Thai netizens fierily debate Pfizer vaccine for students as anti-vaxxers emerge

[rudi49jr]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

The problem is that lots of them get it from charlatans and/or loons.

The problem is that these loons - like Tucker Carlson and co. - get such a big podium to spread their lies and misinformation. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

20 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Show me the medium term (5 year) and long term (10 year) data of the effects of these 5 billion vaccinations.

 

I'd even accept 3 year data.

And what biological mechanism would you propose for vaccines to be able to have adverse effects after 3, 5 or 10 years?

[bangkokbonecollector]

My brother is a big swinging dick in the medical world and if he thinks it is ok then I trust my brothers judgement as a Dr and a brother who wouldn't want anything bad being given to his family first and foremost.

 

Do they have some evil plan to infect billions with some sort of AI inhibitor (Whatever the terminology would be)? No

 

Have they foolishly infected billions with something that in time will kill us or make us sterile? No

 

Have they seen an opportunity to make billions of $ and are exploiting that to the greatest degree? probably.

[cdemundo]

35 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Here's a few examples, maybe you missed them in your research.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline

 

https://www.ncirs.org.au/phases-clinical-trials   "COVID-19 vaccines are being rolled out for emergency use authorisation in several countries. However, as there are limited safety data, full registration of the vaccine will only be given after extended safety monitoring, which will take several years.

 

https://research.northeastern.edu/heres-what-it-takes-to-test-a-covid-19-vaccine-with-clinical-trials/ " a process that usually takes three to five years of rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness."

 

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/how-covid-19-leading-innovation-clinical-trials

"On average, vaccine development can take 10-15 years.  "

 

https://www.jnj.com/innovation/the-5-stage

s-of-covid-19-vaccine-development-what-you-need-to-know-about-how-a-clinical-trial-works

"It can take up to a decade to go from vaccine discovery and development to approval"

None of those 5 include examples of a vaccine development process, none of your references even names a specific vaccine.

All of them are secondary sources, articles written about vaccine development in general.

They do not say anything about what time is spent in what part of the development process for any particular vaccine.

 

Reference 1. The point that you either don't understand or choose to ignore is that (from your first reference)

 “A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer,”

Now first, 5 to 10 years is not 10 to 15 years. So this reference doesn't support your claim.

 

Second, it says "vaccine development timeline" this includes all research up to and including the pre-clinical results that are promising enough to apply for FDA approval.

That is the big difference in these mRNA vaccines, promising vaccines were developed in a very short time, months rather than years,

The "vaccine development timeline" is not the FDA safety approval time.

 

Reference 2. 

This one isn't available when clicking on the link. 

But your quote says "

"full registration of the vaccine will only be given after extended safety monitoring, which will take several years."

So again, your own reference does not support the claim of 10 to 15 years, it says several years.

 

Reference 3.

 

a process that usually takes three to five years of rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness.”

So again, your own reference does not support the claim of 10 to 15 years, it says 3 to 5 years.

 

Reference 4.

"On average, vaccine development can take 10-15 years. “

"can take 10-15 years" "Can take?" That means it is possible; so there have been examples, not that it is the rule.

Once again Vaccine development which includes the period of pre-clinical testing. Not safety and clinical testing.

And once again no specific vaccine development is discussed, once again a general article without any specifics about time taken in the various phases of vaccine development.  and we could answer what does it mean "On average... can take 10-15 years."

 

Reference 5.

"It can take up to a decade to go from vaccine discovery and development to approval”

"can take up to a decade" indicates that 10 years would be a maximum.

Again with the "can take".

The point is again the time for development and approval is discussed.

 

So none of your references state that vaccine approval takes 10 to 15 years

And as I said even with your 5 attempts you only found general articles referring to vaccine development and no specific example of where the time was spent in research and development versus the clinical trials and approval process.

None of your references describes the timeline of a specific vaccine.

 

So again stating that vaccine approval takes from 10 to 15 years is an insupportable statement.

Repeating it over and over does not make it any more true.

