Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

https://news.ubc.ca/2026/06/mrna-vaccines-are-safe-effective-and-full-of-promise/

by coloneltcb • 21 days ago

347 398 21 days ago

news.ubc.ca

petilon6• 21 days ago

The science doesn't matter to this administration unfortunately: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74dzdddvmjo

petterroea• 21 days ago

If we want to solve that we need to stop enabling career politicians whose only life experience is debating

TylerE2• 21 days ago

We would be a hell of a lot better off with career politicians than the current batch of grifters and ex-Fox News chuckleheads.

xboxnolifes6• 21 days ago

Right now, we'd be better off if we even had politicians who could manage an actual debate. Seems like we can't get anything other than mudslinging and strongarming right now.

dogwalker5000• 21 days ago

Wow, they literally put an antivaccer in charge of the health department.

wrs• 21 days ago

I'm honestly surprised they didn't put a flat-earther in charge of NASA.

timr9• 21 days ago

This administration literally fast-tracked the original covid vaccines for approval.

Say what you will about the Covid vaccine or Kennedy’s specific motivations (which I disagree with), but choosing to cut government funding for development of wildly profitable pharmaceutical products is a reasonable choice.

api3• 21 days ago

The biggest single success from Trump’s first term is the thing his base hates to the point that they booed him over it.

adjejmxbdjdn• 21 days ago

Nope. Not this administration at all.

Trump 1 was a very different administration.

And Trump himself has publicly backed off what was probably his one major achievement after receiving pushback from his supporters.

petilon6• 21 days ago

Not many people know that Trump had a hand in starting the pandemic.

Here's what we know: In 2014, Obama administration halted the so called "gain of function" research because of risk of laboratory accidents. In 2017, the Trump administration restarted this dangerous research. See links below.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/white-house-to-cut-fun...

Excerpt: [Obama administration] White House announced Friday that it would temporarily halt all new funding for experiments that seek to study certain infectious agents by making them more dangerous. The White House said the moratorium decision had been made “following recent biosafety incidents at federal research facilities.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih...

Excerpt: [Trump administration] on Tuesday ended a moratorium imposed three years ago on funding research that alters germs to make them more lethal. Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic.

So, Trump restarted the dangerous research that Obama had shut down. You may be thinking, what does that have to do with Covid? Covid started in Wuhan, China, right?

It turns out that the Trump administration, through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), provided funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, an American non-profit organization focused on studying emerging diseases. The EcoHealth Alliance, in turn, provided funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China for researching bat coronaviruses. The rest is history.

And then Trump also disbanded the pandemic preparedness team in 2018 just in time for the pandemic. See link below.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/nsc-pandemic-office-t...

lokar3• 21 days ago

My understanding is that vaccine research and production is almost never profitable and depends on government support. Either grants, guaranteed purchases, or both.

altmanaltman• 21 days ago

It's literally not the same administration. Also yeah he wants private companies to stop "wild" profits while he grifts the nation with crypto, hosting UFC on white house? You have to be stupid or willfully ignorant to think the current administration gives a single f about unchecked profits or the people's general wellbeing.

yieldcrv4• 21 days ago

This is a thread about the world, not American hubris about its relevance in it

Thanks for the new toll in Hormuz though

nxm• 21 days ago

What toll?

api3• 21 days ago

The potential for the technology in cancer treatment is what I find most exciting.

epistasis11• 21 days ago

Yes, I've been very excited about that for more than 10 years. It may not pan out, it's far more speculative than infectious disease prevention, but when combined with checkpoint inhibitors, and I fear they may not do the bold thing and do fully personalized therapeutic vaccines, but it does provide a great deal of hope.

doginasuit3• 21 days ago

I'm not sure this information will sway very many people. I have relatives who are all getting tested for t-cell counts related to mRNA because they are convinced they are the cause of any and all health problems they are facing. It seems like the medical professionals who are administering the tests are at least somewhat responsible for their misapplication.

epistasis11• 21 days ago

[flagged]

api3• 21 days ago

“I won’t put chemicals from big pharma in my body!”

Proceeds to raw dog a bunch of “research chemicals” cause some roided up bro talked about it on a podcast…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7gbFMWZWlo

They’re not vaccines though.

javea71• 21 days ago

I think you'll find there's a rational distrust in big pharma

quotemstr• 21 days ago

Nobody's used state power to mandate peptides and social media censorship to reports of adverse effects.

As many of us said at the time, the mandates weren't worth the destruction of public trust, especially because the vaccine wasn't even sterilizing.

