COVID-19: Vaccination and Informed Consent

 

Tucker Carlson has launched a new show — Tucker Carlson Today — as part of the Fox Nation streaming service (subscription required). It is a long-form interview with a single person. It is much more satisfying and informative than the limited-time segments on broadcast television and cable shows. In his third episode, he talked with Dr. Hooman Noorchashm about the COVID vaccines, the good news and the not-so-good news.

Dr. Noorchashm is a thoracic surgeon but is, more importantly, an advocate for ethics, patient safety, and women’s health. This was borne out of a personal tragedy: His wife, Dr. Amy J. Reed, died of cancer. She suffered from uterine fibroids which were treated by the use of a surgical tool called a power morcellator to grind up the fibroid and extract it. Except that when a fibroid has even a minute amount of cancer cells, the morcellation process effectively metastasizes the cancer. Dr. Reed went from what was Stage 1 cancer to Stage 4 cancer as a result of the procedure. As reported in the New York Times:

Dr. Reed and her husband fought for years to ban the use of a surgical tool called a power morcellator, which has a spinning blade that slices up tissue so it can be extracted through small incisions. Though the device is regarded as a great boon to minimally invasive surgery, if a patient has cancer, as Dr. Reed did, morcellation can spread the disease.

Dr. Reed and Dr. Noorchashm (pronounced NOOR-chash) won some notable victories. Because of their efforts, the Food and Drug Administration studied morcellation and in 2014 recommended that it not be used in the “the vast majority” of women having surgery for uterine fibroids, a common tumor that is usually benign but that can hide a dangerous type of cancer.

This is by way of background to consider what Dr. Noorchashm is saying about the Covid vaccine.

He is very enthusiastic about the vaccine technology, particularly the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA approach. He thinks that getting a large percentage of the population vaccinated is a good idea, particularly those who are most at risk for serious disease. But he has real concerns about vaccinating people who are naturally immune or who have developed natural immunity in the process of recovering from Covid. The vaccine is wasted on the former group and may be a hazard for the latter group. This is because, according to Dr. Noorchashm, there is a risk that organs previously attacked by Covid will be opportunistically attacked again by the body’s reaction to the vaccine. This second attack may be more severe than the original attack with outcomes that are hard to predict.

Dr. Noorchashm has expressed this concern to the FDA. He has highlighted the fact that the Emergency Use Authorization is based on efficacy, but not safety, testing. We know the vaccine works, but we don’t know the extent of the hazard for certain patients. In his opinion, public health officials are discounting this risk and have made the decision to favor one minority group (the aged and vulnerable with comorbidities who may well die if infected — less than 1% of the population) over another minority group (persons who do not need the vaccine and who will have a fatal reaction to it — an unknown number but likely less numerous than the other group).

Dr. Noorchashm sought to allay fears about the vaccine: while mRNA vaccines are new, research on mRNA has been ongoing for 30 years; mRNA is an intermediary between DNA and proteins, the process is one-way, there is not genetic modification of human DNA involved. Nevertheless, the safety of the vaccine is not known for certain people, and the push for whole population vaccination must necessarily make some healthy people ill. This is not an argument against the vaccine, but it is an argument for individual choice and informed consent.

Dr. Noorchashm has received some pushback, as you can imagine, from his appearing on Tucker Carlson Today. No doubt most of his critics reacted to the excerpts played on Tucker Carlson Tonight which were necessarily condensed. As a result, Dr. Noorchashm published a follow-on in Medium to elaborate his ideas for his critics:

Here are the elements of my argument, for the record — I promise that I shall not deviate from them in my public discourse:

  1. The COVID-19 vaccines are some of the most powerful and effective ones we’ve ever created. The fact that America did so in under a year is a testament to our nation’s scientific ingenuity and technical prowess. The achievement of this vaccine by Operation Warp Speed was nothing short of a modern day scientific miracle.
  2. The COVID-19 vaccine, if administered efficiently to enough persons without immunity against SARS-CoV-2, will save lives, will induce herd immunity and will limit the evolution of new mutants by preventing natural infections.
  3. No persons should ever be forced to take any medical treatment, including vaccines. And no person’s civil liberties, employment or educational opportunities should be curtailed, because of their choice to refuse vaccination.
  4. Indiscriminate vaccination of persons with natural immunity or those with recent infections is unnecessary or potentially dangerous, respectively. We should not be doing it — and we should demand that FDA and CDC shift their recommendations to restrain vaccination of the recently infected or naturally immune. We should liberally use #ScreenB4Vaccine for safety.

