@Pezevenk @TheOneTrueChapo and @ClimateChangeAnxiety
:chavez-salute:
every time I see anti-vaxx shit posted here at least one of you is already in the comments, fighting the good fight.
@admins please reconsider chapo's site-wide tolerance of anti-vaxx/vaccine-skeptical/vaccine-hesitant rhetoric
So we have-
Pfizer didn't make exclusion criteria accessible (but it was able to be found, author had to make an edit)
Fever of 104+ not being in this particular paper even though this side effect has been noted enough that casual journalism has shared this fact
And that Pfizer had a direct hand in writing/publishing the paper the author is responding to.
So I ask out of curiosity, what this article does for you and what you're skeptical about? Does an imperfectly written paper on the topic discredit the vaccine in your eyes?
It doesn't discredit the vaccine but it raises enough concern to be skeptical. I almost definitely will get it (or a another covid vaccine) at some point, I'm up to date on all my other vaccines, I get my flue shot every year but until there is some more mature research on this I'm going to continue isolating and wearing my mask every time I go out.
I didn’t see the update—thanks for pointing that out. I’ll await the author’s analysis of those criteria.
The collapsing of the age categories was also concerning.
My understanding is that this is the paper proving the Pfizer vaccine’s safety, not ‘one of a dozen papers analysing it.
Realistically, I’m young and don’t have any allergies (that I know of). If I end up stuck with the Pfizer vaccine, I’ll bite the bullet and take the fever. But I think it’s reasonable to critique it.
I have no such concerns for the other vaccines, for the record.
I'm kinda curious.
Could anything make you skeptical? Would there be a boundary limit?
Sure lot of things would, largely if there was any (ideally per-reviewed) takedowns of the trials, how they were conducted, who they tested on, the timeline of it, control groups, what the vaccine is comprised of etc etc
This was a wall of text that amounted to having problems with a paper on the vaccine and I do not understand how a couple minor issues extend to feeling vindicated about the vaccine itself
3 people having allergic reactions is not enough for me to be skeptical. Finding out they only tested it on white women between the ages of 32 and 35 or something absurd would. Lastly, whenever I'm a little uncertain about covid vaccines I look up stuff about the flu vaccine as a comparison point and if anything stands out I'll consider it more