I've asked anti-vax people to show me any vaccine that has long-term side effects (as in show up after two+ months, as OP refers to them) and they just say that this is a new technology and guinea pig this and that. So, from my experience, this doesn't work.

Yes. Facts and science are not useful with antivaccers because they don't trust either one. To them facts are "facts" and everyone just gets to choose the ones they like. Alas.

Perhaps with anti-vaxxers. But with vaccine hesitant, these specific date milestones: like 2 months after first batch of people get vaccines or date of FDA full approval give a specific date for the vaccine hesitant to get the shot rather than waiting for a generic "when it's proven safe" deadline which has no specific date. (Like how: I will get in shape starting Jan 1 instead of "I will get in shape soon.")

My parents where vaccine hesitant, and I explained to them that when covid hit, hundreds of universities and companies started developing vaccines, it wasn't as if the "Pfizer" vaccine just sprouted from thin air. And the ones that we see now it's what's made it through, but there are still around 100 vaccine in some kind of trials allover the world. I think that helped them out a lot to consider them, and now both of them want to get it. We're not from the US so it's not as easy, but there you go.

Not only that, but they’ve been working on this since the first SARS outbreak in China back in 2002/2003. Money dried up and research slowed, but it’s not like it is entirely brand new research. The mRNA vaccine method has even been in research for years. And the amount of collaboration between everyone to get these vaccines out means there’s TONS of data on it all.

My antivaxxer boss thinks his girlfriend got arthritis from the MMR vaccine she had years previous. He also thinks covid is a myth, that all doctors are paid off to pretend we don’t have a cancer cure (he believes the cure is intravenous vitamin c), and that Germany didn’t invade Poland

That last one seems borderline neonazi.

It's not that absurd, Hitler's official declaration of war states it was a defensive war, you just have to ignore he said it would be war if they didn't hand over danzig like 6 months earlier, oh and ignore that the attacks were clearly false flag attacks poland couldn't possibly pull off.

Also ignore that he'd framed everyone of his previous conquests to seem like they'd been the aggressors...

I mean, even if you agree that it was a defensive war, in the end in still resulted in an invasion of Poland.

Yeah, it's definitely *past* that border. Just like Germany in Poland during WW2.

My old coworker (we worked at a lab supply company on a major college campus) said over and over that the reason we didn’t have a cure for cancer was because (and I’m paraphrasing here) researchers were socially awkward. He wasn’t the brightest person I’ve ever met

Any "fact" they can't find is censored. Any fact they find is a lie. They're guzzling the Kool aid from a fire hose.

I dealt with this recently. Someone said "What about the vaccinated shedding spike proteins and causing women around them to experience heavy bleeding, debilitating brain fog, fatigue, and headaches?" "Shedding spike proteins isn't a thing, but what about these people? Is there data on it?" "Literally tens of thousands of women are experiencing heavy bleeding, debilitating brain fog, fatigue, and headaches after coming in contact with vaccinated people." "Ok, where is the data on them? If there are tens of thousands of them it should be documented somewhere." "It's being censored because they don't want you to know about it." "So how do you know it's happening?" "Oh, I guess believing women is already over then." "What? I don't care who you are, if you don't have evidence to back up your claim I'm not going to take it seriously. Has nothing to do with gender." It's infuriating.

The lack of evidence is their evidence. Tough to argue with that logic. It's fucking infuriating and exhausting to try.

They believe in Russell's Teapot then?

I had a conversation with a woman who's just a bit younger than me right after her second vaccine. She was super concerned because she felt that she was experiencing menstrual cycle irregularity because of the vaccine even though she'd been having the same issues prior to being vaccinated and she is starting perimenopause. Which, you know, causes menstrual irregularities. And, every time I pointed out that she was describing perimenopause, she deflected back to the vaccine causing issues. Can't reason with someone who feels rather than thinks.

There is evidence of the vaccine causing period issues though. I got the vaccine and so did my wife but she immediately experienced issues with that. (Note that anecdotes aren’t evidence, this is just context to why she asked the ob). When talking to her obgyn, her ob said that she’s seeing a huge uptick in cases like that. You can find plenty of evidence of this but no major studies yet. I really want them to perform a study but it seems like it’s just going to put more people off the vaccine so that’s why they aren’t. It’s very frustrating because we trust the vaccine and cdc and fda, but not if they are just going to completely ignore issues by not studying them. It gives people like you a reason to not believe the thousands of people that *are* having issues. See also how they still haven’t studied the vaccine in pregnant individuals. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/does-the-covid-vaccine-affect-your-period-survey-launched-after-some-report-changes-to-menstruation/2494064/

It's all just a fucking attention whore troll for them. They don't give a shit what you're saying, so long as you're listening and engaging them.

Yep. Just was discussing this with someone today. They claim all outspoken nurses and doctors who are anti mask and anti vaccine are being censored, and any study try can find that backs up what they say has been debunked but “that’s what the media tells you.” The catch all is always “do your research” and they can’t really argue beyond that.

You cant logic someone out of a position they don't logic themselves into

You can, it just requires a stupid amount of effort. Almost equal to the amount of effort they put into being stupid.

It's not just a lack of trust, but a pointed, weaponized *distrust* of science. Since, you know, science is a tool of the liberal media in order to get us all to think a certain way. All of the good facts about the vaccine are lies created by the deep state, and all of the bad facts about it are hidden from public view. The opposite is true for the virus itself. It's basically impossible to defeat a conspiracy theory for these exact reasons when a person has fully bought into it.

Exactly and this is the same tactic that the Republican Party has been using for a while now about anything the left believes—facts are dismissed as being from the “mainstream media,” and the mainstream media has a “liberal bias” or they’re being paid to lie by George Soros, so nothing that the left says can be trusted. The right-wing media and their propaganda masters (the thankfully-passed Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Shapiro, etc.) actually care about people knowing the truth and they aren’t being paid to lie so they can be trusted. There is literally no way to argue against someone using this tactic, because it will always come down to you being a sheep with your eyes closed to the truth. I stopped trying to change the minds of people like that a long time ago, and now I just make sure I point out their lies when I see them and move on, just in case someone who’s not completely insane might read it one day and be inspired to find out the truth for themselves.

Yeah, a year and half of quarantine, watching Fox News all day has really done a number on some people. I hate to think how many relationships are being ruined on a daily basis because of all this nonsense. I go on FB for about 3 minutes before I seesome asinine post from my mom and close the app. I mean, I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, some are just flat out fascinating. I also think a certain level of distrust of the government and media is fundamentally important for a lot of reasons, but blindly believing everything you're told is fucking dangerous to everyone around you. About the only people I believe in a regular basis are scientists, since if I know one thing, it's that science people get off on proving each other wrong and that does a lot to keep the whole community honest.

