It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think our FDA is the slowest on the planet, other countries in EU are much quicker, are they wrong? Also we really do not know what constitutes "proper testing" in this case, maybe these drug companies do and they are already well past the point to say it is safe. They might not have years of testing with this exact vaccine, but how many years have they been working on, testing etc RNA base vaccine in general, maybe they found very quickly it was safer than the old way we do it.
They have not found one though they are looking, and these 4000 deaths are just deaths that they are making sure it wasn't causal which isn't something they do with the normal flu shot, but we both agree this is special so they need to have more oversite. There is actually about 8,000 people who die each day in America, and they have administered close to 300 million vaccines, so a good number of 150 million people vaccinated are dying each day and to say they are looking at 4000 of them from something like 800,000 total deaths in the last 100 days is not news...
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I do hope everyone understands that this "vaccine" still hasn't been FDA approved. They only just started the application for approval on May 7....7 days ago.. It is only in EUA. No mRNA vaccine has ever gotten approval....
And they only asked for approval for those over 16....
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
And maybe they're biased agents in the investigative process and are sugar-coating results or lacking adequate time to truly know. The long history of "approved" drugs and treatments that have ended up having very negative effects on people tell me that, more often than not, it's even hard to trust the FDA, but I certainly wouldn't make my baseline trust level be claims by the inventors trying to make money that their product is perfect fine.
I do agree that there is often too much bureaucracy involved in things that are relatively obvious in their safety, but a new technology being used during a pandemic vaccine is not when I want the FDA to speed up the process.
That's good play with numbers to make it seem like "it's not news," but it is news. That's why we're discussing it--it's a relatively experimental vaccine only approved under an EUA that is based on biased sources of testing and hasn't been fully and properly investigated by a (claimed) unbiased third party (FDA) responsible for official approval of medical treatments in the United States. Then couple that with the reality that the federal and state government are just shy of trying to force vaccination (and many would, if they could), and instead are offering tax-payer incentives for fully-vaccinated people, you can see why people are getting concerned about this issue.
And then add in the reality that, when Fauci and others talk about removing mask mandates for fully-vaccinated people but leave those of us with active antibodies and memory B cells completely out of the conversation, they are implying that the EUA-vaccination is more effective than a natural immunity. And of course, they wouldn't want to remind the public that the vaccine isn't the end-all savior of the world. Otherwise, why wouldn't people who recovered from it and whose immune system is strong and obviously produced effective antibodies be included in the reduced mask-wearing guidelines?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
I guess that works until you die from not trusting anything, so you can roll the dice I guess. Also, looking back we screwed up a number of drugs big time, and that is why our FDA is insanely tight compared to other countries, but it is the 2020s not the 1980s, 0r 1940s etc, so I think it is safe to say we are better at making drugs than in the past too.
I'm not sure just how new it is... And what kind of testing do you suggest? 50 years? I also do not know if the amount of time to do the testing protocol of lets say 30 years ago hasn't been greatly reduced with modern advancements.
You keep saying experimental like they just discovered it this last year and the reality is we been working with mRNA vaccines for decades and that is why they were so quick with COVID-19 vaccines. They have been looking at other viruses like Zika and rabies the really nasty ones and so had readily available materials to standardized and scaled up so quickly with COVID-19.
And that is the nasty politics side of it all which you and I, I bet, agree 0the same
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I hate to be "that guy," but this is so full of logical fallacies that I don't even know where to begin, other than to say that the probability of dying from COVID 19 is so small for the average human being that claiming that not getting vaccinated with an experimental vaccine is tantamount to "roll[ing] the dice" is rather silly.
No, I'm not at all saying to test it for 50 years (nor is that implied), but maybe, just MAYBE test it to the standard testing that is done before every other similar medicinal treatment is approved. Let's start there, because it's a standard for a reason.
No, I keep saying "experimental" because it's not been fully tested, it's the first of its kind to be allowed to be injected en masse in humans, and it hasn't been approved by the FDA. I'm being pretty direct about why I'm calling it experimental...basically, because it still is experimental. That shouldn't even be in dispute.
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I do hope everyone understands that this "vaccine" still hasn't been FDA approved. They only just started the application for approval on May 7....7 days ago.. It is only in EUA. No mRNA vaccine has ever gotten approval....
And they only asked for approval for those over 16....
originally posted by: Xtrozero
So if you were high risk would you take it?
I don't think you truly understand that it has been around for decades and so a large part of the whole RNA process has been tested. They make new flu vaccines every year ands they are not tested because the process is the same though the virus it focuses on is new. I think you are putting too much worry in narratives that it is some never before seen thing.
Its the meaning and context you are using the word. I just don't follow you to the end of the testing. At what point is it used en mass, after we test it in Africa? (joking)
The Vaccines have been through phase 3 clinical trials. After that is paperwork basically to getting approved.
Phase 1 is like a dozen of people
Phase 2 is like 100
Phase 3 is more along the lines to establish efficacy (whether or not it works), so that is where they run the placebo-controlled, observer-blind clinical trials
After Phase 3 it can get to the medicine cabinet before it is 100% approved. The vaccines did phase 3 back in March, so what else are you waiting on for them to do?
There really isn't much left to test and they will be FDA approved here in the very near future. If you think there is big risk to long term side effects like affecting a woman's eggs at the DNA level then I guess that is a topic we can have years down the road.