>>13937809>that has not undergone sufficient trials is being pushed by medical professionals for a virus that is hardly worse than the flu in healthy populations.It's gone through phase 1, 2 and 3.
A lot of doctors will argue that pharmaceutical trials are subject to too much regulation and scrutiny, making them prohibitively expensive, and I'm inclined to agree with that view. I have no problems with how the vaccine has been studied and released, and the level of transparency has been pretty high with this vaccine as well.
>A medication being new and having potential unexpected effects, is absolutely a contraindication.Having unexpected side effects that are common and reproducible? Possibly. Having /potential/ unexpected effects? Of course not. Any medication can have potential unexpected effects lmao.
>Would you prescribe a new blood pressure medication without knowing the effects it would have after a months time? The effects it would have after a year's time?Inevitably this MUST occur with all new medications, otherwise you could never prescribe medication. Of course I would. Is it important to follow up with new medications and continue studying them after treatment, the colloquially named phase four? Of course it is, and that continues to happen with these vaccines.
But you certainly can't not give a medication just because it may have negative consequences on people with COPD, especially if there's no evidence that it does.
>I argue that the virus is not dangerous enough to justify that. I mean it's a communicable disease that was the third leading cause of death in America in 2020. It's pretty fucking dangerous lol.
>I think this point is supplemented by the fact that only recently has there been public acknowledgement of the risk of heart damage.Myocarditis/pericarditis as a reaction to a vaccine is neither new nor unexpected. Should we ban the flu vaccine because it can cause the same lmao?
