That is how SCIENCE works - as more data comes in, they adjust their recommendations....... Don't listen to a bunch of politicians that probably struggled in High School Biology. Fauci has dedicated his LIFE to helping people and studying viruses - the painting of him as anything other than a Hard Working truthful scientist is appalling - he is by far the most trustworthy person. DD
They work exactly the same as the others, all they are doing is safely giving you a PIECE of the virus to get your body to build up it's own antibodies. It has been studied for YEARS - billions have done it......and it is safe. Not sure how anyone can make this argument and not giggle - MRNA is the same process as DNA - just a slightly different approach. It is NOT your RNA they are messing with or YOUR DNA - it is the viruses......I mean - do you guys even know how that works? Unless your doctor has told you not to take it, if you choose not to, you are rolling the dice with your life and everyone around you as well - very selfish and frankly not smart. DD
This is funny, but you don't have to be a doctor to understand how things work. Here is the bottom line - unless your doctor has told you not to get it - you are being an ******* and a selfish idiot. I will bet money you have all had the measles, polio and numerous other vaccinations - yet somehow because a lying grifting Orange Cheetoh of a loser decided to make this political ...... DD
I thought you had me on ignore. I still think you are a bit too quick to call people "*******" and "selfish idiot"
Lol posters that reject vaccininations approved by the fda to prevent covid prob the same dumdums that want ivermectin, med that has no fda approval for covid.
Why is that? Majority of the doctors r telling people to get vaccinations, and wear mask. People with years of education and we have people outright ignore it citing bs data made up by uneducated plebs on the internet. These people claimed to b well researched and logically people, but demands to b given hydrocholoquine or ivermectin where neither drugs is approved by the fda for covid We created the FDA for a reason.
As long as fat people don't go to the hospital when they have a heart attack... As long as gay people don't go to the hospital when they catch aids.... As long as black people don't... As long as Jews don't... This is where your line of thinking goes...If you are vaxxed, you are protected, live your life, don't become a nazi
A couple things: This is a little outdated information as the Pfizer vaccine is FDA approved. If this is someone's main argument against getting a vaccine, they can now be happy to know things have changed and they have available to them for free a vaccine that has received a stamp of approval that all other widely available drugs in the US have received to be deemed "safe" for use by the public. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine Also, to be clear, it's a little misleading to simply say that the other vaccines are not approved by the FDA, because it suggests that the other vaccines are not at all approved by the FDA in any way, and should be thought on the same level as the weird vitamins you can buy from a farmer's market, or the thing my mom made me do as a kid to get rid of hiccups by drinking water with a fork in the cup (it didn't work). The FDA has granted of the other vaccines available in the US "emergency use authorization." Even for this level of authorization, each vaccine must undergo the same testing as necessary for full approval: three phases of trials, phase 1 on tens of people, phase 2 on hundreds, and phase 3 on thousands. Each of the vaccines were tested on well over the norm and minimum number of people normally tested, and the results demonstrated a level of safety much higher than the minimum threshold necessary for FDA approval. So what's the difference between Emergency Use Authorization and full FDA approval? It's not in the amount of studies or experiments as those are just as rigorous in each case. The difference is that to obtain full FDA approval requires the pharma companies to present evidence of certain manufacturing standards and effectiveness over a long period of time. Clearly the last item is a hotly debated topic (i.e. booster shots) and a legitimate one. If one vaccine is safe, but only works for six months and then not at all, then it probably isn't worthwhile (however thus far the debate has been the opposite direction: do all of us truly already need boosters? Based on the data, I would say no, but it strikes me as cynical politics for the Biden admin to push for the answer to be yes). I honestly have not heard anyone say they think the vaccine is safe but is worried about inconsistencies in manufacturing. I think that'd probably be a fair criticism, especially with the new companies, but less so as the capacity ramps up and thus far I have yet to hear any claims that someone got sick from a bad shot (more likely, someone didn't get adequate protection from a bad shot). As for the mRNA being new, it is. I would say this though: everything is new at some point, until it's not. I'm not sure about the animal studies you cite, I can't find them, but currently the studies support that these vaccines are safe, and there really isn't a theory of how it would be possible that that would be found to be safe in the short term but unsafe in the long term. For instance, I know if I eat radioactive bread I could be okay today, but long term problems might arise in the future. I know a cigarette today won't kill me, but it might contribute to something that does if I continue into the future. There are good theories as to how those could be "safe" now and not later. There is not one here. When I order a new item off the McDonald's menu that has never been released before, how do I truly know it is safe to eat, in the long and short run? I guess I don't, but I reason that there isn't a great theory as to why this particular combination of beef, bread, cheese and undisclosed ingredients added in for taste, look, and perishable purposes is any more dangerous than the other combinations that have long been available at McDonalds. And I ask this: what are these people's definitions of "safe"? No possibility of side effects ever? Are they going to wait for decades because that's the only way to ensure no side effect over that span of time? Do these people apply the same rigorous standards of testing in all facets of life when making a decision as to the safety? So I would say it's not bad that some people want to wait to see how this all pans out, but let's get real on the reasoning. It strikes me as incredibly unlikely that there are that many people out there who truly have such a low tolerance of risk for personal safety that the level scrutiny applied to COVID vaccines is congruent with the level they strive to apply to all facets of life (like, are they also just as concerned with long term unknown effects of actually getting COVID and change their habits accordingly?). It seems much more likely that these people just aren't interested in getting vaccinated no matter the circumstances, and cherrypick arguments to suit their needs. So let's stop trying to convince vaccine skeptics or pretend a certain level of demonstrated safety can be reached and they'll change their minds, and accept the fact that many people are not going to willingly get a vaccine. We can then debate to what extent the minority should be required to get vaccinated, treated differently for consuming hospital resources, or simply granted their personal freedom and nothing should be done at all, but I'm done believing vaccine skeptics are still waiting for logical milestones before deeming the vaccine safe.
There is no realistic reason not to be vaccinated. You know it was a public PRIDE thing to get your polio vaccine back in the day, and you had to have your card to get anywhere. We need a vaccination card - and people need to refuse service to those that don't have it. No one should be allowed to attend any sports game/venue or concert or restaurant unless they are vaccinated. DD
I don't really wanna be too into this thread but I just have to chime in to say that it's not "mRNA spiked protein" it's an "mRNA for the spike protein of the virus". Your way makes it sound like they had a bunch of protein and covered it in mRNA and put it in a vial. You can say it in different ways obviously but the key difference is that "spike" is a noun referring to a part of the virus and not a verb. Nothing is "spiked". That kind of twisted messaging makes misinformation so much worse, especially for stupid impressionable people.
People keep making this post political or talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine. Just stop already. This post is entirely about whether or not we will have a complete roster in places where there are vaccine mandates.
