Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I was just pointing out that there have been adverse effects from squalene adjuvants in the past. You disregarded the article in its entirety, but I don't.
|
I discount all articles, since science journalism is terrible. I asked for the evidence beyond the technically troubled GWS paper. I still have no evidence of adverse effects of squalene adjuvants, and with 22 million doses out there one would think that anyone interested would have studied them for it. It's possible no one is interested, but somehow I doubt that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
What I have read is that for this vaccine to go through normal testing, it would take until sometime next year. I understand why they are not doing that, but it should still be a concern as adverse effects from past vaccines have taken several months to surface.
|
Define "normal testing".. as has been pointed out, testing for a completely new vaccine would be till next year, and testing for seasonal vaccines is far shorter because the vaccine is identical, just the actual viruses used change. This one is like the seasonal; same vaccine, just a different virus. It's not a new vaccine, so a shorter testing period (but longer than the seasonal) is reasonable to those who do such things.
You or I can try to evaluate if that testing time is reasonable, but I don't think we'd be doing so based on anything resembling good reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
The number of people tested is not the only variable to consider. And there seems to be a lot of different information out there regarding how much testing was actually done. Escuse me if i don't just take what is posted on here as the gospel.
|
That's fine, but if you want your position to have merit you have to provide some support.. we have links to official sources, people who work in the industry posting, if you have information about how much testing has or has not been done then provide it. "There seems to be different information" isn't a compelling argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
If I was in the medical profession and it was my OPINION that everyone should get vaccinated, I could say whatever I wanted. I'm a professional enviromental scientist and have worked in global warming studies, but I am sure that if posted my opinion on that and framed it with facts that supported my opinion (while leaving out facts that didn't), people would still be making up their own mind on the matter.
|
Sure, people most of the time think what they think for reasons far removed from the reality of the topic of thought. That's how the human mind works.. I don't get your point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Well you missed it then.
|
Missed what? I said I didn't recall me calling anyone names, I missed myself calling someone a name?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
And mistakes 30 years ago are still pretty relevant considering we still make them all the time.
|
So because we don't learn from some mistakes means that we never learn from any mistakes? This isn't a rational argument, it's an emotional one.
Mistakes from 30 years ago are very relevant because they are educational. Sometimes we learn, sometimes we don't, but to demonstrate that mistakes are being repeated requires evidence.