Your talking points are misleading however. The vaccine was adequately tested for safety prior to distribution. everything was accelerated to warp speed however.
And mRNA type vaccines/therapeutics have been studied for 30 years. It was fortuitous that most of the major stumbling blocks had been figured out prior to Covid.
I maintain that this technology represents a leap in our ability to fight diseases. This vaccine is only scratching the surface of what mRNA therapeutics are capable of.
And I absolutely will not begrudge anyone for being paranoid however, I am reminded of cultures that think that getting their photograph taken steals their soul. Why do they think that? Because they don't understand this new technology. They need to process it in a way that makes sense to them so they revert to their religious/philosophical understanding. That's what I think about when I see people calling this the mark of the beast for example not that you have mind you. Not that I know of anyways.
Your talking points are misleading however. The vaccine was adequately tested for safety prior to distribution. everything was accelerated to warp speed however....
....And I absolutely will not begrudge anyone for being paranoid however, I am reminded of cultures that think that getting their photograph taken steals their soul. ...
I’ve read, in multiple reports (many, here on FR), that is NOT the case. That these experimental agents have NOT, in fact, gone through COMPLETE/years worth of trials.
They are only approved under emergency/rushed/exceptional means approval.
Animal studies (the PRELIMINARY process) were inconclusive, on overall safety. In fact, many/most of the animals tested for this and the SARS/COVID 1 trials, died, immediately....to months later.
Oh, and saying that anyone who ‘begrudges’ these trials/experimental agents are being ‘paranoid’, is very leftist of you.
“Your talking points are misleading however. The vaccine was adequately tested for safety prior to distribution.”
The fact that it was rushed into production in only a few months disputes your assertion that it was “adequately tested”.
The fact that all the FDA did was to grant an Emergency Use Authorization further disputes your assertion of ‘adequately testing” it as its actually still experimental. Read the FDA, EUA Report in which they warn about strictly monitoring participants closely for adverse side effects also take note of their conclusion which makes clear that they have no idea of what the long term side effects will be.
If it was adequately tested the FDA would have approved it.
Seems like your talking point is a bit misleading as to what is adequate testing.
BTW, what were the result of the animal trials?