The next time there's a crisis, resist the urge to use the government to achieve outcomes by brute force. It doesn't work and has generational adverse consequences.

tomesco• 21 days ago

Information won’t sway someone who’s views aren’t based on information.

binarycrusader• 21 days ago

What’s the saying?

You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themself into in the first place.

steve-atx-7600• 21 days ago

“Science-schmiance”

Schiendelman6• 21 days ago

It's not about swaying individuals. Let people believe their stupid stuff.

It's about swaying investors and regulators. And yeah, we need to make sure we excise our regulators of crazy people, but that's cyclic. And next cycle, we'll get vaccines for a lot more.

doginasuit3• 21 days ago

Point taken, but it isn't just a matter of individuals, it is a popular movement that has captured a significant part of role of regulators. The research is still valuable, but its lack of influence is not a problem that is safe to dismiss.

idiotsecant3• 21 days ago

It matters over time. The old kooks die off and are replaced with people who are relatively sane until they find new things to be old kooks about.

cmrdporcupine2• 21 days ago

Unfortunately a large number of the "kooks" are GenX and younger.

linzhangrun• 21 days ago

Two most populous countries, China and India, seem to have mainly relied on inactivated vaccines.

epistasis11• 21 days ago

Which makes sense as they had less access to new technologies, and scaling issues were very hard in the early days.

But I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the article...

ggm2• 21 days ago

Both economies have massive drug industries and China in particular has advanced manufacturing processes for decades. I suspect they made an economic/risk decision and will be reviewing it in the light of mRNA production lead time.

We're way beyond lysenko. China has no intellectual or political baggage in vaccine theory or bio engineering.

Markoff5• 21 days ago

it's actually more difficult to produce inactivated vaccine at mass scale than mRNA vaccine, which is the reason why they were producing mRNA vaccines and not the old school safe tested ones

squeedles• 21 days ago

Manufacturing matters, and six years ago, I said that one side effect from the pandemic is that mRNA technology, which had been lab-scale stuff, suddenly had dump-trucks full of money appearing to help them scale their manufacturing.

They apparently settled on the the sequences for the original covid vacs in a weekend. Going from that design to billions of doses is one of the hardest things to do, but once done, will persist. And it is ready to be deployed for the next hundred applications that we find for this.

Flu vaccines is an obvious application, since the prior egg-based manufacturing required about six months lead time and millions of eggs, but nobody wanted to invest in anything better.

helsinkiandrew• 21 days ago

but nobody wanted to invest in anything better.

Not sure if you mean nobody wanted to develop mRNA flu vaccines, but at least Moderna and Pfizer are:

https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5863570/flu-vaccine-mrn...

irjustin• 21 days ago

The parent is talking about pre-covid, no one wanted pay the upfront cost to bring mRNA out of the lab.

estearum28• 21 days ago

They apparently settled on the the sequences for the original covid vacs in a weekend. Going from that design to billions of doses is one of the hardest things to do, but once done, will persist.

No no. They had a candidate for the vaccine. Scaling manufacturing is hard, sure, but the actual barrier was proving the candidate worked. We conducted (by far) the most time-efficient clinical trials in history to prove the vaccines were safe and effective.

Until that happened, we could not have known the candidate drug was actually correct.

tencentshill• 21 days ago

Good thing we got [rest of world] to do the hard science work, and America can just benefit from it instead!

yieldcrv4• 21 days ago

The researchers emphasize that, like all vaccines, mRNA vaccines can have side effects. They found that serious adverse events—such as myocarditis, which occurs more frequently in younger males—are rare and consistently outweighed by the vaccines’ protection

reminder to the myocarditis-maxxies, the actual virus causes that too and the 2020-2021 variants caused it worse

if we were all going to drop dead (I think 2 years ago now, I’m waaaaiting!) for whatever the vaccine did, it would apply to a broader population due to covid exposure

antonvs2• 21 days ago

if we were all going to drop dead (I think 2 years ago now, I’m waaaaiting!)

Channeling Monty Python:

... I got better

ifyoubuildit• 21 days ago

reminder to the myocarditis-maxxies, the actual virus causes that too and the 2020-2021 variants caused it worse

Do you know if the vaccine prevented the virus-induced myocarditis? Cause the vaccine didn't do much to stop people from getting covid, multiple times even.

