I was surprised that the post about the covid vaccine was abruptly terminated as if the subject was closed and the answer is settled. That is not true in my opinion. This is a brand new technology that was only tested for about a year. No definitive study has been done about the long term impact (if any) on the overall immune system. Many drugs are determined to have previously unknown side affects years after they hit the market and these other drugs were typically tested for 5 or more years vs the one year the covid vaccine was tested. It may be just fine but some experts believe it may negatively impact the immune system. Here’s one interesting article below on the subject. I chose not to get vaccinated because of the unknowns. Im not advising anyone else, only expressing that the subject is not closed at this time and i’m hopeful we will be free to exchange thoughts on the subject.
I urge the powers to be to allow us to freely and respectfully exchange ideas on this site. Even ones with which you may disagree.
go for it. Indeed, there are many medications and therapies that have less than, let’s say, a ten year post fda approval history. Perhaps they all cause cancer in year ten . But probably not and avoiding vaccines and medications is more likely to cause harm. Ultimately everyone here should discuss thier concerns with their doctors. Comments that are non prostate cancer related or suggesting deep state conspiracy etc will be deleted.
Thanks for allowing the discussion Darryl. I respect your opinion. However, there are a few major differences in this particular vaccine from all others.
1. This is a new technology never before tested on such a scale. Clearly any new technology has more risk associated with it than long term tested technologies
2. This vaccine was approved in record time which may or may not have prevented the finding of a deleterious impact not shown in the one year testing. Clearly the FDA prefers much longer testing periods because they require that on every other drug.
3. This particular drug was the only one I’m aware of where drug companies are fully protected from any litigation for negative side affects. I’m not saying that was a good or bad decision but it obviously was a requirement of the drug companies to offer this drug with limited testing so they had to have felt there was some extra risk involved, right? This in and of itself proves nothing, however, its hard to argue that such protection combined with billions in profits, is not the ideal incentive circumstance to protect the public.
Again, I am not recommending to take or not take the covid vaccine I’m only pointing out irrefutable facts that may or may not impact the safety. My points along with Darryl’s and others, plus the previously posted article, will hopefully allow others to make more informed decisions on their own care
I.Vaccination is not a new technology. Vaccines of many kinds have been around for over a century. Every vaccine is new for the disease it prevents. Polio was wiped out by vaccines, except where Muslim anti-vaxxers think it is part of a Western plot.
2. there was an emergency approval, but it was followed by a full FDA approval when more data was reviewed in detail.
3. " it obviously was a requirement of the drug companies to offer this drug with limited testing" Pure nonsense. It was tested as well as any therapy.
You obviously think you know more about virology and epidemiology than the researchers who were involved in the testing and approval of these vaccines. This is as dangerous to your health as it is to others.
As much as I respect you TA, you are not correct when you state that the Covid vaccine is “not new technology” because its a vaccine and vaccines have been around for a century. That’s analogous to saying “the atomic bomb is not new technology because bombs of many kinds have been around for over a century” or “electric cars are not new technology because cars have been around for over a century”. Below are thoughts on the very subject from both Yale, and John Hopkins, two sources I’m sure you trust.
“mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines has been in development for over 15 years.” 15 years is obviously a relatively short time in the medical world.
As to your statement that this drug “was tested as well as any therapy”, that seems unlikely given that most drugs take 10-15 years to get approval according to virtually every source. Surely you don’t believe one year of clinical trials is as good as 10 or more years? Obviously phizer and Moderna did not think so because they wouldn’t bring it to market without immunity from litigation.
We know that the government misinformed us when they told us the vaccine would protect against getting Covid and from transmitting it I’m not claiming that was intentional, or a conspiracy. I’m only saying that theres a lot they don’t know
Again, i do not think I know more than others. I just know that there are logical reasons that the MNRA vaccines pose more risk than other vaccines.
Certainly, it's the first mRNA vaccine. But it's kind of silly that you think vaccines aren't a class of similar therapies. There are vaccines that use killed viruses, that use only certain strands of DNA, or that inject proteins. What makes them similar is that they all are designed to elicit an immune response to the virus.
You are mistaken in your imaginary belief that vaccines take 10-15 years to get approval. There is a new Flu vaccine every year. The Salk vaccine for polio began field tests in Spring 1954 and was approved April 1955. It was considered innovative at the time.
The government correctly informed me that the Covid vaccine would diminish my odds of getting hospitalized and death. You were obviously not listening.
People like you who put 'logical reasons" ahead of empirical observation are operating in the realm of pseudoscience, not science.
The only problem with your statement is it's not a deep state conspiracy....the vaccines were not tested via conventional clinical trials...short cuts were taken. As we know know, forced vaccinations by government institutions were unconstitutional and those harmed are now suing for damages.
I do understand what you are trying to control given the wacky treatments for prostate cancer promoted on this site by some members but I would disagree that the COVID vaccine is one of them.
My statement never claimed a conspiracy. The article i cited did not claim any conspiracy either. I (and the article) only pointed out certain indisputable facts and raised questions about reasons there may be increased risks of unknown and/or unanticipated side affects with the covid vaccine. Now it’s up to everyone to make their own (hopefully more informed) choices.
I think they are afraid of delusional conspiracy theorists. Perhaps with some reason.
But yeah... I think they should let us discuss it. You can start discussing it now.
But what is the evidence. If there is no evidence, That is no sufficient to make up potential side effects out of whole cloth. And that is what a certain segment of the population insists on doing.
So.... what is the evidence of any connection between the vaccine and cancer... other than anonymous anecdotal evidence from the internet?
There are some studies that imply a negative impact on the immune system from numerous covid boosters including this article ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
(2) Are you aware of of further peer reviewed articles on the subject since it's publication date of June 2022. The author seems to expect more evidence to surface.
(3) This is irrelevant and reduces my confidence in the author.
"The media have so far concealed the adverse events of vaccine administration such as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), owing to biased propaganda. "
As does the fact that he is a single author and this article is in the nature of a letter to the editor.
It just doesn't inspire in the disinterested scientific attitude of the author. That he couldn't refrain himself from stating that, whether true or not.
(4) The article seems well researched and footnoted. But it is essentially scientific speculation.
Extending it to cancer is another layer of speculation. Reasonable speculation, but speculation nonetheless.
(5) I definitely plan to print it out to bring to my doctor, the next time I visit him.
(6) Thank you for bringing this article to my attention.
I agree we should be able to respectfully discuss it. You wrote we should be able to ‘freely and respectfully’ exchange thoughts. The potential problem with ‘freely’ is that it almost always devolves into conspiratorial or politically-themed discussions that further devolves into some less than respectful exchanges and that I don’t want. I feel it has no place in this forum. Keep things strictly on the topic of the vaccination, side-effects, efficacy, potential problems, etc. and I have no problem.
I wrote that we would allow the COVID vaccine discussion as long as it didn’t promote conspiracy theories and as long as it remained relevant to prostate cancer. I know you guys tried to stick to these requirements. I wished you had. But this thread has become massively irrelevant to prostate cancer. For that reason alone, I am turning off replies. I encourage you all to continue your COVID vaccine discussion on any one of hundreds of other platforms .
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Johns Hopkins researcher revives old method for Covid-19
COVID-19, and PCA 
"Cholera Vaccine for Prostate Cancer Patients"
Covid vaccine & chemo 