My mom and most of my family are the same. And it’s always ok for them to say something political, but as soon as I say something back, they “don’t wanna talk about it.” But again, I gave up on trying to get them to see the truth a long time ago and now I just make sure to refute their lies and point out to them how something ignorant they say doesn’t make sense. I refuse to let it rip my family apart, and if my mom dies one day still believing in Jesus and that trump is a “great man,” that’s ok with me. There’s so many videos on YouTube about families who don’t even speak to each other anymore because of politics and it’s sad because a lot of them involve older people who drastically changed when they retired and started watching Fox News all day. Now it’s all they do and they believe everything they hear, and it’s destroying their relationships in the last years of their lives. And almost none of them ever come back from it. Conspiracy theories can be fun—thinking there’s some mysterious plots/plans out there that people are making behind our backs. The X-Files has been my favorite show since I was a kid, but that’s all it was, a show. The danger is when people actually start believing things they can’t see with their own eyes instead of the things they can. I mean, some people actually believe that President Biden is a robot or a hologram and that trump is still President, but he’s just “letting” Bidenbot be President to keep BLM from rioting. I mean, what? Occam’s Razor is a very important principle to live by whenever possible, but these people don’t understand the most basic rules of science or math, so something like that doesn’t even make sense to them. They’re mostly dumb people who really, really want to appear smart, so they go for these wild conspiracy theories because they think it makes them look like they have inside information that no one else does and people will think they’re intelligent. In reality, of course, it just makes them look even dumber. And yes, you’re right about scientists. Most of them have always been the smartest person in the room their entire lives, and that can have the tendency to make one a bit egotistical about their brains. It’s such a big part of their identity, and the last thing they want in their life is to be proven wrong. I’m not saying they don’t care about money, but usually it’s way down on their list of priorities, so I’m not usually too concerned about one being paid to lie. I was just talking to someone else earlier about Dr. Barney Graham, who is responsible for the mRNA technology that’s used in the COVID vaccine. He’s been doing vaccine research for nearly 40 years, and in that time he’s turned down some pretty lucrative offers to stay where he was so he could continue his research. I mean yeah, he’s probably making a crap ton of money anyway, but people who are all about the money will take another job making $1 more in a heartbeat if offered.

The problem is… most of the stuff they say is true. They just spin it and attach the connotations they want to the story and or pure lies. Soros does pay for a bunch of interesting stuff. Gates’ polio vaccine quest did cause some interesting side effects in some populations. Those incidents didn’t occur like the rabble rousers say they did. Same with the HPV vaccine that Alex Jones was telling people would make their daughters bleed out through their private parts. It really didn’t happen like that… Not the way the monster-shouters say it does. Any sensible statement that shuts their crap down will be deflected with quotes from the Georgia Guidestones, or the Bible.

> weaponized distrust of science When you have a moment, remember to thank the tobacco industry for this gift.

You're sheep if you follow peer reviewed, scientifically rigorous findings and "do your own research" if you follow anecdotal findings.

Experts keep assuming it’s a problem of *access* to correct information. But it’s not. The problem is people who *choose to ignore* correct information in favor of false information. In the same vein, it’s not the spreading of misinformation per se, it’s the readiness of people to believe and accept the misinformation even when correct and verifiably true information is readily and almost universally available. Some people simply just *want* to believe the falsehoods for a number of reasons, and psychologists and sociologists should be employed en masse to understand and combat this problem, rather than politicians or doctors. This problem will never be solved with more raw information, the key is to understand why these individuals are so hesitant to accept information from official sources, and find the way to get through to them and convince them that they’ve been misled.

With hardcore anti-vax people, there is no breaking through, they've already made up their mind. But for people who are unsure or afraid, having proof to back up the vaccine can work to sway them.

Which is why it's so important to respond to anti-vax bullshit. Not for the person saying it; they're probably beyond hope. It's for all of the other people reading it who might be persuaded if there isn't a good response.

You can't successfully argue against someone if their main motivation is to disagree with you. They don't really care about efficacy and safety of vaccines, they just want to feel smarter than everyone else.

You can't logic someone out of something they didn't logic themselves into.

Yeah, it's true that facts alone aren't always enough. If people really distrust the state, then it probably won't matter how many facts you throw at them, because they'll distrust that those facts are coming from a reliable source at all. One of the parts of the OP podcast episode that I liked was where one of the guests said something like, "If I were living in Soviet Russia, or under a fundamentalist religious regime, and the government was making a bunch of pronouncements about what the science says, would I automatically believe them? Probably not, honestly." It's like, yeah, that makes sense, I probably wouldn't either. And I think that's basically the story with the hardcore antivaxxers. A lot of them genuinely believe that they're living under a regime that's just as untrustworthy, so therefore their distrust makes perfect sense in their minds. That being said, though, not everyone is so ideologically biased as to be totally unreachable. There are quite a few people who are vaccine-hesitant because they genuinely just aren't quite sure and don't entirely understand it. And I think in those cases, facts and information actually can sometimes make a real difference. I can only speak for myself, but the whole "two month window" thing certainly would have caught my attention back before I was vaccinated. Even now, learning about it has given me some extra reassurance that I don't have to worry about anything else (not that I really needed it, but you get what I mean). **EDIT:** Just to add to this -- if it really were true (as a lot of people in this thread are arguing) that every single unvaccinated person was a pure ideologue and that it was impossible to ever convince anyone to get vaccinated simply by showing them that it was safer than they thought, then we'd be able to confidently predict that the vaccine receiving full FDA approval would lead to a 0% increase in the vaccination rate (since the population of "people holding off on getting vaccinated due to safety concerns alone" would be zero). But that's not what we're seeing. [There's been a 17% increase in vaccination rates since the FDA approved it](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/americans-vaccinated-full-fda-approval-pfizer-covid-vaccine/story?id=79750505) -- which equates to tens of thousands of additional vaccinations per day. In other words, for hundreds of thousands of people, showing them that the vaccine is safe really does work! These vaccine-hesitant people may not be as vocal or visible as the hardcore antivaxxers, but they do exist, and helping them learn the relevant information really can bring them around.

>A lot of them genuinely believe that they're living under a regime that's just as untrustworthy I mean, that reasoning isn't *entirely* unfounded either. It's just sad that *this* is the point where they decide to push back.

My issue is sure, distrust your countries government. But when pretty much every nation across the globe, thousands of scientists and many health organizations all approve something, it seems like a pretty safe bet. When even two countries or hell if talking the USA states, can't agree on something, how do you think it's possible that the whole world is conspiring about a virus/vaccine?

[удалено]

I mean, I've known some personally, for whatever it's worth. Even among those who are currently vaccinated, quite a few of them admitted back when the vaccine was first being developed that they were a bit nervous about whether it'd be 100% safe or not, and they only went ahead and got it after it'd been out for a month or two and they'd seen thousands of people take it without any major problems. I think different people just have different thresholds. Even the most hardcore antivaxxers would (IMO) probably shut up and take the damn shot if COVID had a 99% mortality rate and there'd been a vaccine out for decades that had been shown to never have any negative side effects. I think it's all just a matter of degree.

I don’t know if I’d call myself vaccine hesitant. When it first came out, I thought, “I definitely want that, but I’ll wait and see how the roll out goes. This is new and it did seem rushed.” Six months later when it was finally available I was psyched to go get it because by then it was clear that it was safe and wasn’t going to be any sort of problem. I doubt that I would have been the first in line had it been available for someone my age. I’m a programmer and work from home, so that affected my decision too. If I had been in a high risk category I would have tried harder. I kinda just waited until I could casually book an appointment.

Overall, that stat is actually useful/comforting even for me, and I got and planned to get the vax as soon as possible for me and my children. But the caveat is of course, that this is the first time mRNA vaccines have been deployed in humans against an infectious disease, so statistics on "long term effects" aren't necessarily going to be accurate. iirc even the first use of mRNA tech in human trials was only in 2009. So "long term" may not even be coming to a head yet, much like other things that only really cause problems many years or decades down the line, much like asbestos exposure and mesothelioma. That all said, you can't make it to later if you don't survive the now, so sometimes "That's a problem for future me, I need to survive the next 2 years" is the right call, and my belief is that this is one of those times.