I hope that all are able to see that adopting this strategy will bring sanity and serve to alleviate the concerns that make many Americans “vaccine hesitant”.

Americans are not sheep — Americans respond to reason and to rational choice. Americans want to benefit from effective products and scientific developments, but they also need to know that their individual choices are respected and that they can have a reasonable assurance of safety.

He makes a persuasive case for vaccination. He notes that one of the risks for simply letting the virus do what it does until the population develops natural herd immunity is that the “variants” of the virus are created by infected people. The fewer people infected the fewer variants that will be created. The fewer variants created the less likelihood of a strain of virus resistant to the vaccines that have been developed.

Recent “variant” reports may simply be a scare tactic to keep public health restrictions on personal liberty in place or not. But people should get vaccinated to reduce the potential for variant development. They just need to have a choice and be informed of what we know and don’t know.

[Note: Links to all my COVID-19 posts can be found here.]

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 98 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MISTER BITCOIN Member
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    “Informed” consent = HAHA

    > >>Recent “variant” reports may simply be a scare tactic to keep public health restrictions on personal liberty in place or not. 

    “may simply be” — @Rodin you are being too kind and diplomatic

     

    • #1
  2. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    The doctor is making rational arguments here, based on known occurrences with other vaccines and the scientific literature.   Going on Tucker Carlson is just a better platform for spreading information to people.

    Also, it would insanity to get rid of informed consent, given that it is a cornerstone of medical ethics. 

    • #2
  3. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Dr Noorchashm has presented material on his concerns on the COVID vaccine to the FDA as a way to prevent needless complications to certain classes of people. It is a complex view, and you managed to explain it  thoroughly and with clarity. Thanks Rodin.

    • #3
  4. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    The Wall Street Journal did an excellent series of articles about that power mincer that was a huge cancer spreader in some cases.  This is a big illustration of the dangers of the “cost-cutting” mentality. I am a retired buyer, and I feel a blog post coming on, about the dangers of cost cutting.  Maybe on my own blog soon.

    I am convinced that the Feds are working to make us slaves forever.  Why else would they say “even if you are vaccinated, you need to continue mask-wearing and hand-washing, because a NEW VARIANT might come up and get around that vaccine, so you could still spread the virus”.  When why bother to get vaccinated in the first place?  This is increasingly evil.

    • #4
  5. MISTER BITCOIN Member
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    The Wall Street Journal did an excellent series of articles about that power mincer that was a huge cancer spreader in some cases. This is a big illustration of the dangers of the “cost-cutting” mentality. I am a retired buyer, and I feel a blog post coming on, about the dangers of cost cutting. Maybe on my own blog soon.

    I am convinced that the Feds are working to make us slaves forever. Why else would they say “even if you are vaccinated, you need to continue mask-wearing and hand-washing, because a NEW VARIANT might come up and get around that vaccine, so you could still spread the virus”. When why bother to get vaccinated in the first place? This is increasingly evil.

    especially when the new variant is less serious, less deadly, less virulent

     

    • #5
  6. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    I appreciate the article.  I was in absolutely no hurry to get the vaccine per my own risk factors.  I did so in great part when eligible because part of my job puts me in contact with people over 80.  Even though they are already vaccinated, I absolutely could not live with myself if my choices spread what is a high risk virus for them to them

    However, if I did not work with this group of people, I would probably feel differently.  If I had already had Covid, I would definitely feel differently.  I would think a vaccine after Covid was completely extraneous, and I would probably not get the shots.  I did not, after all, want my child to have a chicken pox vaccine because he had already had the chicken pox.  (This choice, btw, was completely supported by his pediatrician who signed his vaccination card for school per natural immunity to the disease.)

    The technology is also extremely new.  I don’t think it is at all irrational to have some hesitancy based on one’s personal circumstances.  I think these views are dismissed too quickly out of hand as all “hesitant” people are viewed like those folks who think Bill Gates is one of the lizard people or something.  This is unfair and very dismissive.  This also increased my hesitancy because I absolutely despise anyone treating anyone like children.  