So many people frame this as either/or, you either had the risk of covid induced myocarditis or you had the (supposed) lesser risk of myocarditis from the vaccine. But if you got the vaccine (x times) and then covid (y times), isn't your risk roughly x + y?

yieldcrv4• 21 days ago

I want to empathize with you, plenty of medical professionals used really reductive and inaccurate language that should be rightfully criticized. stopping people from getting covid being one of those things

none of those were goals of the vaccine, so its a fruitless exercise to build on top of

they communicated poorly at all levels the one time society needed them to communicate effectively, and lost the public trust

The goal was to reduce the spread overall, lessen the symptoms for individuals, have your own body fight it faster instead of becoming a factory for it, de-risking cytokine storms

amluto• 21 days ago

The comparison of cardiovascular safety with vs without the vaccine is not even close:

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/covid-19-vaccinati...

(Personally, I wish researchers would not forgot quite so often that there is a non-mRNA COVID vaccine available in the US. Where's all the analysis of the effects of the Novavax vaccine?)

OrvalWintermute• 21 days ago

“Rare”? :)

We don’t know the actual numbers as pericarditis and myocarditis can occur asymptomatically, and people truly need to be under very active medical surveillance to detect it

zmgsabst3• 21 days ago

I believe Thailand did actively monitor some kids and found about 1 in 35 childhood COVID vaccinations.

blub3• 21 days ago

Myocarditis-maxxies will likely never take off as an insult, but vaxmaxxer just might :) Shortness, pronunciation and simplicity all play a role.

Anyway, that statement is actually useless. The moment it became clear that some vaccine increases the risk of myocarditis, several European countries swapped them out for the less risky variants, like any sane person would.

The only people still fighting these windmills are the online kind.

swingboy• 21 days ago

Serious question in good faith: what was the deal with the “calamari” (clots?) the anti-vax crowd kept talking about being found in the veins/arteries of folks who took the Covid vaccine?

wetpaws• 21 days ago

Nothingburger like pretty much everything that antivaxers talk about

dehrmann• 21 days ago

Dismissing people like this is part of what fuels the antivax movement. Vaccines are generally effective, but they're not perfect and have side effects, and failing to acknowledge that when someone is asking in in good faith polarizes people and makes it look like someone's trying to hide something.

cedws3• 21 days ago

IIRC the vaccines were provably linked to the death of young people who had blood clots they shouldn't have had.

The common argument made is that the vaccine saved more lives than they took, but this is pretty fucked up IMO. It's the trolley problem IRL - if you force someone to get a vaccine and they die as a result, you are responsible for their death. Also, the manufacturers can never be held responsible, because they have legal immunity for the COVID vaccines.

Waterluvian• 21 days ago

Society is the trolley problem. The balancing act between individual and collective rights is the lever being thrown every time we pass a law or make a regulation.

I can absolutely empathize though. It really is fucked up to experience it in the extreme. Usually the trade-offs are much more minor or have a big time delay or are more abstract.

throwaway5752• 21 days ago

This was very uncommon. It was also unrelated to mRNA vaccines, it was the AstroZeneca vaccine vaxzevria, and it was based on an adenovirus.

wbl• 21 days ago

Not "the vaccines" only adenovirus vector based ones and the vaccines were dropped from use pretty quickly once the safety signal was detected.

voxl• 21 days ago

Comparing it to the trolley problem is incorrect. COVID had real potential to kill you, even as a young person. At that point its a matter of risk assessment for yourself. Take a 2% chance of dying, a slightly higher chance of reduced quality of life (long COVID), or take a lottery-winning chance of dying to this blood clot. It is appropriate to do the math correctly to decide if this makes sense, but to claim that scientists and advocates did not do this personal risk assessment math and merely went off the benefits of herd immunity is a lie and anti-vaccine propaganda.

cedws3• 21 days ago

For the record, this comment is not arguing against vaccines or their veracity, there seems to have been confusion about that. I am specifically arguing against vaccine mandates.

thisisit2• 21 days ago

Also, the manufacturers can never be held responsible, because they have legal immunity for the COVID vaccines.

There is remedy against vaccine harm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compen...

This was passed in response to claims against DPT vaccine and manufacturers stopping production of the said vaccine. Lawmakers feared loss of herd immunity and passed the law. Now vaccine skeptics say this is not enough and claim inability to sue the company directly as an issue - but what they really want is enforce their minority view on the majority by suing companies and ensuring no one has access to vaccines - tyranny of the minority.

tbrownaw• 21 days ago

Also, the manufacturers can never be held responsible, because they have legal immunity for the COVID vaccines.