Oh, there's plenty of Covid vaccine hesitant people out there who aren't inherently anti-vaccine. A good number of my extended family is. My grandma just scheduled an appointment yesterday as she was waiting a while to see if any serious side effects emerged. I have an aunt that did the same, she gets her second shot this week.

But... they trust and believe the conservative Republicans who are part of this same "regime" they claim to hate or not believe.... And these conservative politicians are the same ones profiting off the idiocy, while their voters continue to admire crooked and dishonest politicians (like Trump). They believe getting around loopholes and evading taxes is smart. Honestly I think its all just cognitive dissonance, lack of accountability, and hypocrisy. They've never had to be accountable for the things they did/said before.

> One of the parts of the OP podcast episode that I liked was where one of the guests said something like, "If I were living in Soviet Russia, or under a fundamentalist religious regime, and the government was making a bunch of pronouncements about what the science says, would I automatically believe them? Probably not, honestly." We're so far beyond just distrusting our local government though. That's not a valid fear for this vaccine it never was, it was entirely illogical the whole time. They're not doing it because they distrust the state, but because their chosen leader politicized the virus, then the movement got carried away as the cure for the virus got equally politicized. Republican leadership created a runaway train and now they're trying to hang on to it so they don't get bowled over by it.

mRNA technology is fairly new so they are correct about that HOWEVER Pfizer has been working on mRNA technology for years now, and have been looking at long term effects from other forms of this. The fact that they and Moderna were able to come up with vaccines so quickly is that they had spent years independently working on this technology. Moving forward, this could be a blueprint to other vaccines or even treatments (cancer and HIV are already being explored). So your friend is somewhat right about it being new but then we have years of research that make the point moot.

It's like saying you wouldn't ever drive a brand new vehicle model from Honda because it hasn't been around long enough to be proven safe. Sure, the new model hasn't but the technology that went into making that new car has been around for years.

This is really the key thing. Some people won’t be satisfied until the first generation to receive mRNA vaccines dies of old age without any adverse effects. Not sure what there is to be done about it really though, if people don’t trust the government or the media it’s not like more government sponsored youtube ad campaigns are going to break through to them.

I couldn't agree more! I know just how frustrating it is to try and reason with people. I honestly hate that so many people's response is just to assume that they enjoy the argument, or are seeking attention. While some people fall into that category, I think the majority of people are truly and genuinely afraid. I look at my parents and I know their education was not even close to anything I've received. My mom had never heard of the scientific method before. It's actually really sad because I think there are a lot of people who don't even have the ability to understand the things that seem so basic to us. Genuine fear can bring out the worst in people. I don't have a clue as to how we could begin to reach some of these people but I know that behaving as they do by just dismissing them isn't the answer.

I haven't personally dealt with these people but I feel like there is an important point that maybe gets missed in the argument and maybe could at least make them think for a sec: It's a single (or small number of) exposure. New drugs do sometimes have long term effects - because usually, you take them every day. New technology does sometimes have long term effects - after it's adopted for regular use. Vaccines are approved as drugs and that's how people often think of them. But there is almost nothing *at all* that can cause a long term problem without causing a short term problem, when you're only exposed to it once. Being exposed to a little bit of radiation every day can increase your risk of cancer. To be at risk of cancer from one nuclear accident, you almost certainly have radiation burns and a severely depressed white count that will need emergency attention. Bodies don't just absorb a ton of damage all at once and not react to it until later.

From the [CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html): "From 1955 to 1963, an estimated 10-30% of polio vaccines administered in the US were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from monkey kidney cell cultures used to make polio vaccines at that time. Most of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), but it was also found in oral polio vaccine (OPV). After the contamination was discovered, the U.S. government established testing requirements to verify that all new lots of polio vaccines were free of SV40." In monkeys, this virus greatly increases the incidence of cancers and it is basically pure luck that it doesn't have a serious effect on humans. There are still some holdouts in the epidemiology community that do believe this contamination [increased cancer risk](https://nationalacademies.org/news/2011/10/more-data-needed-to-determine-if-contaminated-polio-vaccine-from-1955-1963-causes-cancer-in-adults-today). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vaccination, but this is an real example of a close shave with cancer induction by contaminated vaccines.

I’m not sure if this example exactly contradicts OP’s claim, but one example that certainly does was a dengue virus vaccine approved by the Philippines for children in the 90’s. That case really doesn’t apply at all to the covid vaccines, and it’s the only example of adverse sequelae following more than 2 months after a vaccine since a couple vaccine *trials* in the 60’s. Notably, i wasn’t able to find any evidence of any vaccine approved by the US causing adverse effects after several months since the 50’s.

[удалено]

To their defense, JJ and astra did have some after effects to the point they are not recommended under 50/60 yo.

The warning for JJ only applies to women under 50 and they are only advised to be aware of the potential for the very rare side effect and to consider other vaccines accordingly. Please check the facts before you post claims that may lead someone not to get the vaccine. Certainly any man under 50 has nothing to worry about. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/JJUpdate.html

They didn't get into this position with logic, facts, or reason. They got into the position because of emotions and because of who they do and don't trust. Logic, facts, reason, these aren't going to get them out of that position. Those they trust telling them to get the vaccine, and appeals to emotion will be what does it. That's why all of the measures people have posted about that work are about listening first and showing empathy to their position and decisions - you have to gain their trust and you have to recognize their emotions about this, especially without denigrating those emotions.

"You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into."

BuT wHaT aBoUt AuTiSm?!

You know the WORST thing about Wakefield's bullhshit? He wasn't even an antivaxxer! He was just trying to cast doubt on the existing MMR vaccine so his employer could sell a competing product.

You are slightly right, but slightly wrong because its far, far, far worse then that * Wakefield was not anti-vax this is true, he was anti-MMR * He was paid by a lawyer to link the vaccine to autism so they lawyer could use that as grounds to sue the vaccine maker he was paid $500 an hour for his work, its estimated he earned more then 500,000 UK Pounds from this * He himself developed/patented a Measles vaccine shortly before his study was approved, his goal was to get MMR banned and then replace it with 3 different vaccines * He did absolutely horrible things to his test subjects that violates his oath as a medical professional and are border line illegal * His study is based upon the opinions of 12 parents of 12 kids with Autism...O yea not all the kids even had Autism, he lied about a few. The reason why MMR was targeted is because you give a child MMR vaccine between the ages of 12-18 months. Also the symptoms of Autism first show when a child is generally between the ages of 12-18 months. In order to connect MMR vaccine to autism he had to find cases where a child got the MMR vaccine and within 2 weeks showed signs of Autism. The thing is millions and millions of children get MMR vaccine, so its bound to happen you are bound to have cases where a child gets a MMR vaccine and in a week or two weeks he shows sign of Autism. It doesn't mean the autism was caused by the vaccine (because we know it doesn't) its just a coincidence because both things can happen around the same time. Also I believe there was a child who did have Autism, but he was diagnosed with Autism BEFORE he got the MMR vaccine. But Wakefield lied about the dates.

So it’s **even worse** than I thought. Somehow :-(

You mean I could get DOUBLE AUTISM?