    To be honest, I want more information, not less.  I am quite capable of analyzing what is put in front of me, but give me more than propaganda.  I mean, tell me Bill Gates is a lizard person, and… amazingly… I understand I’m talking with a crazy person.  Talk reasonably as this scientist seems to have done, and I can USE that information.  

    Again.  Thanks for the article.  

    • #6
  7. Roderic Reagan
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    I agree with the points you raise, but I would emphasize that over 300,000,000 people have received the Pfizer or  Moderna vaccines and not a single person has died of a reaction to them.  There have been only a handful of serious, non-fatal reactions.  This is an outstanding safety record.  This despite the fact that the advice now is to go ahead and give the vaccine to people who have already had the virus.

    • #7
  8. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    Rodin: Americans are not sheep — Americans respond to reason and to rational choice. Americans want to benefit from effective products and scientific developments, but they also need to know that their individual choices are respected and that they can have a reasonable assurance of safety

    I’m not sure when this approach became controversial among our elite but it should not have.  

    • #8
  9. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Roderic (View Comment):

    I agree with the points you raise, but I would emphasize that over 300,000,000 people have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and not a single person has died of a reaction to them. There have been only a handful of serious, non-fatal reactions. This is an outstanding safety record. This despite the fact that the advice now is to go ahead and give the vaccine to people who have already had the virus.

    I don’t understand the logic in giving this vaccine to people who have already had it.  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  I do understand the logic of giving this vaccine to people who haven’t had it, though it seems really unnecessary for children.  (Even though you are right that all indications are this is safe, this technology is still fairly new; they aren’t at risk, and herd immunity will be achieved without them getting vaccinated.  If this ends up being a yearly shot like that administered for flu, they can get it when they reach a certain age.)

    Again, I made the choice to get the vaccine, but I also think that saying people who have had the virus should get vaccinated because… ???????…. undermines some belief in the vaccine at large.  

    Does that make sense? 

    • #9
  10. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Roderic (View Comment):

    I agree with the points you raise, but I would emphasize that over 300,000,000 people have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and not a single person has died of a reaction to them. There have been only a handful of serious, non-fatal reactions. This is an outstanding safety record. This despite the fact that the advice now is to go ahead and give the vaccine to people who have already had the virus.

    While Dr. Noorchashm does not dispute the statistics, he does point out that no one really knows.  That is because there is a lot of pressure to avoid finding a connection. In the interview he used the term “true, true, unrelated”. This term means that two things can both be true — one received a vaccine and died — without one thing being the cause of the other. Dr Noorchashm thinks there should be more honest inquiry into the deaths of those recently vaccinated to consider whether the vaccine contributed to the death. It is ironic that “true, true, unrelated” is applied to deaths of the recently vaccinated, but is not applied to deaths in the presence of Covid.

    • #10
  11. W Bob Member
    W Bob
    @WBob

    It sounds like he’s concerned only with the mRNA vaccines but not the J and J vaccine. I couldn’t tell for sure from your post.

    I’ve never heard of this concern before for other vaccines such as the flu vaccine. 

    I’m getting the J and J shot tomorrow.

    • #11
  12. Weeping Member
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Lois Lane (View Comment):
    The technology is also extremely new.  I don’t think it is at all irrational to have some hesitancy based on one’s personal circumstances. 

    I hope it’s not irrational. It’s a big part of why I haven’t signed up to get the vaccine yet and am considering simply not getting it.

    • #12
  13. Weeping Member
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Roderic (View Comment):

    I agree with the points you raise, but I would emphasize that over 300,000,000 people have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and not a single person has died of a reaction to them. There have been only a handful of serious, non-fatal reactions. This is an outstanding safety record. This despite the fact that the advice now is to go ahead and give the vaccine to people who have already had the virus.

    I can’t speak for LL, but it’s not the immediate reaction that gives me pause. It’s possible health problems that might manifest down the road because of having had it that make me hesitant to take it.

    • #13
  14. Weeping Member
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    W Bob (View Comment):

    It sounds like he’s concerned only with the mRNA vaccines but not the J and J vaccine. I couldn’t tell for sure from your post.

    I’ve never heard of this concern before for other vaccines such as the flu vaccine.

    I’m getting the J and J shot tomorrow.

