The risks of Vaccines is not limited to the AEFI caused by a proper preparation of the Vaccine, but also include the problems with manufacturing such as this as well...
According to Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare [1] it's a "substance that reacts to magnets", which "could be metal". Unfortunately, metallic contaminants have been found in many vaccines, so this would not be an uncommon quality control issue. [2]
This could lend some credence to the "COVID vaccine magnet challenge" that went viral in conspiracy theory circles. [3]
> it's a "substance that reacts to magnets", which "could be metal".
> This could lend some credence to the "COVID vaccine magnet challenge" that went viral in conspiracy theory circles. [3]
You couldn't be more wrong here.
This doesn't lend any credence to anything at all.
The false claims about covid vaccines and magnetism, was that people BECAME magnetic, so that spoons and other metal objects would cling to their bodies - NOT that they'd react to magnets.
And the claims were thoroughly debunked. NO ONE was able to show they were magnetic, after applying talcum.
The scam/idiocy was debunked with James Randi's test method from 2 decades ago.
Getting the Vaccine is easy. What is hard is to trust the what every biased, safety studies done on it and the fact the AEFI reporting system is not strictly mandated, indicating a bias from the authorities to not want to know about potential vaccine injuries.
As usual, this comment will get flagged. If you see this comment check back a bit later to see the shilling on HN.
There is nothing to hide if there is no data collected in the first place. Here in this video, you can see that even injuries sustained by people who took part in the trials are being rejected by the doctors citing as caused by "anxiety".
I think people are completely oblivious to this issue, and is under this fallacy that if there was something wrong with the vaccines, then the information will automatically appear in public perception. If you think this, you need to only look at how smoking went on for a long time without the people noticing any problem with it.
With vaccines, we know that the signal is killed right at the point of generation, because the medical practicioners are conditioned (being charitable here) to reject any injury as not being caused by the Vaccines.
AstraZeneca has not been approved in the US because of potential blood clot risks.
Nearly 2 billion people have been vaccinated against COVID-19, including >150 million people in the US, and hundreds of millions in the EU. There are very few adverse reactions, and no deaths. The risks of COVID-19 injury and death are far higher.
>The beauty of science is that now that the vaccines are out there it becomes easier to independently access them and move our knowledge further in the right direction.
I mean that groups without any conflict of interest can gather population level data and evaluate for themselves how effective the vaccines are, and how likely it is for the clinical trial data to have been correct.
There is a reason publications and conferences require disclosure of conflicts of interest, and that is because those with a conflict of interest are biased to find positive results (and hide negative results) that align with their financial goals.
>I mean that groups without any conflict of interest can gather population level data and evaluate for themselves how effective the vaccines are,
It won't work because for every such group, there will be 10 groups with high conflict of interest that can counter any finding of your hypothetical group, and journals with conflict of interests will reject the findings of that group, but instead give high visibility to the reports of high-conflict of interest groups..
Quickly no one will dare to research the said topic.
Because that would be like saying, just because all you got is a binocular with very limited magnification/resolving power, satelites for jupiter does not exist, because you cannot see them through it.
It absolutely is possible to retain a control group when developing a vaccine for a disease with CFR and R0 markedly lower than that of the measles. In fact they even had it, until January.
>I am pretty sure Sputnik V is fine. It has been administered to tens of millions inside Russia itself. If there were massive problems with it, we would know by now.
No, we wouldn't. Because most of the Vaccine AEFI tracking is based on voluntary reporting, and is known to only report around 1% of the events.
Even if it was not the case, we wouldn't still know without a control group. Basically this is why systematic trials are done to measure these things.
So this logic does not absolve Sputnik vaccine, or any other current vaccines in use.
Also, I wonder what the foreign substance was.