> In this scenario, are you also refusing vaccines that do work?
No, I'm asking about vaccines that were eventually pulled from the market for safety reasons.
> Or are you magically able to predict what the FDA will say in a few years?
The FDA doesn't magically monitor safety, they work off reports by HCPs. Usually after a few years of reports, they are forced to investigate (FDA action is a lagging indicator). By the time it's pulled from the market, typically many physicians are aware of the problem and haven't been using the products for months or years.
So for the 4th time, I ask - "If I were to refuse to get one of the vaccines, based off initial safety reports, but at a point where the FDA had not yet acted, would I be anti-science?"
Your previous question: "If I refused to take those vaccines for safety reasons when the FDA first approved them, would I be anti-science?"
Your question now: "If I were to refuse to get one of the vaccines, based off initial safety reports, but at a point where the FDA had not yet acted, would I be anti-science?"
We both know those 2 questions differ. But no problem, I'll answer your last question. Do you have the right qualifications to interpret those initial results?
Funny story: I saw someone on Facebook referring to some paper that some covid vaccine doesn't work. One of the authors name looked familiar, so I looked her up on Twitter. The discussion there went like this: "Hey ..., did you know anti-vaxers are using your paper to show the X vaccine doesn't work?", reply of the author "What? It's exactly the opposite, our paper shows they were actually working better than expected!".
Goes to show the idiots that got their degree from 4 YouTube videos, had no clue how to interpret a scientific paper. That's why I ask: do you have the proper qualifications to interpret such results? And by that I mean, do experts think a person like you has the right qualifications to interpret such material?
> We both know those 2 questions differ. But no problem, I'll answer your last question. Do you have the right qualifications to interpret those initial results?
Let’s go with a real life example from my link.
Your doctor says to you “This vaccine prevents the flu, but several cases of Bell’s palsy have been reported where you may end up with facial paralysis that may never resolve. The FDA is looking at the cases and will make a determination whether or not to pull it from the market.”
I’d say every patient is equipped to make their own decision about that.
And if they decide the answer is “no”, it’s actually a pro-science and pro-humanity decision.
People like you who act like no one should ever decline a vaccine are the anti-science ones! Youre the ones who downplay the risks of any medicine and act like the FDA never makes a mistake in approving a vaccine OR new data doesn’t come out to show it shouldn’t be on the market in the first place.
I'm not from US, so I really don't care what FDA says. If your doctor has information that some vaccine comes with big risks, sure, refusing that is scientific. But the case you present here is way different than what you said earlier.
Like I said, this wasn't your initial statement, but you conveniently ignored that.
Your initial statement was that you didn't take the vaccine based on nothing, and only later it turned out you were right. That is not scientific, like me and the other people already said many times.
And by the way, the doctors said it was best to take the covid mRNA vaccine because it was safe. If you didn't, that's anti-science and anti-life. And today, science says it was still the best choice.
Both scenarios are anti-science.