    How is the J and J vaccine different from the other two?

    • #14
  15. John H. Member
    John H.
    @JohnH

    I haven’t been vaccinated and don’t plan to, not out of fear of the shot – I suspect it’s safe as well as efficacious – but because I just haven’t worried much about the disease. Also, I presume I couldn’t get jabbed soon anyway! It did however occur to me that the wait might be worth it, because vaccination could facilitate international travel. Well, it might, depending on the country; but it will not facilitate getting back into the U.S. One of the FAQs on travel.state.gov is whether proof of vaccination will substitute for a negative Wu’Flu test within 3 days of one’s flying back home. (Note: the question wasn’t phrased exactly that way.) The answer is no. You must present results of the test or you may be denied entry or, before that, even boarding the plane. So why bother with vaccination? The government is essentially saying it cannot be trusted to work.

    Not that I think the government is evil. I think it’s saying what lots of people want it to say.  Get the shot, regardless of its benefits or drawbacks, and take all other precautions, regardless of their benefits or drawbacks.

    • #15
  16. W Bob Member
    W Bob
    @WBob

    Weeping (View Comment):

    W Bob (View Comment):

    It sounds like he’s concerned only with the mRNA vaccines but not the J and J vaccine. I couldn’t tell for sure from your post.

    I’ve never heard of this concern before for other vaccines such as the flu vaccine.

    I’m getting the J and J shot tomorrow.

    How is the J and J vaccine different from the other two?

    It’s not an mRNA vaccine. It works differently from those. So is this doctor concerned only with the mrnas or others, and if for others, why not the flu vaccine and other older ones?

    I got infected as a kid with chicken pox and I got the shingles vaccine a couple years ago. Is that a concern for this doctor?

    • #16
  17. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    I agree with the points you raise, but I would emphasize that over 300,000,000 people have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and not a single person has died of a reaction to them. There have been only a handful of serious, non-fatal reactions. This is an outstanding safety record. This despite the fact that the advice now is to go ahead and give the vaccine to people who have already had the virus.

    I can’t speak for LL, but it’s not the immediate reaction that gives me pause. It’s possible health problems that might manifest down the road because of having had it that make me hesitant to take it.

    Outside of people who have had the virus already, I do not anticipate any source of vaccination long term side effects.  mRNA gets degraded rapidly by your body, so the only lasting effect should be the immunity.

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Lois Lane (View Comment):
    I don’t understand the logic in giving this vaccine to people who have already had it.  It just doesn’t make sense to me. 

     Virologist Shane Crotty says his group’s research shows that you get better, longer-lasting immunity from the vaccine than from the disease, at least on average.  There is a huge variation in what kind of immunity you get from the disease, so maybe for some people at one end of the spectrum it’s the other way around. 

    Crotty doesn’t lead you through the main points and data from the latest studies, as Dr. Roger Sheult does in his MedCram presentations. He just talks. He has what some may take to be long, rambling explanations, trying to go through the nuances, but I have a lot of patience for that kind of talk.  

    If I were applying this information to myself, if I already had covid-19 I’d let other people go first and get their vaccinations, and get mine after most of those were done. Having had the disease does give most people some immunity, and under current conditions of vaccine rollout, I’d call that good enough for the short term. 

    Before listening to Shane Crotty tell about the latest research I probably wouldn’t have been planning to get the vaccine at all if I already had covid-19.

    My wife and I have had our vaccinations, and soon all three of our adult children will, too.  The 3rd has an appointment for later this week.  I don’t think our daughter has had her 2nd shot yet, because it may still be held up over the kerfluffle with AstraZeneca in Europe. I may not be up-to-date on that. The two who already have been vaccinated had a reaction that laid them low for a day; I guess that’s to be expected in younger people. The reactions my wife and I had were fairly mild, mine more so than my wife’s, so maybe the vaccine did me less good than it’s doing everyone else. 

    • #18
  19. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    W Bob (View Comment):

    It sounds like he’s concerned only with the mRNA vaccines but not the J and J vaccine. I couldn’t tell for sure from your post.

    I’ve never heard of this concern before for other vaccines such as the flu vaccine.

    I’m getting the J and J shot tomorrow.