 

 

 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Here's a few examples, maybe you missed them in your research.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline

 

https://www.ncirs.org.au/phases-clinical-trials   "COVID-19 vaccines are being rolled out for emergency use authorisation in several countries. However, as there are limited safety data, full registration of the vaccine will only be given after extended safety monitoring, which will take several years.

 

https://research.northeastern.edu/heres-what-it-takes-to-test-a-covid-19-vaccine-with-clinical-trials/ " a process that usually takes three to five years of rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness."

 

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/how-covid-19-leading-innovation-clinical-trials

"On average, vaccine development can take 10-15 years.  "

 

https://www.jnj.com/innovation/the-5-stages-of-covid-19-vaccine-development-what-you-need-to-know-about-how-a-clinical-trial-works

"It can take up to a decade to go from vaccine discovery and development to approval"

The trouble with articles that say how long vaccines usually or typically took, based on what has happened in the past is that's exactly what that are - articles on how long vaccines used to take in the past.

 

There are multiple, perfectly good and logical reasons why the current crop of Covid vaccines took a lot less time than vaccines used to in the past.

 

Many (though not all) of them are mentioned in the video below, from the Oxford University Vaccine Technology development people.

 

 

 

The other thing is that it's totally illogical to say that just because some vaccines took 10 years or more in the past (in total development lead time) all vaccines must therefore, now and forever into the future, take ten years or more.

 

As at least one epidemiologist has pointed out, asking why vaccines can be created so quickly now when it used to take longer in the past is like asking why it used to take two weeks to cross the Atlantic back in the 1800's, whereas now you can get across the ocean in just a few hours.

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by GroveHillWanderer

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, rudi49jr said:

The problem is that these loons - like Tucker Carlson and co. - get such a big podium to spread their lies and misinformation. 

Well, at this point most of the opposition is more about political ideology than science. I'm sure there's a huge overlap between covid vaccine denialists and anthropogenic climate change denialists. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Here's a few examples, maybe you missed them in your research.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline

 

https://www.ncirs.org.au/phases-clinical-trials   "COVID-19 vaccines are being rolled out for emergency use authorisation in several countries. However, as there are limited safety data, full registration of the vaccine will only be given after extended safety monitoring, which will take several years.

 

https://research.northeastern.edu/heres-what-it-takes-to-test-a-covid-19-vaccine-with-clinical-trials/ " a process that usually takes three to five years of rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness."

 

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/how-covid-19-leading-innovation-clinical-trials

"On average, vaccine development can take 10-15 years.  "

 

https://www.jnj.com/innovation/the-5-stages-of-covid-19-vaccine-development-what-you-need-to-know-about-how-a-clinical-trial-works

"It can take up to a decade to go from vaccine discovery and development to approval"

This is from the Johns Hopkins site

TYPICAL VACCINE DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

• Each clinical trial phase follows completion of the prior phase
• Can take a long time to accumulate cases to assess vaccine efficacy outside pandemic
• Manufacturing capacity is scaled-up after phase III trial and regulatory approval

ACCELERATED TIMELINE IN A PANDEMIC

• Some clinical trial phases are combined
• Cases accumulate rapidly to assess vaccine efficacy because of the pandemic
• Manufacturing capacity is scaled up during the clinical trials but at financial risk

You notice that whereas in the traditional way of develoing a vaccine, it moves more slowly because it takes time to generate enough cases. Not the case with the current approach Also, usually clinical trials happen. Here they were combined. Also, instead of waiting for results the manufacturers built their factories while trials were still in progress. 

And finally, what isn't mentioned here, huge progress in mapping the virus and being able quickly to find its vulnerable areas, has hugely accelerated development.

Edited October 9, 2021 by placeholder

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Do we?

 

Can you point me to a website where I can see this data?

Here you go. You'll find an explanation of how it all works and directions to various sites. Good luck!

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/help/how-find/find-study-results#Posted

[GroveHillWanderer]

33 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also, usually clinical trials happen [sequentially]. Here they were combined.

Just to flesh this out slightly - the normal procedure (when there isn't an ongoing, critical global health emergency) is to apply for permission to conduct a clinical trial and then wait several months (in the UK, normally a minimum of 6 months) for the regulatory authorities to grant approval, before the trial can start.