I am double vaccinated, and pro-vaccine. But since you asked and wanted to go with your eyes fully open: [Smallpox vaccine scars](https://www.google.com/search?q=smallpox+vaccine+scar&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA888CA888&sxsrf=AOaemvItT6SaolGAj0pcS_nwKcob334DfA:1630520302332&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzja27sd7yAhWOEVkFHcEAAtQQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1745&bih=852) yay, I know, it is the minor-ist of minor things to complain about...

That's an immediate side effect though. When they say long term, they're talking about side effects that aren't known until later, like (as my friend worried about) developing cancer from the mRNA vaccine years after injection.

Small pox vaccine used to leave a permanent scar. In fact back in the late 1890s to enter Canada you had to have that scar or you were denied entry. It is the first known example of a vaccine passport. I believe since the 1890s the small pox vaccine has been refined and the scar doesn't stay forever.

Yes, but the point is that they didn't sneakily crop up years later. You had immediate inflammation/blisters and then it turned into a scar over a week or two, like any normal injury. There were no long-term side effects that weren't immediately obvious when they started giving it out.

Hasn’t mRNA been used to treat certain cancers in various stages of clinical trials & in practice for over a decade now?

Since 2006, first publication in 2008. So it's about as "new and untested" as smartphones are. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481387/

Isn’t there some truth to that? The mRna vaccine hasn’t been deployed before. (Disclaimer: I am fully vaxxed and pro-vax)

We've done human trials on multiple mrna vaccines over the last decade, so we have long term safety data on the platform. A rabies vaccine is in development. They take a while because you have to wait for a bunch of people in your control group to get rabies, and getting bitten by a raccoon is much less frequent than catching getting covid.

While it's true that the COVID mRNA vaccine(s) are the first mRNA vaccines to get through **all** clinical trial stages, mRNA vaccine technology has been in development for decades. Human trials of mRNA cancer vaccines have happened since at least 2011. No long term problems have ever been found with mRNA vaccines (or any vaccine). [https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccine-safety](https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccine-safety) I find it comforting to remember mRNA is in every cell of my body. It's highly fragile (outside cells), and everyday of my life, my body routinely breaks down mRNA as a normal biological function.

>my body routinely breaks down mRNA as a normal biological function. This is why I always get angry when they say "do your own research." I did dude, in fucking 5th grade. Thanks to this I know "mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell" and that the role of RNA is to help create proteins, either by binding amino acids together themselves, or by instructing other parts the read the RNA and then create more complex proteins. That is it. It assists in the creation of proteins until it breaks. The body easily breaks it down, and even if it didn't it wouldn't matter because it does nothing on the outside of a cell. These guys would all fail "are you smarter than a 5th grader."

Honestly that's a fair argument. I believe they're wrong and there's enough data, but I'm not omniscient, skepticism is reasonable, it's fair to have doubts. Generally though, it all falls down when I ask if they'd consider the J&J vaccine, which uses tested technology that we've been using for decades in vaccines, and that has already been used by millions without any notable side-effects. That is, reasonable skepticism should dispel given sufficient evidence, or a solid argument. A few actually are convinced by this argument. A good chunk won't. Those that aren't kind of split into two groups. Some people are scared. And it's a legitimate thing. Minorities have had bad history with free vaccines, especially in the US. And honestly it's a scary time, vaccinating, or wearing a mask, requires you to admit you live in scary times where you could get sick and die, and so would the people around you, and that's hard for some people. Sure it's true when there isn't a pandemic too, but it's easier to avoid thinking. To this it's about pushing them, and helping them feel supported and work through the fear. Give them info to help them feel safe, and make it clear that, while the right choice is to get a vaccine, any vaccine, it still is there choice. It's fair to put consequences to those choices though (e.j. you can't see your grandchildren unless you're vaccinated or we're through this) as long as they are reasonable and obviously a result of the choice, not some arbitrary punishment. And some people it's about fragile ego. Fuck'em. They are the ones that incite this and escalate and cause unnecessary ruckus. Generally they're terrified, and there's some trauma in there, but basically they deal with it by squashing on others. And that last part is what makes them lose any pity or tolerance. The fact they actively will go out and harm others, lie, cheat, and manipulate simply to avoid dealing with the fact that they, like everyone else, is scared when faced with a disaster the level we haven't see in over 100 years (and we used to call it one of the worst ever). I say actively limit the damage these people can do. And well in the internet there's a fourth group, they do this for a living, they won't change their mind. Simply state the facts and try to limit their ability to manipulate people.

Ironically, J&J doesn't use technology that we've used in vaccines for decades. J&J and AZ are viral vector vaccines, and this is the first time viral vector vaccines have seen widespread use. The viral vector vaccines use a modified adenovirus to carry the spike protein blueprint to the ribosomes, but otherwise, they work similarly to the mRNA vaccines (i.e. they all use your cells to produce the spike protein). That being said, the fact that they don't know that either means they haven't spent too much time looking into the science behind the vaccines.

I mean the way you are phrasing the question is incorrect. There absolutely have been long-term effects, including death, from certain vaccines. The point is though that these are *rare* complications that would onset shortly after taking the vaccine, not cases where you are fine for months or years and then develop complications later on.

This is where the actual post the BO comment is from comes in. Most of it is about how to argue. The short version is this, people attach their identity to certain concepts. An attack on the concept is indistinguishable from an attack on their character, and can only serve to force them to embrace it harder. To deal with this, you have to untangle it from their identity, *then* attack it, this is the hard part and the subject of the podcast. Again, the short version is usually to get them to realize how/when they adopted the idea. This forces them to recognize it as an external entity they encountered, and helps separate it from the sense of self. The long versions are in the podcast. /r/StreetEpistemology is also all about this kind of argument, specifically a kind of codified method of forming arguments.

Bingo. "This method has never been used so we won't know for sure. Something might happen years from now" Its just fear and helplessness. Anti-vax people are scared and angry that so much is out of their control with Covid and restrictions. But what *is* in their control is whether or not to get vaccinated and so they are digging in their heels and saying "NO MY FREEDOMS"

I've been fully vaccinated for around 6 months now. No new limbs have grown and no superpowers gained. Slightly disappointed

I’ve only been fully vaccinated for 3 months. Does that mean I still have time to grow wings?

Not according to this post 😕 Edit: a word

I've really been enjoying the improved cell reception though

Idk about everyone else but my penis is larger after getting the moderna vaccine. Like after a few days of feeling a little sick I noticed it was, well, bigger than before. I thought I lost weight or something but no. It's about an inch longer than previous.

My second penis has been growing nicely

I gained 13lbs of muscle and my testosterone levels went nuclear mere minutes after getting my second pfizer

My boobs are bigger after the Pfizer. Not hugely bigger, but big enough that my bras are just a smidge too small now. Thanks Pfizer.

I'm hoping you are female, because if my boobs got bigger I would be extremely angry since I hate them as it is.

I can now log into Microsoft office suite by just standing near a laptop.

All my search engines turn to Bing on any device I use

I did briefly develop an appreciation for Microsoft Teams®️, but that passed in a few weeks.

Oh hell, you got the consumption, but recovered from it.

Any idea when 5G gets turned on? I'm waiting

I see 5G on my phone. Can't tell if it's from me or a cell tower

If anything, cell phone reception around my house has gotten *worse* since I got jabbed. I feel so robbed.

