Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtreme87
This sounds like pure BS. Having no long term data on side effects that may manifest themselves later on, there is definitely a risk of unanticipated side effects, just like when you put any foreign substance into your body. Unless you have 5, 10, 20 years of data on it, you have no basis on your claim that there is no reason to think that there is a risk. It’s a risk just based on that alone.
Also, pharmaceutical companies have a long history of squashing any bad data that comes out about their products, so it may take even longer than that to know the true damage done by this vaccine. The J&J talcum powder lawsuit is a prime example of that. There are many other examples as well.
There's absolutely no guarantee that any one person might not have a bad reaction to anything injected, ingested, breathed, or touched. Including water. Yes, you can actually be allergic to water. Biology is complex, and there is a slight but non-zero risk to putting ANYTHING in your body, including food.
But they've been playing with mRNA for about 30 years and haven't seen any ill effects. If you knew anything about biology (you clearly don't) you would understand what RNA does, and does not, do in your body. It is a very precise, targeted biochemical intervention.
But it's certainly a free country, nobody here in the US is going to force you to get a vaccine. If the government tried to mandate that, I'd go to bat for you. Other countries won't be as considerate.
But the good news: we're about to get vast quantities of real-world data on mRNA vaccines. That's actually a good thing because they also have the potential to treat or even vaccinate against cancer (that's actually what scientists have been REALLY interested in doing with mRNA).
The talc powder thing appears to be a masterful case study of ambulance chasers snowing ignorant juries. My wife did the research, because her mom actually died of ovarian cancer, but she concluded it was all BS. No statistically significant data, and the noise that was there appeared to have been relying on very poor science: study participants' memory, after the fact, as to how often and how long they used the product over decades. The better controlled studies found nothing.