    I wanted the J and J shot… One and done, older technology.  However, despite the clinic where I got an appointment saying that they had “stock,” when I showed up, they did not have any J & J.  I was already there.  I just got the dang thing.  

    • #19
  20. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):
    The technology is also extremely new. I don’t think it is at all irrational to have some hesitancy based on one’s personal circumstances.

    I hope it’s not irrational. It’s a big part of why I haven’t signed up to get the vaccine yet and am considering simply not getting it.

    I don’t think it’s irrational at all.  I think that people should be given reasons for why they should take it that are beyond fear mongering since we know most of us aren’t really at high risk even if we get Covid.  Then I think more people would feel good about whatever choices they make.  Right now the conversation is typically pretty one-sided, and the social pressure is tremendous.  I feel more coerced than persuaded, though I made a decision that I think will be perfectly fine in the end. 

    • #20
  21. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Lois Lane (View Comment):
    I don’t understand the logic in giving this vaccine to people who have already had it. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

    Virologist Shane Crotty says his group’s research shows that you get better, longer-lasting immunity from the vaccine than from the disease, at least on average. There is a huge variation in what kind of immunity you get from the disease, so maybe for some people at one end of the spectrum it’s the other way around.

    Crotty doesn’t lead you through the main points and data from the latest studies, as Dr. Roger Sheult does in his MedCram presentations. He just talks. He has what some may take to be long, rambling explanations, trying to go through the nuances, but I have a lot of patience for that kind of talk.

    If I were applying this information to myself, if I already had covid-19 I’d let other people go first and get their vaccinations, and get mine after most of those were done. Having had the disease does give most people some immunity, and under current conditions of vaccine rollout, I’d call that good enough for the short term.

    Before listening to Shane Crotty tell about the latest research I probably wouldn’t have been planning to get the vaccine at all if I already had covid-19.

    My wife and I have had our vaccinations, and soon all three of our adult children will, too. The 3rd has an appointment for later this week. I don’t think our daughter has had her 2nd shot yet, because it may still be held up over the kerfluffle with AstraZeneca in Europe. I may not be up-to-date on that. The two who already have been vaccinated had a reaction that laid them low for a day; I guess that’s to be expected in younger people. The reactions my wife and I had were fairly mild, mine more so than my wife’s, so maybe the vaccine did me less good than it’s doing everyone else.

    Thank you for offering more real information.  I have multiple adult family members who have had Covid and do not want to get the vaccinations.  I really don’t have a problem with their decisions, but this is honestly the only presentation I’ve seen on why someone in that circumstance should even consider the shots.  I’ll always listen.  

    • #21
  22. E. Kent Golding Member
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):
    I am convinced that the Feds are working to make us slaves forever.

     

    Some of the States ( such as Michigan) also.

    • #22
  23. Captain French Moderator
    Captain French
    @AlFrench

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):
    I am convinced that the Feds are working to make us slaves forever.

     

    Some of the States ( such as Michigan) also.

    And Oregon.

    • #23
  24. The Cynthonian Member
    The Cynthonian
    @TheCynthonian

    Captain French (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):
    I am convinced that the Feds are working to make us slaves forever.

     

    Some of the States ( such as Michigan) also.

    And Oregon.

    And Washington (state).

    • #24
  25. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Rodin: Americans are not sheep — Americans respond to reason and to rational choice. Americans want to benefit from effective products and scientific developments, but they also need to know that their individual choices are respected and that they can have a reasonable assurance of safety

    I’m not sure when this approach became controversial among our elite but it should not have.

    It is mind boggling, isn’t it?

    But the elite carefully set the stage for this exact set of affairs.

    A few years ago, I spent one full month arguing with a very close progressive friend. She was ditching work as a nurse at her hospital to join with local school children in their march against guns.

    The kids were happy to march, as what student  wouldn’t want to get out of a day of school and march around out in the sun? But during the march, the slogans they chanted were things like “Safety above all else” and “Even if we save one life.”

    I find the people who are the most resistant to the sharp turn into tyranny are those over the age of 60. We all avoided that type of propaganda onslaught in our schooling.

    The younger crowd has especially glommed on to the idea they have been so carefully taught: that a situation might cost someone somewhere a life or two, and so it is wisest  to shut the activity down.

