Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Moderna just applied for FDA approval. If it is fully approved by the FDA are you still worried about it?

The United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approved the Tuskegee Experiments. So what does an approval have to do with anything?

[packs]

Well earlier people had said the reason they are wary of the vaccine was because it was authorized but not approved. Has that changed now?

Also, I don't really understand the Tuskegee reference. All medications face FDA approval so if you discount their approval but also won't take medications that are not FDA approved, what are you left with?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Also, I don't really understand the Tuskegee reference.

Then let me explain it to you. If the government (CDC) would knowingly inject unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis, why wouldn't they do the same (with Syphilis or anything else) today? What has changed?

[packs]

Can you explain how that relates to my question? If that is your perspective on medicine then you could never go to the hospital or seek medical treatment of any kind.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Can you explain how that relates to my question? If that is your perspective on medicine then you could never go to the hospital or seek medical treatment of any kind.

I did explain it to you. But I can't understand it for you.

Others got it though.

[packs]

If I understand you correctly you're saying all medicine should be met with skepticism and not taken until you perform some kind of analysis to rule out some kind of interference. Is that correct? I guess I should clarify that when I say you I don't mean the royal you. I mean the individual being prescribed the medication.

If that's how you operate I'm just looking to understand your perspective. Not looking to change your mind. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying either.

[Tripredacus]

Originally Posted by packs

If I understand you correctly you're saying all medicine should be met with skepticism and not taken until you perform some kind of analysis to rule out some kind of interference.

It may be better if the pharmaceutical industry would take this type of approach instead of attempting to create one-size-fits-all type solutions. It would certainly cut down on the recalls and lawsuits that seem to happen constantly. How many commercials do you see on TV that list off tons of terrible side effect or how about commercials from law firms trying to get people to join a class action lawsuit against some sort of medication?

Covid effects everyone differently and so do the vaccines. With the example of HCQ, it is clear it does not work for everyone but it does work for some people. Just because it doesn't work for everyone doesn't mean that it should not be used for anyone. Those who it can work for should be allowed to get it if they want it and they should be allowed to talk about it in public.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

If I understand you correctly you're saying all medicine should be met with skepticism and not taken until you perform some kind of analysis to rule out some kind of interference. Is that correct? I guess I should clarify that when I say you I don't mean the royal you. I mean the individual being prescribed the medication.

If that's how you operate I'm just looking to understand your perspective. Not looking to change your mind. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying either.

That's not what I'm saying. You're just making stuff up and being your usual self. Where do you get "all medicine should be met with skepticism?" Where was that even alluded to? We're talking about a vaccine...a vaccine that is being pushed really hard by our government for a disease with a very high survival rate. That just doesn't make sense to me. Never in the history of this country has a vaccine been shoved down our throat like that. My point I'm trying to make (and obviously you can't grasp it) is that why would you take something the government is trying to push that hard?

Do you have the intelligence to answer my Tuskegee Experiments question or am I wasting my time?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) approved the Tuskegee Experiments. So what does an approval have to do with anything?

I thought from YOUR prior posts your objection was that the vaccines weren't approved yet. You kept banging that point home.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought from YOUR prior posts your objection was that the vaccines weren't approved yet. You kept banging that point home.

Can you point me to the post? I may have pointed out that the vaccines weren't FDA approved, but I thought I've made it clear that my reason for not getting the vaccine is there is not enough testing and the long term side effects aren't fully known.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Can you point me to the post? I may have pointed out that the vaccines weren't FDA approved, but I thought I've made it clear that my reason for not getting the vaccine is there is not enough testing and the long term side effects aren't fully known.

Then what was your point in bringing it up in the first place? I understood you, and I could have been wrong, to be drawing an equivalence between FDA approval and more assurance of safety.

But based on your recent post, if you were prescribed an FDA approved medication, would you then go look up how long it's been on the market and precisely what is known about long term effects before taking it?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then what was your point in bringing it up in the first place? I understood you, and I could have been wrong, to be drawing an equivalence between FDA approval and more assurance of safety.

