[stack]

There are thousands of possible side effects, and thousands of states of health a person may have. Assuming that it has all been studied is erroneous. "FDA Approved" products have been recalled numerous times in the past, even before this new fast-track process they made for the Covid vaccines. Making assumptions and declarations of safety without the necessary evidence is, in fact, pseudoscience.

So you're saying that until the thousands of possible side effects, and thousands of states of health a person may possess have been studied, all pharmaceuticals should be considered unsafe?

And perhaps there's no need for an FDA approval as it is meaningless because some pharmaceuticals get recalled?

[Lord Dave]

Tom. you fully believe in every single conspiracy theory going, don't you?

BTW, Scientific American is shit.  It was flushed down the toilet decades ago.  The last time I gave it any credit at all was in the early 80s.  Go to a library and pull some editions from then and compare to the POS it is today.  Really sad.

As far as I know Scientific American is not a publication which publishes what they know to be abject lies, no.

Some people do report having headaches and feeling unwell when in very near proximity to even non-5G WiFi. When someone reports their sensitivity to their doctor or medical authority they are not contacted by a university or scientific group to enter their home for a study to determine the real cause. They complain of being ignored. So unless you are prepared to demonstrate that these types of devices have never produced even so much as a feeling of lethargy when placed feet from someone's head, to anyone of any possible biological sensitivity or medical condition, you really have nothing except for a claim that this has never occurred.

The same goes for the vaccines. Some people claim to have gotten sick. If you don't have large scale studies involving their specific side effect you are in no position to claim it to be false. There are thousands of possible side effects, and thousands of states of health a person may have. Assuming that it has all been studied is erroneous. "FDA Approved" products have been recalled numerous times in the past, even before this new fast-track process they made for the Covid vaccines. Making assumptions and declarations of safety without the necessary evidence is, in fact, pseudoscience.

You are not wrong.  https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/el-hsensitivity


And there are people who react to the vaccine, which is why you wait 20 minutes after getting the shot before you leave.

But magnatism isn't one of the side effects.

[WTF_Seriously]

Unintended drug side affects can be quite lucrative.  Just ask the folks at Phizer.

[BillO]

You are not wrong.  https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/el-hsensitivity

Goof find.  I especially like this line:

The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.

And there are people who react to the vaccine, which is why you wait 20 minutes after getting the shot before you leave.

But magnatism isn't one of the side effects.

Another great point.  Here in Ontario any reactions are closely logged and tracked and even though the whole magnetism thing has been passed around the conspiracy crowd for a while it seems to have been totally missed by the medical staff administering these vaccines.

[markjo]

The same goes for the vaccines. Some people claim to have gotten sick. If you don't have large scale studies involving their specific side effect you are in no position to claim it to be false. There are thousands of possible side effects, and thousands of states of health a person may have. Assuming that it has all been studied is erroneous. "FDA Approved" products have been recalled numerous times in the past, even before this new fast-track process they made for the Covid vaccines. Making assumptions and declarations of safety without the necessary evidence is, in fact, pseudoscience.

Then it's a good thing that there are still numerous ongoing COVID related clinical trials.  You can even volunteer for one if you qualify.
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/clinical-trials/covid-19-clinical-trials

[BillO]

As far as I know Scientific American is not a publication which publishes what they know to be abject lies, no.

They don't do a lot of fact checking either.

So unless you are prepared to demonstrate that these types of devices have never produced even so much as a feeling of lethargy when placed feet from someone's head, to anyone of any possible biological sensitivity or medical condition, you really have nothing except for a claim that this has never occurred.

  It's been demonstrated.  See Lord Dave's post.

If you don't have large scale studies involving their specific side effect you are in no position to claim it to be false.

Did you really just type that?  Are you serious?  Where is the Flat Earth community's scientifically accepted large scale studies and irrefutable experiments showing that the earth is not a near sphere?  Heh, my guess is, according to your own statement and logic, you are in no position claim the earth is flat.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

If you don't have large scale studies involving their specific side effect you are in no position to claim it to be false.

The vaccine turned me into a newt!

But I got better.

We need to investigate the side effects.

[Tom Bishop]

Dr. Mary Bowden seems to be calling anyone who took the vaccine foolish.

[Rama Set]

Dr. Mary Bowden seems to be calling anyone who took the vaccine foolish.

And?  You once again cherry picked a quote that "seems" to agree with you.  The scare-mongering she is engaging is pretty anti-scientific, I am sure you would agree.

[Tom Bishop]

Dr. Mary Bowden seems to be calling anyone who took the vaccine foolish.

And?  You once again cherry picked a quote that "seems" to agree with you.  The scare-mongering she is engaging is pretty anti-scientific, I am sure you would agree.

Unscientific is generally anything that doesn't adhere to the scientific method. She did reference what amounts previous experiments on women that resulted in deformities and deaths of babies, which took years to uncover.

This negates the complaints in this thread that it's not scientifically established that those deaths/illnesses are connected to the vaccine, and that current authorities say it is safe. It is actually those statements that are unscientific, because in past it has taken years to establish a definite cause.

[AATW]

https://fullfact.org/health/thalidomide-covid-vaccines-misleading/

[Tom Bishop]

https://fullfact.org/health/thalidomide-covid-vaccines-misleading/

I cited a doctor telling us that we should be concerned. You cited someone who is not a doctor telling us that the doctor is wrong and that we shouldn't be concerned about safety because of past mistakes.

[Rama Set]

Dr. Mary Bowden seems to be calling anyone who took the vaccine foolish.