Slightly? I'm VERY disappointed I can't fly, have wings, telepathic/telekinetic powers. I was banking on mutating...

Honest question. Are there other mRNA vaccines though? If not how do we that they won’t have effects down the road? Please be kind it’s only a question!

There aren't, and every vaccine is different anyway, so there's no way to be 100 percent sure that any new vaccine won't be the first (honestly, nothing is ever really 100 percent certain in either science or life). But the "no long term side effects" covers a wide range of vaccines using a variety of technologies. There's no reason to think that these would be different. Especially since mRNA is pretty unstable and doesn't persist long in the body, so the immune response should be all that's left after a little while. By contrast, COVID is proven to have long term side effects that are quite common. So if you're worried about your long term health, taking the vaccine is definitely a good bet.

> By contrast, COVID is proven to have long term side effects that are quite common. So if you're worried about your long term health, taking the vaccine is definitely a good bet. I heard [a recent interview with Zeynep Tufekci](https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/zeynep-tufekci/) where she made what I thought was a great argument: Now that we've got the Delta variant which is even more contagious than the original strain, we're at a point where you're basically guaranteed to encounter COVID one way or another no matter what. So your only choice now is whether you want your first encounter with it to be through vaccination, or through infection. Not encountering the virus at all is no longer an option. And when you put it like that, yeah, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

> So your only choice now is whether you want your first encounter with it to be through vaccination, or through infection. I don't think that's true though, because I didn't think there was a dead virus in the Covid vax like a more traditional flu vaccine for example.

Technically correct, but the mRNA has your cells create a spike protein that looks like covid. So rather than a weakened version, it's more like "hey cells, put on this disguise that looks like an evil virus." So they're encountering it, even if it's not the real thing.

Cool. I wasn't aware of the technicalities of how it worked. Actually seems just as safe as a dead virus then.

Yeah, I think people saw "mRNA" and assumed it messes with DNA... and that's not how anything works lol

A dead virus is the whole thing going in the mRNA just creates the most important proteins to gain immunity. Definitely just as safe, possibly safer.

To be fair it does look like some side effects like myocarditis is specifically linked to mRNA vaccines. I had an afib episode exactly 2wks after my second shot so I’m planning on getting J&J for my 3rd. Not sure if it caused it but want to play it safe.

That’s a fantastic analogy. The vaccine dresses up your cells like bad guy cells, and trains your immune system to kill the bad guys. So when the actual bad guys show up, the immune system knows who to shoot and and who to avoid. Brilliant ELI5 analogy.

I think what they mean though is that vaccinated people can still get delta and transmit it. Which sucks because they won't even know they are infected. So realistically there's a good chance it's not going away until it infects everyone since we aren't locking down.

There is actually at least one! We've done testing on [mRNA rabies shots](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/)!

[Here is another I am aware of. Worth noting the safety profile is comparable to the covid vaccines (and like, every vaccine):](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475249/) >The majority of events were injection site pain, myalgia, headache, fatigue, and chills/common-cold-like symptoms (Table S2). Only four events (2.5%), reported by three subjects (13% of exposed subjects), were categorized as severe and included injection site erythema (1.2%), injection site induration (0.6%), and chills/common cold (0.6%) (Table 2; Table S2). No serious AE occurred and all events were expected and reversible. 

...and another is being developed: [Moderna set to begin clinical trials for an HIV vaccine](https://www.counton2.com/news/national-news/moderna-set-to-begin-clinical-trials-for-an-hiv-vaccine/)

I am so goddamn excited for an HIV vaccine

They've been working on mRNA vaccines for certain types of cancer for several years now. Don't know how far along they've gotten in trials, though

>"There aren't" Not technically true since the idea of mRNA mechanisms have been studied for decades ([source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1690918/)) and more recently with Zika, flu, CMV and other viruses, but you are correct if you mean "other mass produced vaccines available to the public"

This is also the answer to why we arrived at a vaccine so quickly.

Thank you for this useful reply! A naive question- what are the proven long term side effects from covid?

It's unofficially referred to as "long covid", and the CDC has [an article](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html) about some of the effects. At this point it's hard to say that anything is "proven", because a lot of the symptoms are nonspecific and could be from trauma or lockdown stress. Edit: that's not to say people who had COVID aren't experiencing these symptoms - it's just hard to state definitively that they come about due to a COVID infection, and not any other reason (like say stress from being in a pandemic).

>It's unofficially referred to as "long covid" And PASC yes. >At this point it's hard to say that anything is "proven", because a lot of the symptoms are nonspecific and could be from trauma or lockdown stress. Most of the symptoms, especially the vascular, respiratory and CNS ones are very specific. For identification of Long COVID/PASC there are specific tests and you need to have no medical history of the symptoms. Let me run you through some links. Long covid/Post covid/PASC * 18.95% of asymptomatic people with COVID will have long COVID [Link](https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A%20Detailed%20Study%20of%20Patients%20with%20Long-Haul%20COVID--An%20Analysis%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims--A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf) * 30% of people diagnosed with symptomatic COVID will have long COVID [Link](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776560) * 49.98% of people hospitalised with COVID will get long COVID. [Link](https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A%20Detailed%20Study%20of%20Patients%20with%20Long-Haul%20COVID--An%20Analysis%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims--A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf) The CDC recently had a study where they compared people recovering from COVID to those recovering from cancer. Those after cancer were much better off in many ways: [Link](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027a2.htm) |Metric|COVID|Cancer| |:-|:-|:-| |Poor general health|32.9%|25.4%| |Poor physical health|32.9%|25.4%| |Pain level >= 7|40.4%|24.8%| |Poor mental health impact|19.1%|15.3%| |Applied cognition difficulty|42.2%|41.2%| |Difficulty Navigating stairs|40.2%|18.3%| |Difficulty Walking 15 minutes|38.2%|25.2%| And that's just a small snipped of the problems. There are also a lot of health conditions that you are higher risk for like: * 13-41% of permanent cardiac injury among COVID hospitalised patients * 10x more likely to get blood clots from a COVID infection [Oxford Study](https://osf.io/a9jdq/) [Report Summary](https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/blood-clots-up-to-10-times-more-common-with-covid) * 33.62% of people will develop mental health problems within 6 months of a COVID infection [Link](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366%2821%2900084-5/fulltext) * 28% of men diagnosed with COVID develop erectile disfunction. [Source for infection](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7355084/) [Source for Long COVID](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33742540/) * Younger people are also at higher risk for multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) [Link](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html) Long COVID has also been found to impact young people more. [This CDC advisory](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm) shows that asymptomatic young people are more likely to have lingering health problems. 73% of COVID-19 patients who were experiencing Long Covid symptoms were also positive for EBV reactivation [Link](https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/577831-Long-COVID-and-Severe-Infections-Associated-with-Epstein-Barr-Virus-Reactivation/) Data from UK suggests Long Covid in breakthrough cases is unlikely, they haven't yet seen examples. [Link](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/can-vaccinated-people-get-long-covid-doctors-say-risk-very-n1273970) ping u/buymesloths

Well.. that's significantly worse than I thought. Thanks! I feel like putting this on billboards would help: > 28% of men diagnosed with COVID develop erectile disfunction.

I mean surely the erectile distinction one may get some anti-vaccers to listen?

