Australian vaccine developer claims 10 years are needed to monitor side-effects

[basketcase]

Hmm.... With the survivability north of 99% how in the name of Zeus will Covid run.out of hosts? Have we gone completely bonkers over this?

It likely won't run out of hosts but between vaccines and improving treatments, it will become a virus with a very low mortality and if it follows the path of most endemic viruses, evolve to be less lethal. Running out of hosts it can kill is pretty much the same thing as running out of hosts.

 

[basketcase]

I don't understand why this is so hard to believe. It is not like anyone is saying there IS going to be side effects, just that it will take up to 10 years to see. Makes completely logical sense.

I figured this when I took the vaccine. I fully acknowledged I was taking something found to be safe now but could have effects later.

Why is this an issue?

Everything has a RISK of side effects but all evidence so far says that risk is less problematic than the virus itself. It's possible we will discover negative impacts of tylenol but unless we have evidence, there is no reason to stop taking it.

So covering it up is the better way to gain their trust?????? LOL
...

What are they covering up? Have they hidden the fact that this vaccine is new?

 

[basketcase]

Phil is so chicken shit to answer my question that he has now put me on ignore.

Nothing more needs to be said. He knows that he's talking out of his ass and I nailed him. LOL

Hey Phil. How many years of testing is "long term"?

Is that like the idea that ignoring the virus will make it go away?

 

[Jenesis]

Everything has a RISK of side effects but all evidence so far says that risk is less problematic than the virus itself. It's possible we will discover negative impacts of tylenol but unless we have evidence, there is no reason to stop taking it.


What are they covering up? Have they hidden the fact that this vaccine is new?

1. Where did I say not to take the vaccine? I actually said I knew all this when I took the vaccine. So clearly I believe you can know this and still should take it.

2. I didn't say they covered it up, I asked if that is what should be done based on the reply I was quoting. Don't use words out of context.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Were you incapable of reading where the study talks about HUMAN TRIALS?

Yes, human TRIALS. Was this drug ever FDA approved for human USE and if so whats its name??

FYI I havent heard of any mRNA drug thats currently being successfully used to cure all kinds of different cancers

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

13 years since human trials seems a pretty long time to me. and if you knew anything about science, you'd understand that conclusions rely on evidence

Cancer mRNA drugs =/= Covid mRNA vaccines. Thats a whole different animal altogether.
Whats safe for humans for a Covid vaccine might not be safe as a cancer drug, even if they are both based on mRNA technology.

And FYI these mRNA cancer drugs are still in R&A stage and havent been approved for human use yet.
Read this (article is from June 2021, so its very recent): https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-blog/2021/june/how-mrna-vaccines-help-fight-cancer-tumors-too

I highlighted relevant parts in red, just so you can understand

How mRNA Vaccines Help Fight Cancer Tumors
“You can use mRNA vaccines for many things.”

That includes cancer — which is just one of several areas outside of infectious diseases that researchers at Penn have been investigating.

Here’s a breakdown of how an mRNA-based vaccine could work to fight tumors, the challenges that need to be overcome, the technology’s roots in oncology, and where it’s headed.

The biggest challenge in developing these types of mRNA vaccines for cancer, though, is just how personal it has to be. The majority of everyone’s tumor neoantigens are specific to them.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

It's possible we will discover negative impacts of tylenol but unless we have evidence, there is no reason to stop taking it

Tylenol was OTC approved in 1960, of course we know what all the negative impacts are

 

[bver_hunter]

mRNA Science Research started in 1971. The actual vaccines were being developed in the 1990s , but discovered to be unstable until the Lipid Nanoparticles Technology (LNP) was further researched. This new era of technology is bound to be further developed for other future types of viruses / and mutations due to the stability of these lipid nanoparticles in wrapping around the cells in a process called Endocytosis. Now around 2010 the LNPs were developed in order to make these vaccines injectable. The first drug that contained these LNPs antigens was approved by the FDA in 2018. Hence that drug was fully tested before being approved. So this delivery vehicle was approved in time for these mRNA vaccines that was used for the Covid-19 virus. Any argument that these vaccines require another 10 years or so to "monitor the side effects" of this vaccine has been debunked !!

 

[basketcase]

...

Tylenol was OTC approved in 1960, of course we know what all the negative impacts are

So you trust the scientists from pharmaceutical companies to haver accurately reported on Tylenol while distrusting those same people on vaccines that first hit human trials at least 13 years ago.

 

[PeteOsborne]

Tylenol was OTC approved in 1960, of course we know what all the negative impacts are

Another excellent choice in sig pics.
Her hands are shaped perfectly.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

So you trust the scientists from pharmaceutical companies to haver accurately reported on Tylenol while distrusting those same people on vaccines that first hit human trials at least 13 years ago

Even the experts are saying we dont know the long-term effects of these vaccines yet.
Read here: https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies will have to prove there are no immediate or short-term negative health effects from taking the vaccines. But when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects.

“There is a race to get the public vaccinated, so we are willing to take more risks,” Tal Brosh, head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital, told The Jerusalem Post.

But he acknowledged that there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

mRNA Science Research started in 1971. The actual vaccines were being developed in the 1990s , but discovered to be unstable until the Lipid Nanoparticles Technology (LNP) was further researched. This new era of technology is bound to be further developed for other future types of viruses / and mutations due to the stability of these lipid nanoparticles in wrapping around the cells in a process called Endocytosis. Now around 2010 the LNPs were developed in order to make these vaccines injectable. The first drug that contained these LNPs antigens was approved by the FDA in 2018. Hence that drug was fully tested before being approved. So this delivery vehicle was approved in time for these mRNA vaccines that was used for the Covid-19 virus. Any argument that these vaccines require another 10 years or so to "monitor the side effects" of this vaccine has been debunked !!

