>>13793300>>13793313>t. doesn't know shit about drug testingAll drug go under testing, and the burden of proof is on the manufacturers to prove that they are safe. Even new SSRI's still have to undergo testing, and depending on the metric you are using they are literally either the most prescribed class of drug in the world, or one of the most prescribed drugs (depending on whether you count number of individuals, number of pills, or number of prescriptions per year). We already know their mechanism of action, but that doesn't matter. Plenty of drugs that have identical mechanisms of action have completely different safety profiles. A great example is fentanyl vs non-sythetic and semi-synthetic opioids, where fentanyl tends to have a much lower therapeautic index despite having the same mechanism of action. Anyone with even a passing knowledge pharmacology would be aware of cases of this. Even though SSRIs are literally the most prescribed class of drugs in the world, and we know how they work, we still have to test them for YEARS, before releasing a new one. mRNA vaccine have been subject to testing, but not of them have been subject to the standard longitudinal testing that takes YEARS. Now you may not be bothered by that, and that's fine, but what I say is still objectively true, and if you disagree, then you are simply wrong. mRNA vaccines have not been subject to standard testing procedures, and the burden of proof has always been on drug manufacturers to establish the safety and efficacy of any and all new drugs. Just because you know the mechanism of action of a particular drug, that doesn't necessarily tell you much about it's safety profile. We don't even have the theoretical OR the empirical ability to theoretically predict OR empirically detect all of the metabolites of a drug in the body. Pharmacokinetics is not well understood by any means. That is much more important than understanding mechanism of action when it comes to drug safety.