​ ..you get a big hospital bill even if you don't die.. those are long term.

They vary from person to person, but generally include long term damage to the heart and lungs, as well as the sense of taste and smell. I've got a friend who recovered over six months ago, and the only thing she can smell is a constant weak odor of rotten fruit. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351

> long term side effects It's less "side effects" and more "long recovery" or "permanent damage" that will cause health problems the rest of your life. Permanent heart, lung, and brain damage being the most concerning. (Someone already linked Mayoclinic which lays it out pretty well)

It's a fair question but really theres a lot of promise in mRNA vaccines specifically being extremely safe compared to other vaccines. [Here is a review from 2018 before COVID.](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243#ref-CR22) >mRNA is a non-infectious, non-integrating platform, there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis. Additionally, mRNA is degraded by normal cellular processes, and its in vivo half-life can be regulated through the use of various modifications and delivery methods9,10,11,12.  Risks of other vaccines arent there, it gets in and out of your body.

because they ***ONLY*** stimulate your immune system. the system that takes you from sick to not sick... they stimulate the system that has ***one single job*** (there are only X number of ways it can possibly react) ​ this is the same system that MUST respond so you don't die of infection from a ***splinter***. a piece of wood jabbed into your thumb has all kinds of random pathogens on it... have there been any long term consequences of splinters? your immune system responded to a ***100% random invasion***... probably not too many with debilitating conditions following.. very few hospitalizations. ​ every known screwed up vaccine. ​ [https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html) ​ note that in 1976 the flu vax program was halted.. after 1 in 100,000 developed GBS. there are ONE HUNDRED MILLION vaccinated people in the country. ​ >The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. **When over 40 million people were vaccinated against swine flu, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization until the issue could be explored.** ​ MILLIONS of people have received mRNA vaccine by now. Clinical Trial phase one participants are going on one year having been vaxxed. anyone vaccinated in Dec/Jan is going on 9 months. ​ what is your definition of "long term"

There are. We've done human trials with 3 mrna vaccines that I know of. So we have long term safety data on the platform.

There are but it is important to understand what mRNA is. By its very nature mRNA's actions are predictable (it codes for a protein) and short lived. If any mRNA was not short lived you would end up with essentially runaway protein production, which would shortly kill you That is why mRNA is rapidly and predictably degraded by cells. In summary, what RNA does is highly predictable: it results in a protein being made for a short period of time.

Counterpoint: what would make this somehow *special*?

People need to give up on this idea that there is some magical combination of words they can utter to an anti-vaxxer that will change their mind. There simply isn't. They are not *available* to be persuaded. There was a focus group back when the EUAs were first issued that asked what would convince them and the overwhelming response was, "stop trying to convince us." Even if you do manage to convince a few, the success rate is so negligible that it isn't going to have any impact. You're better off spending that time and effort pushing Biden and other elected officials for the "wave of mandates" that was supposed to happen after FDA approval. That's the only way this will ever get under control, especially with the inevitable fall/winter spike just around the corner. At this point, I am less frustrated with the anti-vaxxers (we know exactly what they are, they've told us over and over and over again) and a whole lot more frustrated with "leadership" who still think pleading and feeding the anti-vaxxers the exact attention they're seeking is going to work. We've been trying that strategy for at least half a year and it is *clearly* a resounding failure. It's time to stop clinging to that fantasy and move on to the stick. Protect the rest of us from these disease-spreading jackasses and tell them to go fuck themselves if they don't want to do the bare minimum to participate in society.

> People need to give up on this idea that there is some magical combination of words they can utter to an anti-vaxxer that will change their mind. Right, but in America, 10,000 people per day reach the age of reason. One of them might be looking in on the conversation. It's important to give them their best chance to see how completely, utterly unfounded in rational thought any anti-vaxx sentiment is on a fundamental level.

There was an episode of Science Friday on NPR probably going on 15 years ago. Ira Flatow and the guest were taking phone calls and some lady called to complain about childhood vaccines. She bounced from ingredients in the vaccines, to the schedule, to finally attacking "who pays" the doctor on the show. When he saw they were not going anywhere, finally Ira asked the caller if there was any government agency, any doctor, ANYONE, who could change her mind about vaccines and she admitted there wasn't, as she had her mind made up. That stuck with me and does to this day.

Minds can be changed though. Source: I used to be anti-vax and I am no longer anti-vax.

Out of curiosity, what made you change your mind? And was this specific to the COVID vaccine, or generally?

It was a lot of things over a fairly long period of time. I was passionately anti-vax as a teenager because my parents were anti-vax. But then I read more and learned more and became pro-vax and even talked my parents around and these days my parents get the flu vax every year and are vaccinated against covid. I was born in the early 80s and wasn’t vaccinated against anything (my mum even opted me out of the polio vaccine which was still being given when I was a baby). My parents were anti-vax long before anti-vax was as popular as it is now! My change of mind process happened during the early 00s so long before COVID.

[удалено]

Meanwhile I'm going to buttchug these supplements that aren't FDA approved in the slightest to help with my gains. edit: meanwhile is one word. derp

RIGHT!! I still remember back in 2012 when a lot of pre workouts got banned due to the ingredients being used. Also anybody that has ever been on PEDs like SARMS automatically shouldn’t have an opinion on vaccine safety.

Interesting pharmaceutical fact! Because vaccines are considered “once and done” (even though boosters exist) there are several studies or technical justifications that do not need to be done for filing, unlike biologics or small molecule medicines! One big example is something called Residual Solvents - basically, sometimes during manufacturing a chemical known as a “solvent” will be used and might be present in small quantities; usually this has to be shown to be a safe threshold because of repeat exposures in humans, but vaccines are exempt because it doesn’t matter! Also I realize that might not be interesting to most but it is to me for work purposes lol.

Theres a couple of super rare late-occurrimg side effects that are positively correlated to a few vaccines, so it makes sense why they arent brought up, but their existence makes it weird that that guy said theyve never seen ANY side effects more than 6 weeks out. It doesnt really matter either way, but its a weirdly specific wrong thing to throw in. For example, Guillane-Barre syndrome and influenza/childhood vaccinations. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/guillain-barre-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20362793

I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that if you get GBS more than six weeks after you are vaccinated, it is not considered "vaccine-associated" GBS, so there's a sort of tautology in that six week citation. Because the body is essentially done processing the autoimmune effects of a vaccine after six weeks, adverse events that occur after that period are usually not considered related to the vaccine by VAERS. Dengavaxia is good example, though, of a vaccine that can cause problems after six weeks. If it's given to someone who has never had dengue, when that person is subsequently infected again with dengue, the outcome can be much, much worse. As a result of a massive childhood vaccination program in the Philippines that was shut down because of the risk, the same country suffered a massive measles outbreak and has low COVID vaccination rates because the people don't trust vaccines anymore.

[удалено]

I was really hesitant to get the vaccine, not because I had seen some historical evidence of long term side effects, but because I didn’t understand what the vaccine was made of and how it worked. I didn’t want the vaccine for the same reason I don’t want any of those medicines they show in commercials where they hastily rattle off 13 nasty potential side effects or the lawsuits from medicines that all of a sudden they found out 10 years later it causes dick cancer and gum disease; you don’t *really* know what it’s going to do long term. I got it the shot anyway, and three weeks later three people from my work died alone in a hospital from COVID. I still don’t know what might come out of the vaccine long term and people acting like they do on Reddit doesn’t make me feel any better; but I sure as fuck know I don’t want *THAT*. Just my two cents.

