1/The logical implications of common arguments against #COVID19 #vaccines are worth considering. I focus on some of them here.
2/Argument #1: The approval process is corrupt!
What part of the process, specifically, is corrupt and how is that different from the pathway that other COVID therapeutics followed? For example, was the process that authorized monoclonal antibodies like bebtelovimab corrupt?
What part of the process, specifically, is corrupt and how is that different from the pathway that other COVID therapeutics followed? For example, was the process that authorized monoclonal antibodies like bebtelovimab corrupt?
3/What about the process oral medicines like Paxlovid followed? What that corrupt, too? Remdesivir?
Would you be willing to take those other products if you got a serious case of #COVID? If so, why not vaccines?
What was uniquely corrupt about the vaccine pathway?
Would you be willing to take those other products if you got a serious case of #COVID? If so, why not vaccines?
What was uniquely corrupt about the vaccine pathway?
4/Perhaps you are lodging a broader argument against drug development/approval generally? Fair enough.
But that raises a broader question: which non-COVID, FDA-approved medicines are you willing to take right now? Are there *any* that meet your non-corruption threshold?
But that raises a broader question: which non-COVID, FDA-approved medicines are you willing to take right now? Are there *any* that meet your non-corruption threshold?
5/Argument #2: these vaccines are a money grab for big pharma! Understood, and we can debate the appropriate economic return that pharmaceutical companies should enjoy for their manufacturing of COVID vaccines.
6/The question now is this: given the status quo, are you willing to forego the vaccines given their impressive safety/efficacy?
What about other blockbuster meds? Would you be willing to forego taking, say, Humira, if you had IBD even though is is a money maker?
What about other blockbuster meds? Would you be willing to forego taking, say, Humira, if you had IBD even though is is a money maker?
7/Argument #3: Look at all the side effects! Yes, all medications have potential side effects.
Given that, what is your theory of medical harms/benefits? Is your standard that you will only take medicines that have *zero* side effects?
Given that, what is your theory of medical harms/benefits? Is your standard that you will only take medicines that have *zero* side effects?
8/Probably not, since even individuals in placebo arms have side effects. So it must be that you think that the harms of #COVID19 #vaccines outweigh the benefits.
What is your basis for that belief? Have you subjected it to scrutiny in light of the billions of doses given?
What is your basis for that belief? Have you subjected it to scrutiny in light of the billions of doses given?
9/Argument #4: The vaccines don't prevent every case! True--nothing in modern medicine is 100%.
If you require 100% effectiveness before taking a drug, what medicines/devices/surgeries would you use right now?
If you require 100% effectiveness before taking a drug, what medicines/devices/surgeries would you use right now?
10/If your mother needed cancer treatment and the oncologist described the chemotherapy regimen as having "80% efficacy" would you urge her to walk out the door and hold out for 100% efficacy?
11/What vaccines do spectacularly well is reduce the *likelihood* that you'll suffer a severe case of COVID.
Nothing in public health *eliminates* the risk of something; the goal is to *reduce* the risk. In that regard, probabilities matter.
Nothing in public health *eliminates* the risk of something; the goal is to *reduce* the risk. In that regard, probabilities matter.
13/Argument #5: The doctors pushing vaccines don't know what they are talking about! But these are the same doctors -- all of whom have vaccinated their own kids -- who you probably took your own kids too when they were sick.
14/Are you making a general claim that those doctors are, in fact, charlatans and that you were wrong to visit them in the first place? Probably not. So it must be that you're making a specific claim that, with respect to COVID19 vaccines, docs don't know what's up.
15/Will you forego all modern medicine?
And why is it that in this one area of expertise, they have fallen down on the job? Why, for example, do you trust doctors' knowledge on, say, heart attacks, but not when it comes to vaccines?
And why is it that in this one area of expertise, they have fallen down on the job? Why, for example, do you trust doctors' knowledge on, say, heart attacks, but not when it comes to vaccines?
16/Argument #6: These vaccines were developed using cell lines derived from aborted fetuses! That is correct. And quite common in biomedical research. Indeed, a number of other very common drugs were tested in a similar fashion...
17/...including albuterol, Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, Lipitor, Claritin, and Prilosec, to name a few.
Should someone making this argument also forego those other drugs?
Should someone making this argument also forego those other drugs?
18/Should it matter that @pontifex has stated, "it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process." vatican.va/roman_curia/co…
19/These are deliberately provocative questions, and thought processes are not always consistent.
I raise these to offer food for thought for those who might be on the fence when it comes to vaccines.
I raise these to offer food for thought for those who might be on the fence when it comes to vaccines.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