Since there was basically a soft mandate for it, especially on top of some of the usual official red tape being cut, the manufacturers really wouldn't be the appropriate party to hold responsibility. That'd be the government.

KiwiJohnno• 21 days ago

Yes, I think you are correct in reducing the argument to its basic factors. Yep, its fucked up.

However if we’re going to talk about moral responsibility for vaccine mandates, we also have to consider moral responsibility for non-vaccination leading to spread of a dangerous virus during a pandemic.

If you are going to hold one group responsible for vaccine-related deaths of mandated vaccines, you must also hold the group who refused the vaccine responsible for any deaths of other people who were infected as a result of their vaccine refusal.

Vaccine deaths were real, and very rare. COVID deaths from preventable spread were also real, and much more common. Public policy had to weigh both, not pretend either side of the risk didn’t exist.

cogman104• 20 days ago

but this is pretty fucked up IMO

Pretty much every medication can have bad interactions. There is always a "risk/reward" analysis.

But also, the vaccines linked to those kids deaths weren't the mRNA vaccines, it was the J&J vaccine which got pulled as a result.

Torn• 21 days ago

Now an international team, led by Flinders University, have found that in a small number of people, the immune system can accidentally confuse a normal adenovirus protein with a human blood protein termed platelet factor 4 (or PF4).

Seems to have been a legitimate, very rare, side effect

https://www.flinders.edu.au/research/articles/covid-vaccine-...

tjohns• 21 days ago

It's worth clarifying that the adenovirus-based (viral vector) vaccines that article is discussing were a completely different technology from the mRNA vaccines.

M95D• 21 days ago

COVID itself causes blood clots. In fact, pulmonary embolism with blood clots is frequent in COVID patients.

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/should-you-be-worried-abo...

https://www.ejinme.com/article/S0953-6205(20)30349-6/fulltex...

https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/140/Supplement%201...

rstuart4133• 17 days ago

the anti-vax crowd kept talking about being found in the veins/arteries of folks who took the Covid vaccine?

"The deal" is the clot issue was a problem for Astrazeneca. Astrazeneca is not an mRNA vaccine. It came out first, and was offered to a lot of people - until the clots started showing up.

Australia's response (where I live) was to withdraw the Astrazeneca vaccine and go into lockdown instead. They exited lockdown once a safe replacement vaccine was manufactured and could be mass administered, which happened many months later. The safe replacements were predominantly mRNA vaccines.

From memory the final statistics were Astrazeneca, which was only available for a month or two killed 1 in every 1 million doses, the mRNA replacements which now have been used for years have caused about 1 death for every 55 million doses. You wouldn't want to be the unlucky 1 in 55 million, but you would not want to miss out on taking the mRNA vaccines either - they saved 1000's of lives.

In the high risk groups, Astrazeneca turned out to be worth its risks in over-60s in Australia, but killed more people than it saved in the lower risk groups. But Australia was among the best countries to manage the COVID pandemic. In countries like Mexico where the death rates from COVID were far higher, taking Astrazeneca increased your chances of surviving the pandemic, despite the higher complication rate.

The meme that mRNA causes clots seems to be remarkably common, despite being wrong. It is why to this day many people are vaccine hesitant. It's unfortunate. I think the underlying cause of the large number of people with clots was the mass roll out of Astrazeneca as soon as it passed testing. Normally the take up of a new medicine is gradual. The high prices of the early batches mean they are only given to people who stand to benefit most. The less common side effects are caught in that phase. The phase didn't happen for Astrazeneca.

diego_moita• 21 days ago

In the end, do facts even matter in politically charged discussions?

This sounds a bit like providing evidence for global warming, gun control or evolution. The "skeptics" just want to remain ignorant. No amount of evidence will change them.

The silver lining about vaccine skeptics, though, is the Herman Cain award[1]. What this means is that conservatives die more than liberals from preventable diseases [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_Award

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-026-02474-9

declan_roberts• 21 days ago

Really glad they confirmed this, about 5 years after I was forced to take one at threat of job loss despite 1) already having had natural Covid and 2) working a fully remote job.

But better late than never I suppose.

epistasis11• 21 days ago

They confirmed this when the vaccines were authorized. And as part of every drug, there's continual, ongoing, review of the data to ensure that safety is maintained, and that nothing has changed about the drug and its manufacturing. This is the "phase 4" of a drug, continual ongoing monitoring.

SV_BubbleTime3• 21 days ago

They confirmed this when the vaccines were authorized

No. They didn’t. They said it.