No it hasnt been debunked.
Read this: https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies will have to prove there are no immediate or short-term negative health effects from taking the vaccines. But when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects.

“There is a race to get the public vaccinated, so we are willing to take more risks,” Tal Brosh, head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital, told The Jerusalem Post.

But he acknowledged that there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components

 

[shack]

Even the experts are saying we dont know the long-term effects of these vaccines yet.

So is Phil saying that means that we should not get vaxxed until the long term effects are known, in which case who knows how many tens of millions will unnecessarily die?

Or at what point (how many years in) does he recommend to get vaxxed at some time prior to fully knowing the full long term effects. A few less millions of people will unnecessarily die while waiting.

He keeps repeating that statement above, but when asked does not tell us what that statement means in terms of getting vaxxed or not. How should that piece of knowledge he's given us be incorporated into our actions?

 

[bver_hunter]

No it hasnt been debunked.
Read this: https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

You are quoting one side of the story. How about in the very same link that You posted, if you believe the real expert who is involved in the studies of the vaccine, then this is what she stated:

BUT MICHAL LINIAL, a professor of biological chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told the Post that she believes there is no cause for concern.

Linial explained that “mRNA is a very fragile molecule, meaning it can be destroyed very easily... If you put mRNA on the table, for example, in a minute there will not be any mRNA leftover. This is as opposed to DNA, which is as stable as you get.”

She said that this fragility is true of the mRNA of any living thing, whether it belongs to a plant, bacteria, virus or human.

As such, she said the worry should not be that the mRNA won’t get into the cells and instead will stay outside, floating in the body and causing some kind of reaction. Rather the concern should be that if it doesn’t enter the cells, it will disintegrate and therefore be ineffective.

She said that while Moderna and Pfizer are based on new vaccine technologies, they are asking our bodies to do something they do every day: protein synthesis, the process where cells make proteins.


Moderna and Pfizer are simply delivering a specific mRNA sequence to our cells. Once the mRNA is in the cell, human biology takes over. Ribosomes read the code and build the protein, and the cells express the protein in the body.

Linial said she believes that the reason no mRNA vaccine has been developed yet is because there was just no need to move this fast on a vaccine until COVID-19 came along. She noted that most of the vaccines people take today were developed decades ago.

She said her concerns have less to do with the use of mRNA and more to do with the long-term efficacy of the vaccine, as well as other challenges that could cause something to go wrong and lead people to believe they are vaccinated when they are not.

For example, she said that because mRNA is so fragile, the Pfizer vaccine must be stored at negative 70 degrees Celsius. If the ideal environment is not maintained, the vaccine could “spoil” and become ineffective.

In addition, she said several questions remain, such as whether these vaccines will really be able to mount a sufficiently protective immune response and how long that immunity would last.

“It would be the worst [scenario] if people behave like they are immune but can still become infected,” Linial said.

So YES it has been debunked!!

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

You are quoting one side of the story. How about in the very same link that You posted, if you believe the real expert who is involved in the studies of the vaccine, then this is what she stated:

So YES it has been debunked!!

Thats not the same as debunking. The author thinks there's no cause for concern, but in the same article he says we wont know 100% for sure until we've been able to monitor all the long term side-effects. When you debunk something you have to be 100% sure, and clearly we wont be 100% sure until minimum 10 years from now

 

[bver_hunter]

Thats not the same as debunking. The author thinks there's no cause for concern, but in the same article he says we wont know 100% for sure until we've been able to monitor all the long term side-effects. When you debunk something you have to be 100% sure, and clearly we wont be 100% sure until minimum 10 years from now

Once again in layman's terms this vaccine has the very fragile molecule that disassociates with time. The worst side effects will be felt in the first couple of weeks or so. That is why they are recommending the second shot within a few months and the booster to follow shortly thereafter. The LNP side effects were being closely monitored on animal testing since 2010, and hence the FDA Approval in 2018.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Once again in layman's terms this vaccine has the very fragile molecule that disassociates with time. The worst side effects will be felt in the first couple of weeks or so. That is why they are recommending the second shot within a few months and the booster to follow shortly thereafter. The LNP side effects were being closely monitored on animal testing since 2010, and hence the FDA Approval in 2018

That doesnt change the fact that we dont know the long-term side effects yet.
You gotta give that a lot more time

 

[shack]

That doesnt change the fact that we dont know the long-term side effects yet.
You gotta give that a lot more time

He is still not telling us how this should affect our decision as to whether we should get vaxxed now or wait and for how long? The longer we wait, how many more millions or tens of millions of lives lost justifies waiting anywhere from 2-10 years waiting for results.

p.s. Phil blocked me because he didn't like when I asked him this question a couple of times. He never answered and I don't understand why.

 

[bver_hunter]

That doesnt change the fact that we dont know the long-term side effects yet.
You gotta give that a lot more time

So you think that we should have waited for 10 Years to know the true side effects? Do you think that we could have had a normal way of life for those 10 years?
99.999999% of those injected have had some initial symptoms like a sore arm and slight fever. Then they have fully recovered from it. Are You saying that the long term effects will come back to haunt them in 10 years time? The benefits far outweigh the risks to these vaccines, and as I stated these molecules are not going to be around for 10 years to create further complications due to their short term stability!!

 

[basketcase]

That doesnt change the fact that we dont know the long-term side effects yet.
You gotta give that a lot more time

What are we doing in the mean time while we are not taking the vaccine until find out if there actually are any serious long term effects?