 

Then after the trial reaches the point of sufficient people having been infected (again in the absence of a pandemic, this might take years rather than months) and the results are submitted for review, it would take another several months (or more) for the review to take place. Because normally, there just isn't any particular hurry.

 

Repeat that for each of three clinical trial phases, and you would normally (in a non-emergency situation) be looking at several years being added on to the total development lead time, just because of the normal, built-in bureaucratic delays.

Edited October 9, 2021 by GroveHillWanderer

[kimamey]

On 10/8/2021 at 8:28 AM, timendres said:

And what about those making reasonable arguments as to why this vaccine is debatable. Their voices are muted, while the pro-vaccine message is amplified. The debate has not been balanced by any measure. It would be more understandable if this virus was on the level of ebola, but it is not. Maybe if governments spent as much time, effort, and money on expanding the healthcare system to be capable of handling the "increased load", as they do pushing the vaccines to those not at exceptional risk, we could end this nonsense of lockdowns and have a more balanced approach to the pandemic overall. Thankfully, it appears that new treatments, such as the new Merck pill, will help to alleviate the pressure on the healthcare system and allow a less radical approach to the problem. 

It would be more understandable if this virus was on the level of ebola, but it is not.

 

Whilst not an expert I think that depends on how you look at it.  It's true Ebola has a much higher mortality rate than Covid but that's not the whole story. Covid has a much higher rate of transmissibility so even with a lower chance of death or serious illness it can kill more people. It's a numbers game.

 

Here's a pretty good explanation.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/07/31/why-is-covid-19-more-deadly-than-ebola-an-infectious-disease-doctor-explains/

 

As time goes on we will hopefully see new treatments that will help us deal with Covid and possibly without vaccines but there are several diseases that have been wiped out or at least greatly reduced with vaccines. The current measures are there because this is an urgent situation so needs urgent solutions. Less urgent solutions will take longer.

 

Whilst stopping debate isn't good a lot of the push back against vaccines can cause deaths with misinformation so it's at least understandable that there's a desire to stop that happening.

Edited October 9, 2021 by kimamey

[Paradise Pete]

22 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Yes we need more data, where are the short term (5 year) and long term (10 year) statistics on the safety of these few billion doses.

 

 

No we don't. No vaccine ever has had latent side effects. The vaccine itself is cleared from your body within a day or two. The "invaders" it creates are cleared by your immune system in a week or two. After that there's nothing left from it other than a trained and ready immune system.

 

It's not like medication, which is taken over a period of time and can have a long half-life. Stop worrying about ghosts and goblins and just get vaccinated. Be part of the answer instead of part of the problem.

 

[PremiumLane]

On 10/8/2021 at 12:51 PM, timendres said:

Indeed. Tired of the "anti-vax" label. People who are a bit dubious of a vaccine technology that failed to garner FDA approval for 15 years, but it suddenly "safe", are simply being prudent. I have had many "traditional" vaccines in my life, but this new technology is something for which I have a "wait and see" approach. Maybe those blindly lining up for the vaccines should be labeled "anti-critical-thinkers".

What new technology are you talking about? And this is problem with this kind of debate, one side you have people who know what they are talking about, the other you have either the misinformed, the stupid or the griffters.

 

Like the anti-vax movement, started by a 'doctor' who it turns out was flogging his own remedy to replace the MMR vaccines.... funny that

[Albert Zweistein]

21 hours ago, LetsGoBrandon said:

no vax would dare mess with a guy called albert zweistein.

congrats on the great result.

 

[Albert Zweistein]

Just now, Albert Zweistein said:

What to do with anti vaxxers ? do like me, ignore them.

 

[cdemundo]

10 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Here's a few examples, maybe you missed them in your research.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline

 

https://www.ncirs.org.au/phases-clinical-trials   "COVID-19 vaccines are being rolled out for emergency use authorisation in several countries. However, as there are limited safety data, full registration of the vaccine will only be given after extended safety monitoring, which will take several years.

 

https://research.northeastern.edu/heres-what-it-takes-to-test-a-covid-19-vaccine-with-clinical-trials/ " a process that usually takes three to five years of rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness."