You were the Phase3 trial. You can probably debate the ethicality, the decisions made, but do not pretend they had 5 year data before deploying to the entire world.

Facts matter.

d--b4• 21 days ago

You mean the stuff the whole world got injected with in 2020? Good to know!

Seriously though, I am very pro-vax, but the fact that studies like these come out now is just confirmation that people had the right to doubt the safety of mRNA back then. Many people shamed others for being anti vax but everyone has the right to be careful.

add-sub-mul-div• 21 days ago

People have rights but they also have the responsibility to be scientifically literate enough to know that analyzing data about the vaccine was prudent regardless of anything and does not suggest their prostration to antivax demagogues was smart.

vfclists3• 21 days ago

Bruh??

manwe1502• 21 days ago

Why would repeating a study now and getting the same result as when it was first measured in 2020 be a reason to doubt the safety?

I’m also pro-vax, so I don’t think it is correct to equate ignoring the preponderance of current evidence (in 2021 or 2026) for vaccine protection as being careful. That just seems the logical fallacy sold by “vax hesitant” and social media influencers to make people feel smart to ignore statistics and “make their own choice based on intuition”

vfclists3• 21 days ago

What does being "pro-vax" mean?

That you believe in any claims of vaccine efficacy made by the manufacturers or the FDA and are more then willing to have them injected into your body?

d--b4• 21 days ago

By late 2020, when they got approved, the vaccines were not scientifically proven safe for mainstream use. No other mRNA vaccine had been through all the trial stages, and certainly not those COVID ones.

Could the vaccines have side effects that became visible after 6 months? Yes and we couldn’t have known that they didn’t.

Could the vaccines have side effects on people with rare conditions? Sure, and we couldn’t have known that either.

My point is that in 2020, the decision to approve the vaccines and pretty much force everyone to get it was a risk tradeoff. It was way more risky to let the disease continue spreading and mutate than it was to release the vaccines. mrna vaccines had been in trials and there was no reason to believe they could have been harmful. But the reality is that we just didn’t know. Biology is complex enough that you can’t just assume everything will be fine without proper testing. And what we deem proper testing is a process that these drugs hadn’t gone through.

I happily got vaxed in early 2021, and did it again 4 times , so I was willing to trust the tradeoff.

But ignoring that it was a tradeoff and hiding behind a sign that says “science” is just taking people for dummies.

katbyte2• 21 days ago

mRNA vaccines and testing of them have been around far longer then 2020

d--b4• 21 days ago

yes but no other mRNA vaccines had completed the various trial phases and got approved.

And we shouldn’t assume that all mRna vaccines are the same. The rna sequence that’s used potentially can matter as well.

ggm2• 21 days ago

Shorter lead times in the face of viral mutations will be helpful.

Tailored vaccines for things like cancer are a game changer.

I live in hope of a semi-universal flu+related vaccine.

I live in fear of the measles induced "immune amnesia" effect.

willmadden3• 21 days ago

The link in the article does not show the study, just a list of references, a summary and the researchers who published it. How many of the researchers who published this study have conflicts of interest? Where is the full study for review?

optionalsquid2• 21 days ago

The first link in the article goes straight to the study:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

willmadden3• 20 days ago

I saw that and described the page you linked. The actual study is gate kept behind a paywall or "institutional access".

"Get full text access - Log in, subscribe or purchase for full access."

tlogan2• 21 days ago

If these mRNA vaccines had not been pushed or mandated, more people would probably think they are safe: there will be no need for any of these reviews.

But because they were pushed by the government, many people do not trust them. Sure, they were pushed and mandated for good reasons, but the problem is that a lot of people have already lost trust in the government.

That trust was not lost because of one big decision. It was lost through many small, unrelated government decisions that may not seem noticeable or measurable on their own, but over time, they build up.

I do not know how this trust can be rebuilt but definitely not by publishing more reviews.

katbyte2• 21 days ago

I’m pretty sure it was lost via billions spent on a sustained propaganda campaign no country was willing to stand up to.

raincole• 21 days ago

But because they were pushed by the government, many people do not trust them. Sure, they were pushed and mandated for good reasons, but the problem is that a lot of people have already lost trust in the government.

In the case of COVID, the effectiveness of vaccines was quite exaggerated at first[0]. That absolutely didn't help government rebuild the trust.

I do not know how this trust can be rebuilt but definitely not by publishing more reviews.

