I'm with you on this one. I feel like many people these days are overly manifesting 'trust' in newly developed medicines or vaccines just not to be called anti-vaxers ('I saw this facebook post...' researchers kind) or worse ('vaccines contain microchips so that lizard people can control our minds' kind). When in fact there is no data at the moment to support their safeness.
Also claims and data from clinical trials produced by company which develops medicine itself is not really convincing until it gets verified with independent trials. Not like there were no frauds in clinical trials:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340084/#S2titl...
> When in fact there is no data at the moment to support their safeness.
That’s patently untrue. We have data, from the phase III trials. Is the data final? No. But it’s good evidence for general safety. As for long-term problems, we have good theoretical reasons (based, in turn, on experimental data) to suspect that no such risks exist. In fact, we know quite a lot about how foreign RNA behaves in cells and while there are potential mechanisms to cause issues (most importantly strong immune reactions), there are no known plausible mechanisms to cause long-term problems.
We can’t fully exclude the possibility of long-term averse effects, but we do have data supporting the vaccines’ safety (both direct and indirect, experimental data), and most experts are confident that there won’t be any such effects — confident enough to put their own health on the line: many are enrolled in the ongoing trials.
I'm sorry I guess I wasn't precise. I meant in general I feel like a lot of people would take any untested drug just to not be named anti-vaxer.
But to your point, as I wrote trial data from company that produces said vaccine (given that it's for sure high pressure case and stakes are pretty high) that hasn't been verified by external entities is not convincing to me. And shouldn't be to anyone, isn't peer review and repeatability a part of scientific method?