But based on your recent post, if you were prescribed an FDA approved medication, would you then go look up how long it's been on the market and precisely what is known about long term effects before taking it?

I used to think you were a pretty smart guy. You've proven me wrong.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Let me just say this to sum up my position. Anybody that would trust a government to have concern over their health after that same government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis is a fucking moron.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Let me just say this to sum up my position. Anybody that would trust a government to have concern over their health after that same government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis is a fucking moron.

Nobody was injected with syphilis. The study began in 1932 and included 399 black men who already had syphilis. The purpose of the study was to determine the full progression of the disease. In 1932, there was no known cure for syphilis. By 1947 penicillin became the recommended treatment. The subjects of the study were never given penicillin so that they could be cured. That is the disgusting, unethical aspect of the study. Not that the government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with syphilis. Anyone who thinks the government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with syphilis and uses it as an excuse not to get a shot "is a fucking moron."

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Let me just say this to sum up my position. Anybody that would trust a government to have concern over their health after that same government knowingly injected unsuspecting citizens with Syphilis is a fucking moron.

None of the people responsible for an unethical experiment 90 years ago are evens till alive.

Next you'll be on about how that darn Roosevelt won't let us own gold, or how those newfangled hydraulic shock absorbers are evil, or talkies and color movies stifle our imagination.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I used to think you were a pretty smart guy. You've proven me wrong.

I've never thought that about you.

But seriously you posted this before, in 260.

vintagetoppsguy's Avatar
vintagetoppsguy vintagetoppsguy is online now
D@v!d J@m3s
Member


Join Date: Sep 2009

Location: Houston, TX

Posts: 5,537





Default




Quote:


Originally Posted by packs View Post

Can someone please answer my question about why you’re willing to risk all kinds of side effects for routine prescription medication but you’re not willing to risk them for the vaccine? I would love to know what makes the vaccine different from myriad other medications you’re willing to take that offer remote side effects you may encounter.

Ok, I'll bite. Because prescription medications require stringent testing and are REQUIRED
to meet FDA approval by FEDERAL LAW before going to market.

The vaccines are not.
__________________
Bullionaire

You seemed to be saying FDA approval counted for something. No?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Quote:


Originally Posted by packs View Post

Can someone please answer my question about why you’re willing to risk all kinds of side effects for routine prescription medication but you’re not willing to risk them for the vaccine? I would love to know what makes the vaccine different from myriad other medications you’re willing to take that offer remote side effects you may encounter.

Ok, I'll bite. Because prescription medications require stringent testing and are REQUIRED
to meet FDA approval by FEDERAL LAW before going to market.

You're cherry-picking, Peter. Packs asked a very specific question and I gave a specific answer. My position has not changed, but you seem to be trying to change it for me. So, let's review again, because we already had to do it once in post 278.

Post 190 - I can't speak for everyone that declines the vaccine, but I think most of us are not antivaxxers. We're just not convinced that enough research and testing has gone into the vaccine to inject ourselves with it. I'm grateful for the previous administration's decision to start working on a vaccine immediately without delay (in January of last year), but it's just way too soon. It hasn't even been approved by the FDA yet. If within a couple of years or so it's determined there are no long term side effects, I'll probably get it myself.

Post 229 - Because it's new. I've said (and others have said too) once it's been around for a while and it's been determined there are no long term side effects, I'll more than likely get it.

Post 269 - Here's where I'm losing you, Peter, and I'm not sure why because you're smarter than that. There hasn't been enough testing on the vaccine to know all the possible side effects. I think most people that decline the vaccine aren't antivaxxers, they're just concerned with the lack of testing and not knowing long term side effects. As I've already mentioned (multiple times now), I'll probably get the vaccine in 2-3 years if there are no known side effects. And, if there are side effects, I'll weigh my options and decide if the benefits outweigh the risks.

You're trying to make something out of nothing. My position has been clear from the very beginning. But I'm sure we'll be having this discussion again and, once again, I'll refer to the same posts.