At this point, quite sure more reviews will only trigger people's confirmation bias and make those who already don't trust vaccines trust them even less.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-governm...

Krssst• 21 days ago

Vaccines were very effective against the first variant, and got less effective with later ones. People forget about the timeline. Article mentions the delta variant at which time vaccines were still very effective IIRC. There were some breakthrough cases as the article mentions but that's to be expected with anything short of 100% efficacy.

bsder2• 21 days ago

The Covid vaccines were and continue to be VERY effective at preventing you from winding up on ECMO.

Yes, you may still get Covid, but you don't die from drowning in your own body fluids anymore.

Of course, this only attends if you got the damn vaccine. All of the Covid deaths around me in the last couple years (7 deaths) were anti-vaxxers. But, hey, we know that reality has a well-known liberal bias.

whimsicalism2• 21 days ago

In the case of COVID, the effectiveness of vaccines was quite exaggerated at first[0]. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-governm...

One's model of "statement made by the POTUS" should be more like 'statement made by mildly likeable (to some segment of the population) boomer dad who probably doesn't know what he is talking about.' It'd be a different thing if a public health official said something like this (and I don't know if they did, but I certainly wasn't left with the impression that it was impossible for me to get vaccinated and still get covid).

Larrikin• 21 days ago

Hopefully at some point the do their own research people will kill themselves off, hopefully before they kill their own kids and family members.

bananakilp• 21 days ago

What a depressing response.

If the “do their own research” people don’t manage to kill their kids and family through complete and utter idiocy, those kids and family will 99.99999% of the time continue their idiocy.

We should hope they manage to end their idiocy lineage.

krmboya3• 21 days ago

One word, transparency. Being open about the research and outcomes. This is a situation good science communicators can help with.

Engage the skeptics in open debate and address their concerns, not censorship and embarking on cancellation campaigns.

However uncomfortable it seems, the median person in society isn't going to do a thorough literature review to make up their mind, they'll do it based on personal instincts.

tlogan2• 20 days ago

I think that can work if you narrow the issue only to medical advice.

But trust is also eroded by completely unrelated things, like “Iraq has WMDs” and other stories pushed by our governments. Or even the recent argument that we need ID to access the internet in order to “protect children.” Sure.

The key point is that for things like vaccines, people need to trust the goverment and the process. Most people are not going to read medical papers. They should rely on government health agencies to tell them what to do.

So when trust is damaged (even by unrelated government decisions), it affects how people respond to medical guidance too.

jancsika2• 21 days ago

I do not know how this trust can be rebuilt but definitely not by publishing more reviews.

Dear Previous Paragraph,

Couldn't many small published reviews which don't show a noticeable or measurable positive effect on their own build up over time to rebuild trust?

Sincerely, Your Reader

bsder2• 21 days ago

If these mRNA vaccines had not been pushed or mandated, more people would probably think they are safe: there will be no need for any of these reviews.

Hogwash. Wakefield predated anything Covid. And measles vaccines aren't mRNA and people would rather let their children die.

Had Trump and Co called the vaccine part of the second coming, people would be lining up at their churches to get them.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

qsera26• 21 days ago

people would rather let their children die.

I see that your are yourself in a position you didn't reason you into.

what• 21 days ago

Trump did tell people to get them? It was his opposition saying they wouldn’t trust a vaccine pushed out by Trump. You’ve basically rewritten history.

s1artibartfast11• 21 days ago

I dont think people's motivations are to kill their children, but the opposite. I think this is the starting point for developing cognitive empathy and an accurate model.

Again, trust is a huge factor here.

foltik• 21 days ago

I think it’s the opposite. The _distrust itself_ was pushed by those looking to stir up outrage, generate engagement, and turn it into votes.

Case in point: look at all the people who’ve now built their entire political identities atop this unfalsifiable distrust. They’d even distrust “stand further apart” if the wrong person said it.

I do not know how this trust can be rebuilt but definitely not by publishing more reviews.

This is the crux. Outrage spreads way faster than the boring truth.

huijzer• 21 days ago

unfalsifiable distrust

Well, I think it’s pretty clear for starters that politicians lie (and yes this holds for both left and right; although indeed some presidents more than others), and that this isn’t helping trust.

atomicUpdate2• 21 days ago

They’d even distrust “stand further apart” if the wrong person said it.

They shouldn’t believe it no matter who says it. The entire concept of “social distancing” was completely made up and had no science behind it. It belongs in the same bucket of nonsense as “mask up between bites.”