And?  You once again cherry picked a quote that "seems" to agree with you.  The scare-mongering she is engaging is pretty anti-scientific, I am sure you would agree.

Unscientific is generally anything that doesn't adhere to the scientific method. She did reference what amounts previous experiments on women that resulted in deformities and deaths of babies, which took years to uncover.

Incorrect, she referenced unknown side effects. Do you research what science was done or are you just assuming?

This negates the complaints in this thread that it's not scientifically established that those deaths/illnesses are connected to the vaccine, and that current authorities say it is safe. It is actually those statements that are unscientific, because in past it has taken years to establish a definite cause.

Incorrect. The science to date does not correlate those deaths/illnesses to the vaccine. There is no scientist that has said otherwise. It is data that policy decisions are based on, and that analysis (which is not scientific by nature) concluded that the risk was minimal versus the benefit. None of that means that there aren’t side effects we aren’t aware of and it does not mean that discovery of those side effects indicates negligence on its face.

[Rama Set]

https://fullfact.org/health/thalidomide-covid-vaccines-misleading/

I cited a doctor telling us that we should be concerned. You cited someone who is not a doctor telling us that the doctor is wrong and that we shouldn't be concerned about safety because of past mistakes.

Did you fail to read the article or are you lying about what it says? Your characterization of it is very different from its content.

[AATW]

I cited a doctor telling us that we should be concerned.

Yep. Of the million medical doctors in the US you found one who says something which fits your agenda.
You can keep ignoring this if you like but is your doctor's view the prevailing one? If it isn't then you're just cherry picking. Again.

[Tom Bishop]

I cited a doctor telling us that we should be concerned.

Yep. Of the million medical doctors in the US you found one who says something which fits your agenda.
You can keep ignoring this if you like but is your doctor's view the prevailing one? If it isn't then you're just cherry picking. Again.

Actually I cited a doctor. You cited none, and are merely giving your personal opinion on what doctors think. Doctors do not generally go around professing or promising or guaranteeing that the vaccine will be safe.

The University of Mississippi Medical Center says right on their website that the long term effects are unknown:

https://www.umc.edu/CoronaVirus/Vaccinations/FAQs.html#long-term



"Unknown" is the official answer, not your nonsense.

[markjo]

Actually I cited a doctor.

Here are some doctors that say that the COVID vaccines are safe.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe

[Tom Bishop]

Your link says that they are still monitoring for safety: "This review process continues to monitor vaccine safety."

If they still need to study it, then it means that they don't know. They are not performing much study of the safety of orange juice, for example.

The website continues:

"Continuous monitoring for problems and side effects. Once a vaccine gets an EUA and is being given to people, the FDA and the CDC continue to watch carefully in case problems arise. Data on the vaccine’s safety record accumulates over time, as more and more people who receive it report on their experience and any side effects. One important way to report adverse events after vaccination is through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System."

Oh, but you guys don't want us to talk about VAERS because you don't like what it says and the US government's only vaccine reporting mechanism could be wrong. 

[stack]

I cited a doctor telling us that we should be concerned.

Yep. Of the million medical doctors in the US you found one who says something which fits your agenda.
You can keep ignoring this if you like but is your doctor's view the prevailing one? If it isn't then you're just cherry picking. Again.

Actually I cited a doctor. You cited none, and are merely giving your personal opinion on what doctors think. Doctors do not generally go around professing or promising or guaranteeing that the vaccine will be safe.

Actually, a Dr. was cited. From the article:

Professor Peter Openshaw, professor of Experimental Medicine at Imperial College London, told Full Fact: “There is absolutely no reason to draw parallels with thalidomide: vaccines are not drugs, and the whole system of licencing has been completely reformed since that era.

“There has never been as much research on which to base vaccine licensure - it was done very fast because we face a global emergency and almost unlimited resources were put into the studies.”

Here's his bio: Peter Openshaw is a respiratory physician and mucosal immunologist, studying how the immune system both protects against viral infection but also causes disease.

I think I'll go with the Dr. Openshaw, immunologist, rather than your EN&T & Sleep Wellness Dr who was kicked out of her hospital for diseminating mis-information.

The University of Mississippi Medical Center says right on their website that the long term effects are unknown:

https://www.umc.edu/CoronaVirus/Vaccinations/FAQs.html#long-term



"Unknown" is the official answer, not your nonsense.

And a sentence later in your citation:

"Serious adverse effects after any vaccination usually occur within six weeks of administration. No serious side effects have been reported within six weeks of the receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine."

[Tom Bishop]

Professor Peter Openshaw, professor of Experimental Medicine at Imperial College London, told Full Fact: “There is absolutely no reason to draw parallels with thalidomide: vaccines are not drugs, and the whole system of licencing has been completely reformed since that era.

“There has never been as much research on which to base vaccine licensure - it was done very fast because we face a global emergency and almost unlimited resources were put into the studies.”

Here's his bio: Peter Openshaw is a respiratory physician and mucosal immunologist, studying how the immune system both protects against viral infection but also causes disease.

Actually he cites no experiments or examples. He is merely citing trust that things are better and that the FDA can now determine long-term effects on novel genetic manipulation mechanisms in record time. "Trust them" is not part of the scientific method.

And a sentence later in your citation:

"Serious adverse effects after any vaccination usually occur within six weeks of administration. No serious side effects have been reported within six weeks of the receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine."

Yes, because if it's safe for six weeks it means that it's safe forever and won't ever result in cancer no matter how many boosters you take.