Jump to content

Pfizer : "not evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility"


Recommended Posts

Theres probably a hundred things daily you come into contact with daily that have not been tested for such either. 

 

For some of us (me) its a risk worth taking (age and medical history related) but I see what you are saying and I respect your choice. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cclub75

 

Water also has not been tested if it can causes water. Does that mean that water causes cancer.

 

The reason they have not tested it is because it just can't cause cancer. It does not alter your DNA so i can't cause cancer also there are not enough bad ingredients in there to give you cancer (meaning no stuff that causes cancer)

 

Plus we are now a year further and no other claims about cancer and higher amounts of cancer  have been made. So what do you have to back stuff up.

 

There has to be cause to check things not just check things for the reason of testing. 

 

Then again fruitcakes will remain fruitcakes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t panic.

 

Refer paragraphs under subsection  5.3 of the following: 

 

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/comirnaty-epar-product-information_en.pdf

 

—————

Disclosure.

 

In response to cclub75’s opening post I went online to search for further information, what I found is posted above.

 

I would not normally spend time looking for such an obscure document, let alone read though the dry technical text.

 

This begs a question:

 

Did cclub75 discover the document s/he refers to by his/her own efforts, or did s/he repost this ‘discovery’ from something s/he read elsewhere?

 

My guess is cclub75 doesn’t spend time reading through FDA drug test reports but, on the off chance s/he does I recommend a little wider reading before making alarming claims.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t panic.

 

Refer paragraphs under subsection  5.3 of the following: 

 

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/comirnaty-epar-product-information_en.pdf

 

—————

Disclosure.

 

In response to cclub75’s opening post I went online to search for further information, what I found is posted above.

 

I would not normally spend time looking for such an obscure document, let alone read though the dry technical text.

 

This begs a question:

 

Did cclub75 discover the document s/he refers to by his/her own efforts, or did s/he repost this ‘discovery’ from something s/he read elsewhere?

 

My guess is cclub75 doesn’t spend time reading through FDA drug test reports but, on the off chance s/he does I recommend a little wider reading before making alarming claims.

 

 

Yes if you read the text, then they state the reason for not doing that test as the fats and the other components are not likely to cause it at all. It would be tests that are not needed. Why study something when there is no indication for it.

 

Lot of selective quoting and twisting of facts by cclub75. 

 

Neither genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies were performed. The components of the vaccine (lipids and mRNA) are not expected to have genotoxic potentia

 

Cclub75 his reasoning is false its like saying we can't claim water does not cause cancer as we have not tested it. But we did not test water because there was no reason to believe that it caused cancer. Same goes for the vaccine, the components of the vaccine have never shown to cause cancer. 

Plust the genetic part cant change DNA so it also can't cause cancer that way. 

Edited by robblok
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t panic.

 

Refer paragraphs under subsection  5.3 of the following: 

 

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/comirnaty-epar-product-information_en.pdf

 

—————

Disclosure.

 

In response to cclub75’s opening post I went online to search for further information, what I found is posted above.

 

I would not normally spend time looking for such an obscure document, let alone read though the dry technical text.

 

This begs a question:

 

Did cclub75 discover the document s/he refers to by his/her own efforts, or did s/he repost this ‘discovery’ from something s/he read elsewhere?

 

My guess is cclub75 doesn’t spend time reading through FDA drug test reports but, on the off chance s/he does I recommend a little wider reading before making alarming claims.

 

 

Clearly such people get this stuff from resources devoted to debunking covid vaccination. These people often classify themselves as independent thinkers, people who refer to do their own research, etc. As though they actually had the scientific knowledge to study this stuff. Almost always, they are politically very right wing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Clearly such people get this stuff from resources devoted to debunking covid vaccination. These people often classify themselves as independent thinkers, people who refer to do their own research, etc. As though they actually had the scientific knowledge to study this stuff. Almost always, they are politically very right wing.

Yes they get their info from fringe sites or other idiot sites and they don't check what they post themselves. Otherwise he would have known that there was a reason why they did not test it. Its basically mentioned in the product information. However by only mentioning that it has not been tested for it its twisting the truth presenting things in a way so it looks bad instead of disclosing the full story that shows it was just not needed.

 

Its like saying the election results of the US presidency of several states have been challenged because of suspected fraud. But then forgetting to mention that no fraud has actually been found.  By omitting part of available information you can make things look bad to influence those who don't check sources and accept this as proof.

Edited by robblok
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP has no idea what he/she/it is talking about.

 

Such text is standard boilerplate, most vaccines and biologicals are not subjected to such testing because it would be pointless and thus unethical.  This is reflected in numerous international and national guidelines, for example:

 

https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/S6_R1_Guideline_0.pdf

 

This boilerplate appears on all sorts of non-covid vaccines, eg:

 

https://www.fda.gov/media/119870/download

https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines%2C blood %26 biologics/published/Package-Insert---HAVRIX.pdf

 

So, who is promoting "fake news here"?

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...