 

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/how-covid-19-leading-innovation-clinical-trials

"On average, vaccine development can take 10-15 years.  "

 

https://www.jnj.com/innovation/the-5-stages-of-covid-19-vaccine-development-what-you-need-to-know-about-how-a-clinical-trial-works

"It can take up to a decade to go from vaccine discovery and development to approval"

"Here's a few examples, maybe you missed them in your research."

 

I have responded to this in detail in other post but just to keep it simple in response to you wisea$$ comment.

 

None of your references contains a single example,  maybe you missed that in your research.

Not one specific reference to a vaccine, maybe you missed that in your research.

 

As far as the 10 to 15 years claim, the references you chose give timelines of:

several years,

3 to 4 years,

can take up to a decade,

on average… can take 10 to 15 years

5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer

 

So maybe you missed this in your research, but none of your references support a 10 to 15 year norm for vaccine approval.

The phrases "can take" and "up to a decade" indicate that these are not the norms but rather maximums or exceptions.

 

Maybe you missed all this in your research.

 

So as God said to Abraham, "why don't you go forth and multiply with yourself."

 

 

 

[bangkokbonecollector]

A great article. mRNA science is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination. I remember I invested some money into a Biotech company who was researching using mRNA for HIV. I made a few sheckles.

 

It may sound like science fiction but you know all those grants governments give, universities give and rich donors give? yeah well believe it or not unlike welfare systems, they get put to good use and go to people who sit in labs 360 odd days a year working their butts off just making new shi7 up. Pretty much how our species has survived to where they are now, by thinking new better shi7 up instead or sitting around forums talking utter f00cking nonsense. Crazy isn't it.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/new-cancer-treatments-may-be-on-the-horizonthanks-to-mrna-vaccines

Edited October 9, 2021 by bangkokbonecollector
I felt I should be more direct

[Scott]

A post with false or misleading information has been removed along with replies.

 

[Sir Dude]

Vaccines like AZ are viral vector vaccines, which is the traditional/conventional style, like many you would have taken when younger. The mRNA vaccines are experimental in the way that they haven't been deployed on such a vast scale before, rushed into service too, even if the discovery was a while back. 

With Covid casualties or serious illness at 1% or less, then I don't feel I need to rush to take the new type of vaccine and am happy with the tried and tested way (viral vector). A wait and see approach seems the prudent/sensible thing to do with any new miracle medical solution unless circumstance dictates no option... but still to get vaccinated.

So, a double shot of AZ seems okay, then when the dust settles next year consider a booster of a different type. There may even be better options by then at the rate we are going. No rush to be a sheeple, just do what will is required to travel and see how the cards fall later.

The truth will out eventually.

[LongTimeLurker]

21 hours ago, cdemundo said:

But like all antivax [deleted] you are always asking smart-a$$ questions instead of actually looking for information.

 

AS usual the thing you are asking for has been discussed repeatedly on TVF. 

1. I am not antivax

 

2. I don't spend all my time looking at TVF

[LongTimeLurker]

15 hours ago, Paradise Pete said:

No we don't. No vaccine ever has had latent side effects. The vaccine itself is cleared from your body within a day or two. The "invaders" it creates are cleared by your immune system in a week or two. After that there's nothing left from it other than a trained and ready immune system.

So why is there still safety monitoring for years after the introduction of a new vaccine?

[ThailandRyan]

1 minute ago, LongTimeLurker said:

So why is there still safety monitoring for years after the introduction of a new vaccine?

For one reason, not everyone gets a vaccination of a vaccine at one time and some may not get a vaccination for several years until they are old enough, and so they continue to monitor them, How old were you when you recieved a Hepatitis B vaccine and then how long until your children were vaccinated.  Take a medication like codeine, when younger I had no issues with it but a few years ago I had a terrible reaction to the Codeine I was given at the hospital.  I am sure like all other vaccines and medications there will always be someone who has an adverse reaction to it, yet the majority do not.  Sort of like you drinking milk and I can not because it causes me great distress, or say eating peanuts, some can and some can not without nearly dying.  Hope that enlightens you a little bit.  Vaccines are tested and as the virus they were initially designed for changes the vaccine also changes just like the annual Flu vaccines, pneumococcal vaccine and a few others. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

So why is there still safety monitoring for years after the introduction of a new vaccine?