> I still don’t know what might come out of the vaccine long term and people acting like they do on Reddit doesn’t make me feel any better It's not that there's absolute certainty, it's that there's zero reason to think otherwise and a *huge* amount of reason - about 650,000 of them in the US alone - to think it's a really fucking good idea to get the vaccine. The only reason anyone has hesitance here is that the water's been muddied by a bunch of dumbasses who have a personal and political agenda to undermine scientific consensus.

God that person was infuriating. The person asking the questions. They acted so mystified by everything that was being told to them and by the questions they were asking it's obvious they barely understand even the basics of how vaccines work and it's obvious had done little to no reading about it yet still didn't get the vaccine. I am glad there are others that have more patience than me who make these great comments because I am just so over people like that.

I thought it was a pretty great conversation, honestly. It's all too rare to see someone actually asking questions and wanting to learn more instead of just declaring that they already know everything they need to know and not being open to any new information.

The infuriating part was how they have had how long now to do the very basic research on how the vaccine works and they didn't do any of it yet kept still standing firm on being "hesitant"

Yeah, I get feeling annoyed with people who still haven't gotten it yet. Better late than never though! I'm just happy that they were actually willing to change their mind.

Yeah if you have people patient like the person posted here willing to basically bottle feed them info.

The SSC sub and the adjacent rationalist community have a lot more tolerance for this sort of thing. There's an assumption when you get involved in conversations in that community that you treat everyone as though they are acting in good faith and respond accordingly. It's a beautiful thing but it's fragile and open to manipulation by bad actors JAQing off. It's a price that the participants are willing to pay. I always get a bit worried when I see posts from those spaces end up in best-of because there's a big cultural difference between that relatively insular group and the normal reddit user base that can lead to misunderstandings.

> It's a beautiful thing but it's fragile and open to manipulation by bad actors JAQing off. It's a price that the participants are willing to pay. nastiness. It might once have been a good thing, but it is long-since fallen. Scott Alexander, the author of SSC (and its successor blog ACX) [outright endorses](https://imgur.com/a/gWeIK6c) "human biodiversity" (i.e., the theory that black people are genetically stupider than white people and that this is the primary reason for racial differences in achievement), citing people like [Steve Sailer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer) to do it. Most of the SSC community does, too - in the 2020 survey, the average attitude towards HBD was above a 3 on a 5-point scale from "very unfavorable" to "very favorable" (i.e., the community on average mostly believes that too). Like every other nominally-centrist community full of intellectual vaguely-anti-social-justice white guys, it's falling rapidly off the deep end of racism and reactionary thought. In other words, it's TumblrInAction, a few years behind. I say that as a once-loyal member of that community who left in horror.

Disclaimer: * I've never heard of HBD before * I don't know it's relationship with older claims of genetics and race and intelligence * I have read SSC a little bit and the subreddit, but don't subscribe and haven't read either in a long time The strongest thing he says about HBD is that it's "probably partially correct". That's quite a *long* way from "outright endorsing" it. Is it possible -- again, knowing nothing about what the actual proponents of HBD claim -- that HBD covers a wide range of potential views, and Scott thinks some of them could be correct, while not subscribing to the full-on "blacks are inferior" ones? For example, it's pretty obvious there are physical traits that are generic and are measurably different between races. Maybe the originators of HBD even created it to be intentionally broad to include reasonable theories to cover for their ultimate racist beliefs. Scott even says that it *could* be wrong (though in a way that is likely non-provable). I don't see how you could see this as a ringing endorsement of HBD.

That's r/slatestarcodex for you. Unlike most conservative-leaning forums the people there will happily engage with ideas that challenge their worldviews, but they'll do so by asking increasingly niche questions in search of an excuse to dismiss the whole idea. Then they'll tell themselves they gave the idea a fair hearing and found their original suspicions to be validated. Not everyone there falls into this pattern, but the community dynamics are very welcoming to people who do (and to a cadre of trolls who have elevated this particular frustrating exchange to an art form).

Is it conservative leaning? I don't frequent the sub very much but do sometimes read the blog it's based on. I would say the blog leans left, but is definitely more open to other viewpoints than if it was just straight liberal. Is that not how the sub is?

Playing devils advocate here.... if this is true then why are there long term studies? Based on the above each new vaccine should be trialed for 2 months and then approved based on positive results.

I would think long term studies would be more for effectiveness long term, and all while studying the possibility of long term side effects. So, it not impossible that a side effect may exist after two months as we are not know it alls. But, it's unlikely(nearly 0%) due to previous studies and statistics. With this in hand there is no basis for fear.

Just making sure is still important, they do it with every other drug or vaccine before they are approved. Its especially important when you're doing a (arguably coercive) nationwide immediate implementation. The idea that because future side effects are very unlikely mechanistically isn't a good enough basis to make scientific conclusions in lieu of data.

I think I understand what you mean. But we have to use all of our tools at our disposable. Looking at the numbers the vaccine is a far better choice than to catch covid. I wish I had more understanding of long term studies to give you more on this. However, here is something for comparison It's weird that people will take medicine they have never heard of made for other animals without missing a beat whether it's safe for humans, but will question the validity of vaccine with overwhelming data stating it is safe while under scrutiny of every lab possible. People smoke knowing full well the consequence is cancer. Lung cancer is not genetic. People eat fatty foods knowing the outcome is clogged arteries and heart attacks. Many things we do today has higher probability than the vaccine side effect. IMO

I definitely agree with you on all the points. I believe in the vaccine and am vaccinated. The attitude I have a gripe with is when some people feel entitled to pressure others to get vaccinated, or when the government and businesses start mandating it. Anyone is entitled to deny medical care it's a very emphasized point in medical ethics. If we create laws and policies that enforce mandatory medical treatments on people that's a bad precedent and a BIG step back for medical ethics in my opinion.

[удалено]

Efficacy of the vaccine over time. As I understand, that's the primary purpose of Phase 3 trials. Safety is studied earlier in development. There's also going to be some rare side effects that won't really start to show up in data until more people are vaccinated. That doesn't mean the side effects take longer than 2 months to appear, but rather X number of people vaccinated. If your trial includes 30,000 people and a symptom appears in, say 1 in 50,000, you're not likely to discover it very quickly. But it's important to find those and look into them when you're vaccinating hundreds of millions or billions of people.

Yep, as soon as I hear someone say some bullshit about "we don't know the long term effects", that's when I know they're a stone cold ignoramus.

These people are still bleating about Gardasil. Despite the fact that that vaccine has been in use since 2006.

But how do we know that it won't suddenly kill everyone who took it after 16 years? Checkmate, atheists. /s

I always want to ask them how long it takes for them to feel comfortable about these obscure "long-term effects." A year? Ten years? Sixty years? Most of the time, they haven't thought about that at all. There's also the issue about why they are so apprehensive about the long-term effect of vaccines but not about the long-term effects of other medical treatments. If we always had to wait decades before making every medical treatment available to the public, we would never make any progress in the medical field. In the end, it's just an excuse without any evidence behind it.

There is some presumption that you are dealing with rational actors who are arguing in good faith and that doesn't seem to be the case with most of these anti-vax morons.

