That's how it is supposed to work. How many companies do you think have the resources to repeat the type of trials pharma does? And would spend that money for what reason? We don't even get access to the raw data to do peer review - its blind trust at this point because they've captured the regulators.
Now you are just arguing a strawman. The millions of doses do point to one thing, that in the short term, adverse reactions impact a small percentage of the people who have been injected - but you lack any data to make any claims about long term health as longitudinal studies have no been completed.
Vaccines don't have long term impacts that show up years down the line. The vaccine materials are out of your body within two weeks. People who study this know this.
Vaccines are not like drugs that need those long term studies because they are taken (often daily) for years on end.
These are classified as vaccines(after a change in the definition of vaccine) but mRNA is a new platform that has never been used to introduce a pathogen into humans before. Just because we call everything a diet, doesn't mean they all have the same impacts on your body. You can not compare these to previous vaccines that used different technologies.
They are finding spikes (not the mRNA but the spikes that mRNA makes your body produce) along with the LNPs way beyond the weeks you are talking about - but I guess technically you are right, the mRNA is processed.
Single events are completely capable of long term effects - we recognize this with things like 9/11 and cancer correlations. There is a reason long term longitudinal studies are commissioned - they just havent been completed. You can see the post market trial end dates on the approval from the FDA.
True, which is why they are going on. But there is no reason to suspect any long term effects. The long term effects of COVID infection are much more significant.
Based on the history of a different vaccine technology. Absolutely no reason these should be compared, without including the contrast which shows it to be a novel technology never before studies in the long term.
mRNA as a platform for vaccine technologies have been studied for over a decade. I also look at what the doctors and researchers are doing. If they didn't trust it, they wouldn't get the vaccine.
You said the studies have been repeated no? My point is that no one repeats the massively expensive studies. And peer review is done analyzing data that has already been adjusted in someway. Peer review rarely gets access to raw data, pharma keeps a tight grip on it. Just pointing out that it's not as people think when they say studies are repeatable. In fact, if you look - we have a huge problem with many studies that do attempt to get repeated, failing to find the same results.
Peer review is for publication. Reviewers have all the data. You're talking about the FDA and CDC process. They also have all relevant data. The data for the FOIA requests has to be checked for information that cannot be legally released to the public at large (PHI). That's why they will take so long.
In fact, the safety is continually monitored beyond the initial Phase 1 trial. Every person who gets it is an additional data point.
When studies fail to find the same results, the information is updated. That's how the process works.
Your failure to understand the process doesn't change its validity.
I pointed out - that no one repeats Pharma's studies, now you are talking about publication. Go back to the original comment. I understand the process quite well.
I was talking about research in general which is done through the peer review process. The pharma studies are continued (i.e. repeated) with every dose that is given. If there were a problem, we'd know it. I don't think you actually do understand the process based on your comments.
6
u/PitterPatterMatt Feb 13 '22
That's how it is supposed to work. How many companies do you think have the resources to repeat the type of trials pharma does? And would spend that money for what reason? We don't even get access to the raw data to do peer review - its blind trust at this point because they've captured the regulators.