The safety monitoring continues because rare side effects can emerge as more and more people are vaccinated. In a clinical trial you may only come across side effects that occur once in a few tens of thousands of recipients, whereas longer term monitoring after a wide vaccination rollout can reveal side effects that only become noticeable after millions of people have received it.

 

However these are still short term side effects, that occur in an individual within weeks of the person being vaccinated - NOT long term side effects that only appear years after the person received the vaccination, which has never happened in the history of vaccination.

 

Rare side effects are not the same as long term side effects.

 

As mentioned in the article below:

 

Quote

Of all the vaccines we use, in infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, none of them have any long-term effects," Schaffner said.

"No vaccine has shown side effects 2 to 5 years later. That doesn't exist because there's no biological reason for it."

Is Old Vaccine Technology the Key to Hesitancy?

Edited October 10, 2021 by GroveHillWanderer

[rumak]

On 10/8/2021 at 12:25 PM, johng said:

Good ????  debate is what is needed...not censorship,de platforming and ridicule of those with a differing opinion  who may in the end turn out to be proven correct !

great to see you got 22 members here that agree with you.    from the information from respected people that i read (of course can not list here) ........   I am a big big believer that the immune systems of the young, and other healthy individuals  would lead to the eventual demise of this and other similar viruses.

The mass vaccinations are possibly ( IMO probably)  going to do the complete opposite. 

Warning:  this viewpoint may be censored 

Edited October 10, 2021 by rumak

[Bkk Brian]

My 13 year old daughter was given the Pfizer vaccine this morning, second shot on the 31st Oct. Place was full of students from all the international schools in Phuket

[uli65]

5 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Vaccines like AZ are viral vector vaccines, which is the traditional/conventional style, like many you would have taken when younger. The mRNA vaccines are experimental in the way that they haven't been deployed on such a vast scale before, rushed into service too, even if the discovery was a while back. 

With Covid casualties or serious illness at 1% or less, then I don't feel I need to rush to take the new type of vaccine and am happy with the tried and tested way (viral vector). A wait and see approach seems the prudent/sensible thing to do with any new miracle medical solution unless circumstance dictates no option... but still to get vaccinated.

So, a double shot of AZ seems okay, then when the dust settles next year consider a booster of a different type. There may even be better options by then at the rate we are going. No rush to be a sheeple, just do what will is required to travel and see how the cards fall later.

The truth will out eventually.

it is far less than 1 %, there is no single reason to run after this experimental vaxx like yaba junkies for their junk

[Paradise Pete]

8 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

So why is there still safety monitoring for years after the introduction of a new vaccine?

There isn't safety monitoring of people who got the vaccine years ago. That would be a total waste of resources. The monitoring is of recent recipients. Rather than desperately trying to find a reason - any reason - to not get vaccinated, why not just improve your life and the lives of people around you by getting vaccinated?

[Blumpie]

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

My 13 year old daughter was given the Pfizer vaccine this morning, second shot on the 31st Oct. Place was full of students from all the international schools in Phuket

That is so good to hear!  IT makes me very happy to hear that these shots are getting around to the general public in Thailand. 

 

[bangkokbonecollector]

I would like to add that this rumor about Pfizer jab killing you in 2 years is probably being spread by the Chinese. Only their 1984 style rhetoric could drum up something as ridiculous as this.

[Neeranam]

On 10/8/2021 at 12:52 PM, Bkk Brian said:

Yes my daughter, 13, in Phuket on Sunday

Was she sick at all? One of mine is getting it this week. 

[placeholder]

11 hours ago, rumak said:

great to see you got 22 members here that agree with you.    from the information from respected people that i read (of course can not list here) ........   I am a big big believer that the immune systems of the young, and other healthy individuals  would lead to the eventual demise of this and other similar viruses.

The mass vaccinations are possibly ( IMO probably)  going to do the complete opposite. 

Warning:  this viewpoint may be censored 

It may be censored but it certainly deserves to be mocked.