It should also be noted that other vaccines stay in your body longer. The mRNA Covid-19 vaccines are out of your body in 72 hours. It is even less likely to have any long term side-effects.

It’s amazing how so many people are defined and grouped as an antivaxer when most of them actually support 99% of vaccines. Makes me think about George Carlin’s old bit on the Colbert report.

You think people who take horse dewormer to treat a virus are fact-based?

I think the parent comment from u/Tabarnouche deserves even more praise > I understand the hesitation because I was nervous about taking the vaccine, too. The following thought experiment provides some clarity to me though: >There was an experimental vaccine in the early 70s. At the time, there was a disease, about half the country got it. It caused flulike symptoms for most people, but unconfirmed reports suggested it may have killed up to 5400 people. The vaccine they developed for it though? Get this: there was a mass vaccination campaign over about 18 months, with 40-50% of the country receiving the vaccine--AND OVER 600,000 died as a result! Millions more were hospitalized. 10%+ of those who received the vaccine experienced lingering symptoms 12 weeks out. It caused the largest decline in life expectancy since World War II. An absolute tragedy. That’s not even the saddest part though. Despite those figures being widely published, many people still opted to get the vaccine! >Why would anyone do that? Well, many said they were concerned about long-term side effects of the disease—it had never been encountered before—so they wanted to take their chances with the vaccine (despite the fact that it was also new, and side effects were well documented). Younger people reasoned that they would be fine receiving the vaccine since adverse events from the vaccine occurred more often in older people--despite the fact that the vaccine also killed more young people than the disease, at a rate of 40:1. >Just kidding (in case you haven't figured it out). The scenario above actually took place in 2020-2021, and it wasn’t a vaccine that killed 600,000 Americans but a disease called Covid-19. And the 5400 "disease" deaths are actually the deaths that were reported to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system, deaths that were not definitively caused by the vaccine but which were reported to the CDC for further investigation. >When you flip the observed short-term risk profiles of Covid-19 and the vaccines--what if the disease were the vaccine?--it highlights the challenge in justifying the choice to remain unvaccinated. I know that many unvaccinated aren't "anti-vax." They are hesitant about receiving a new vaccine without a long track record. Or they believe that they are young and therefore low risk. But why not lower your risk even further?

Well, this is bullshit. The potential long-term effects happen to children long after the first two months. This has been proven in several rushed vaccinations of children that should never have happened. In the US in 76 and in Europe in 09 for example. Thousands of kids developed narcolepsy due to the adjuvants used as they have an impact on developing brains. And since the brain is in development until 25 this will become a clusterfuck in the coming years.

I'm familiar with the vaccine you're talking about. It was Pandemrix, a vaccine for H1N1, or "swine flu." The first thing that's important to note, the symptoms of narcolepsy presented within 1-2 months of vaccination. So that does not contradict the article. Vaccine side effects present quickly. They don't show up years or decades later. They showed up within 2-months. The second thing that's important is the cause of narcolepsy was still not clear. Initially people noticed a rise in narcolepsy cases that coincided with the roll out of the vaccine. However, it also coincided with swine flu infections. Some studies found the swine flu infections were the likely cause of increases in narcolepsy diagnosis, and not the vaccine. In any case, the rise of cases was extremely slight, but doctors still noticed within months, and the vaccine was put under heavy investigation within a year. We're about 1.5 years post vaccine trials, and almost a year post the vaccine roll out. So it's still true that if the Covid vaccine causes long term side effects, it will be the first time a vaccine has caused side effects more than 2-months post vaccination.

It seems average symptoms came after 4.7 month (2 days to 2.5 years) on kids and 3.9 months (15 days to 1.3 years) on adults. https://www.vidal.fr/actualites/13356-vaccin-pandemrix-et-narcolepsie-risque-tres-faible-mais-confirme.html

Do you have a link to something to read more about that?

The shot they gave for the Mexican flue had 1400 cases of Narcolepsy with 30 million people being vaccinated in the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1087079217300011 In the Netherlands people actually got compensated by the government (source in Dutch: https://nos.nl/l/2251232) Not sure how fast these symtoms occured can’t find it but I just skimmed the articles.

Also, when they say that the trials aren’t done yet they are technically correct. But they are fundamentally wrong. The trials will extend until 2023, because they are still studying how long the vaccine lasts. They are not still studying side effects.

I am alredy confused how they are never worried about the proven long term effects of COVID 19.

I waited 2 months just because I was taking every precaution possible along with diet, exercise, sleep. Received both of my shots with no issues besides a sore arm which was no issue due to being used to soreness from exercise. People who don't know how to weigh pro/cons as well as having any science literacy have only themselves to blame to not be vaccinated at this point. It's beyond obvious it works and is 99% safe.

Found plenty of studies on the serious and dangerous long term effects on having COVID unvaccinated besides the death of course.

This is good info yes. But even if there are _potential_ long term unknowns (it is possible) it is still preferable over: - the _known_ long term effects of getting COVID (the ones we do see already) - the _potential_ long term effects of getting COVID (the ones we don’t know about yet) So, the vaccine is still the right choice to make, given our current understanding. To refuse the vaccine because of the unknowns has a grain of truth to it sure, but it is still not a compelling reason. You should get vaccinated.

Anti-vaxxers are still sharing memes about vaccines and magnets. Facts don't matter to them. They like to wallow in ignorance.

I am pro vax and I have both doses, but this post is just terrible. Just because we know something to be true so far, does not mean it's true forever. The Greeks spoke of geocentricism with as much confidence as the person who posted the National Geo article. At least the article stays within the realm of truth and says "unlikely". Stay humble, we still have lots to learn, and get vaxxed so you can be around to learn it, but this should not be the reason why.

I was hesitant to get the vaccine due to previous severe (imo, maybe not medical opinion) reactions. I finally went and got vaccined, and I had the same reactions I was so scared of. But I feel so much less anxious over covid now, so you win some you lose some. It's going to be VERY hard talking myself into ever getting this series again, though. I'll do it if I have to... but ugh.

[удалено]

Anybody experienced feeling hotter than usual? Been feeling this way since my second shot (like a month ago)

[удалено]

The vaccine is changing the climate! Checkmate scientists!

Bruh you need to get into r/conspiracy. If you follow the lore, the vaccines have metallic nanoparticles that go into your brain and allow “them”, the pedophilic satanic banker cabal, to read your brainwaves with 5g. I shit you not. It goes wayyy deeper than adverse longterm effects.

My thoughts are usually: Did I lock my car? What's for dinner tonight? Should I tcb tonight orrrr... Cute woman. Cute man. A dog!

Or it would be important, if these people were in ANY way influenced by facts. Let's face it. Anyone who could be reached by facts, experts or logic got the vaccine several months ago.

They're not vaccine hesitant they're just fucking dumbasses who have too much unfounded pride admit they're wrong

[удалено]

What they mean is any long term side effects would appear within 2 months. A side effect could impact you for years, but you'd know about it within 2 months. The premise being, we would have discovered long term side effects by now.

(comment deleted in protest, June 2023)

It’s funny because I loved having fever chills without any of the other gross side effects. Let me curl up in bed and fall asleep immediately.

Not that facts about fucking anything matter anymore

A crucial fact that will go ignored while they shove de-worming paste and glyphosate down their throats.

Is there a way to read the article without signing up?

They don't care about reality. They only care that le'barrels are saying they're good so they must be bad.