    First they came for the guns. Now they are coming for every civil right we have, especially the right to remain healthy. The health care system has monetized our bodies so that all we are right now are bags of flesh, bone, muscle and blood, to be pumped up with as many vaxxes as it takes to kill off half of us. I feel justified i saying that, because all of us witnessed the kill off of so many people who would be alive today if they had been offered the actual remedies, and been given a CP machine rather than a ventilator.  On top of that, in many regions and industries, suicides number at  85% of the death toll of COVID!! Now if the PTB quite merrily allowed that to occur, especially in Washington state, California and New York, then why would cancelling the lives of the rest of us matter as a moral principle?

    • #25
  26. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Lois Lane (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    I agree with the points you raise, but I would emphasize that over 300,000,000 people have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and not a single person has died of a reaction to them. There have been only a handful of serious, non-fatal reactions. This is an outstanding safety record. This despite the fact that the advice now is to go ahead and give the vaccine to people who have already had the virus.

    I don’t understand the logic in giving this vaccine to people who have already had it. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I do understand the logic of giving this vaccine to people who haven’t had it, though it seems really unnecessary for children. (Even though you are right that all indications are this is safe, this technology is still fairly new; they aren’t at risk, and herd immunity will be achieved without them getting vaccinated. If this ends up being a yearly shot like that administered for flu, they can get it when they reach a certain age.)

    Again, I made the choice to get the vaccine, but I also think that saying people who have had the virus should get vaccinated because… ???????…. undermines some belief in the vaccine at large.

    Does that make sense?

    There is a ton of material out there that shows there is no way to know if having the vax means a person infected with COVID won’t still spread it. The only positive benefit the vax creates is that it means that a person will most likely, if exposed to COVID, come down with a milder version of it.

    Your sentiments are extremely nice and show consideration for others, but they are not backed up by any science.

    • #26
  27. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    While it is true we don’t have long term data on the mRNA vaccines there are theoretical reasons to believe they maybe safer than attenuated vaccines. First, some people get serious infections even from attenuated vaccine- not many and they are typically immunocompromised (and also rarely they attenuation process is defective). Secondly, things like Guillian-Barre syndrome sometimes occur post vaccination (typically after attenuated vaccines- since you are getting a virus and viruses are known to trigger G-B). Lastly, attenuated vaccines require you to grow industrial quantities of pathological virus and accidents happen. 
    An additional benefit of the mRNA vaccines is they are easy to fine tune for new variants of the disease.

    • #27
  28. MISTER BITCOIN Member
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    MiMac (View Comment):

    While it is true we don’t have long term data on the mRNA vaccines there are theoretical reasons to believe they maybe safer than attenuated vaccines. First, some people get serious infections even from attenuated vaccine- not many and they are typically immunocompromised (and also rarely they attenuation process is defective). Secondly, things like Guillian-Barre syndrome sometimes occur post vaccination (typically after attenuated vaccines- since you are getting a virus and viruses are known to trigger G-B). Lastly, attenuated vaccines require you to grow industrial quantities of pathological virus and accidents happen.
    An additional benefit of the mRNA vaccines is they are easy to fine tune for new variants of the disease.

    the key word is ‘theoretical’

     

    • #28
  29. MISTER BITCOIN Member
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Roderic (View Comment):

    I agree with the points you raise, but I would emphasize that over 300,000,000 people have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and not a single person has died of a reaction to them. There have been only a handful of serious, non-fatal reactions. This is an outstanding safety record. This despite the fact that the advice now is to go ahead and give the vaccine to people who have already had the virus.

    this is completely untrue

     

    • #29
  30. MISTER BITCOIN Member
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    MiMac (View Comment):

    While it is true we don’t have long term data on the mRNA vaccines there are theoretical reasons to believe they maybe safer than attenuated vaccines. First, some people get serious infections even from attenuated vaccine- not many and they are typically immunocompromised (and also rarely they attenuation process is defective). Secondly, things like Guillian-Barre syndrome sometimes occur post vaccination (typically after attenuated vaccines- since you are getting a virus and viruses are known to trigger G-B). Lastly, attenuated vaccines require you to grow industrial quantities of pathological virus and accidents happen.
    An additional benefit of the mRNA vaccines is they are easy to fine tune for new variants of the disease.

    I’m going to bet that you have own a lot of shares of Moderna stock, I forget the ticker mRNA?

     

    • #30