 10 construction workers can.

this new type of vaccine, which uses a chemical "shape" of the virus, has been in development for the last 15 years. it's actually less likely than the previous type to cause side effects (because they're not being injected with eggs or horse blood, or even with the virus itself). the issues have not been with safety, but with the accuracy of the chemical shape. the actual vaccine that enters your body also works its way out within a couple days.

while it's true that we don't know about any "long-term effects" of this specific vaccine, there's no reason to believe that it would be any different from the other vaccines tested over the last ~15 years.

it's also worth noting that we don't know for certain about any "long-term effects" of covid-19. but here are some things that people who had it and "recovered" now deal with:
-lung damage
-clouded thoughts and inability to focus
-erectile dysfunction

the lung damage is likely permanent, and we don't know enough to say whether or not that's the case for the latter two.

so which seems safer to you in the long-term: a vaccine that has been in development for ~15 years that is demonstrably no more dangerous than the previous vaccine type, and and is actually less prone to causing side effects? or a virus that is has already killed many thousands of people and left many thousands more disabled?

---

averagejoel posted...

this new type of vaccine, which uses a chemical "shape" of the virus, has been in development for the last 15 years. it's actually less likely than the previous type to cause side effects (because they're not being injected with eggs or horse blood, or even with the virus itself). the issues have not been with safety, but with the accuracy of the chemical shape. the actual vaccine that enters your body also works its way out within a couple days.

while it's true that we don't know about any "long-term effects" of this specific vaccine, there's no reason to believe that it would be any different from the other vaccines tested over the last ~15 years.

it's also worth noting that we don't know for certain about any "long-term effects" of covid-19. but here are some things that people who had it and "recovered" now deal with:
-lung damage
-clouded thoughts and inability to focus
-erectile dysfunction

the lung damage is likely permanent, and we don't know enough to say whether or not that's the case for the latter two.

so which seems safer to you in the long-term: a vaccine that has been in development for ~15 years that is demonstrably no more dangerous than the previous vaccine type, and and is actually less prone to causing side effects? or a virus that is has already killed many thousands of people and left many thousands more disabled?

Obviously the vaccine is probably safer than the coronavirus. Not getting the coronavirus is safer than both and thats something myself and most people in Australia are in a position to accomplish

---