BoingBoomTschak3• 21 days ago

Riiight, distrust was "pushed" and is irrational. I guess having a working memory doesn't count? The Tuskegee syphilis study, or the contaminated blood scandals in Europe and Japan, etc... couldn't have anything to do with distrust towards the government's relation with public health, that's for kooks who aren't on the right side of history!

guywhocodes• 21 days ago

No I don't think they are safe because I still suffer from the damage it did to my heart

tomkarho• 21 days ago

Take the vax or lose your job. Two weeks to flatten the curve. You are killing grandma. "Lab leak" was a dirty word. The science has settled. A bloody live death count on the news.

It seemed that every conceivable way to pressure, force, guilt trip and coerce people into taking the CV was utilized during covid. Enough that no doubt many people are highly suspicious of any authority henceforth and no amount of research will sway them from that. The trust simply isn't there. Yet.

Time is the only cure.

koonsolo6• 21 days ago

And it all got a nice little push from Russian disinfo, who took the opportunity to discredit governments even more.

Why do you think all the anti-vaxxers all of a sudden got pro-Russian and anti-Ukraine? Coincidence?

jasonvorhe7• 21 days ago

Iraq had WMDs, Hamas beheaded babies and the Western public is completely immune of government-led psyops. Of course there's neither Nazis/Banderites/ultranationalists nor biolabs nor the most corrupt government on the european continent in Ukraine.

vfclists3• 21 days ago

We synthesise evidence on vaccine components, manufacturing quality controls, and regulatory standards that underpin safety, alongside data from randomised trials, post-authorisation surveillance, and active pharmacovigilance systems.

"synthesize???"

With almost 200 references and the use of "synthesize???" it sound like AI generated slop.

The article is behind a paywall in any case so why so many positive comments about it?

mchusma• 21 days ago

I really feel that many of the issues with mRNA vaccines and health studies in general are generalizations like “safe and effective”. Everything has statistical risks and benefits, and we should just share those front and center with people. Eg test results for X mean you have a Y% chance of having X, given your history and symptoms and other results. Here are low cost low risk marginal things you can do to improve statistical significance.

Similar for vaccines, just give us the numbers clearly and upfront.

This bypasses regulators from having to make claims beyond “we reviewed the data and agree with these numbers and feel that this should not be banned.” I do think it would also help to separate something “not banned” and being “required to be covered by insurance” or “required for professions like the military”. I think trying to simplify things makes things worse, because this abstraction is not real.

peyton• 21 days ago

Yep, those regulated marketing terms could use an update.

Regulators don’t make cures. There’s room to improve on that side of the system.

Especially as emerging approaches seem to be trending more systems-thinking-oriented, eg “this will strengthen your immune system to fight lots of diseases.”

estearum28• 21 days ago

Similar for vaccines, just give us the numbers clearly and upfront.

You are aware that literally anyone can go and literally find exactly these numbers, correct?

The trial results are published!

s1artibartfast11• 21 days ago

Sounds like a oppurtunity for health educatation. 99%+ of people dont know they can look in the USPI for this data. However, it isnt the best and most up to date, which the regulator and FDA would have and are unlikely to share.

blub3• 21 days ago

It’s trivial to publish these so that they’re both easily available and easy to understand. I’m guessing that’s not the case for the CDC, since you didn’t post any link or guideline.

A nice example was the EUCDC guidance on AstraZeneca’s vaccine which showed that for young age groups the vaccine was more dangerous than the disease. That allows anyone to make an informed decision for themselves instead of being bullied or emotionally blackmailed “for the greater good”.

Par for the course, I can’t access the actual study from The Lancet and have to settle for second-rate journalist summaries which are typically biased and ultimately worthless.

xboxnolifes6• 21 days ago

Yes, but the point of science/health communication sources is to communicate. People aren't going to spend an afternoon figuring out where to find medical trial results, learn how to read them with a bunch of unknown terms, and form a risk tolerance analysis. I know this. You know this. Everyone know this.

The health and science communicators must improve how they communicate with the public.

z3ratul163071• 21 days ago

how exactly were the vaccines effective, if every single person i know who got them got covid?

nesarkvechnep• 21 days ago

Did they die?

Markoff5• 21 days ago

would they die if they didn't take the vaxx? plenty people who got vaxx died anyway, plenty people who got COVID died as well, some of them from COVID, most of them were just infected while dying and COVID had really nothing to do with their death, but it was needed to pump those numbers about scary dangerous COVID so govs can go on powertrips while taking pocket money from pharma lobby

fivetenpen• 21 days ago

They were never meant to prevent people from getting COVID. They were meant to prevent people from dying due to COVID. The fact they were able to tell you they had COVID means it was a resounding success (not dead).

bad_username• 21 days ago

They were never meant to prevent people from getting COVID.

"COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19" - https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/97780/

You see, this kind of lying and gaslighting is exactly what feeds the distrust in the government and scientific establishment in general public. No number of studies is going to reverse that any time soon.

Markoff5• 21 days ago

there are literally people in this discussion talking about these vaccines preventing COVID spread, parroting this complete nonsense politicians and "experts" made when they pushed these "vaccines"

dopa42365• 21 days ago

A million Americans chose death from very effective (preventable) disease instead. That's how.

root_axis• 21 days ago

Is the rabies vaccine not effective in your view?

antoniojtorres2• 21 days ago

Astounding that this question is being asked (presumably) in earnest after the whole ordeal we went through. Wow.

boruto• 21 days ago

I took two doses of mRNA vaccine, I still got covid, the fever, the pains it was horrible, I was in a foreign country alone where I didn't speak the language. I say this because that was the scariest moment of my life, I am thankful to the people who invented them.

I honestly believe it would have been worse had I not taken the vaccine.

phendrenad2• 20 days ago

It saved a lot of people and gave COVID time to mutate into a relatively benign form.

anonymousiam2• 21 days ago

There are credible doctors and scientists who have a different view: https://maloneinstitute.org/reference-project

mikeyouse2• 21 days ago

I’m confused because you said credible doctors and then linked to one of the biggest cranks on the internet.

anonymousiam2• 21 days ago

You may think Malone is a crank, and I will not disagree with you.

The page I linked is a repository that Malone set up for peer-reviewed papers describing MRNA side effects.

Those papers are not authored by Malone, and there are presently over 700 of them on the site.

I believe he did this because authors of those and similar papers have faced political backlash for their scientific contributions. For some reason, many world governments have censored, and advocated censorship of content such as this, and similar content that questions things such as the CoViD-19 point of origin, which for years has been riddled with misinformation.

So you can go ahead an claim that more than 700 peer reviewed papers were all authored by cranks, but my purpose was to point out that the parent article's claims of absolute "safety, effectiveness, and promise" are not unanimously accepted.

croon10• 20 days ago

Have you actually checked any of the referenced studies in that database? They do not say what Malone claims they say.

I just picked one randomly [0]:

Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found low incidence rate and largely favorable early outcomes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine–associated myopericarditis in adolescents and young adults from a wide range of populations.

I also did a brief dive elsewhere in thread [1]:

The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated.
The incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection was 200/100,000 people (CI95%: 114 to 306 per 100,000).

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

uslic001• 20 days ago

I am a doctor. Pfizer Covid vaccine gave me a left leg DVT plus a peripheral neuropathy. I will never take another mRNA vaccine again.

Server6• 20 days ago

There are peer-reviewed case reports for both DVT and neuropathy related to Pfizer's mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but they are consistently described as 'rare' or 'extremely rare' across sources/studies. As a doctor (if you actually are one), you should know better than to perpetuate anecdotal evidence.

spopejoy• 20 days ago

You being a doctor matters how? Plenty of idiot antivax doctors out there.

srid• 19 days ago

Probably so they thought it would circumvent insults and other wily rhetoric from those emotionally sensitive on this subject ... and yet, going by your own use of "idiot" on a website enabling otherwise intelligent discussions, it would seem that was futile consideration on OP's part.

krmboya3• 18 days ago

Yes, they being a doctor matters because it is a filter for someone who engages with scientific material and their opinion is more valued than some rando crackpot.

That said, what are your credentials? Perhaps I'm enganging some rando crackpot myself.

tsoukase3• 20 days ago

I am also a doctor (neurologist). I don't doubt the diagnosis and the cause, as I have seen such cases in 2021/2. I only say being a doctor and having such a side effect are independent so you must be one of a few cases in the world.

ChoGGi• 20 days ago

I've heard the mRNA vaccines turn frogs gay. I'll stick with bloodletting thanks.

tsoukase3• 20 days ago

mRNA seems to me as the perfect method to insert controlled, short lived proteins to the bloodstream. Simple, clean, deterministic and seemingly safe and it turned out to be such. In vaccine development, if the technique has similar maturity and application as the traditional egg-based one, I am sure it will rival it in safety, speed, cost, width of diseases.

Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

Related Stories