AYUSH Holistic Wellness Centre at the Supreme Court premises

[Emperor]

CJI DY Chandrachud inaugurates the AYUSH Holistic Wellness Centre at the Supreme Court premises.

CJI Chandrachud says, "I have been associated with AYUSH since Covid broke. I had a really bad attack of Covid and the Prime Minister called me up and said, 'I believe that you are down with Covid and I hope everything is fine. I realize that you are not in good shape but we'll do everything. There is a vaidya who is also a secretary at AYUSH and I'll arrange a call with him who'll send you medicine.

"I took medicine from AYUSH when I was down with Covid. The 2nd & 3rd times when I had Covid, I didn't take any allopathic medicine at all.

https://news.rediff.com/commentary/...-and-said.../8834445309007b17d8a9dbb9346df971

 

[rsaeon]

This isn't the news that most people are interpreting it to be.

Covid, like all viruses, has no (allopathic) cure — there's just symptomatic relief until it subsides. There are specific drugs that target specific viruses like Hepatitis C, but generally, for viruses, there's only prevention in the form of a vaccine. There's no cure after you've contracted it aside from bed rest, electrolytes, and whatever you need to feel better (medicine/balms for a leaky nose and/or body aches).

So you'd just sit at home, feeling miserable, until it passes. In this case, it would appear whatever (ayush) medicine he took, made that time feel less miserable.

He would've recovered in the same way if instead, he inhaled from a hot cup of water that had a glob of vicks dropped inside.

---

This is not medical advice or instruction. Covid does have other life-threatening complications in the case of immuno-compromised patients and/or unhealthy individuals/lifestyles.

 

[thomasjude47]

India is still a century behind when it comes to scientific temperament. Can't blame the politicians, they deliver based on public demand and vice versa. The existence of a ministry for Ayush is a testament for this.

PS: scientific medicine is called 'modern medicine' and not allopathy. Allopathy is a common misnomer .

 

[Neotheone]

India is still a century behind when it comes to scientific temperament. Can't blame the politicians, they deliver based on public demand and vice versa. The existence of a ministry for Ayush is a testament for this.

PS: scientific medicine is called 'modern medicine' and not allopathy. Allopathy is a common misnomer .

While that is generally true of India, there's another aspect that all traditional medicine, which emerged through heuristics and was passed on through generations is dismissed as quackery. The problem is that most of these alternative approaches have not kept pace with developments in science and statistics, and do not seem to even bother to conduct well designed trials, which makes it hard to scientifically support their case, despite significant anecdotal evidence.

Besides, modern medicine, while much better than traditional in a majority of cases, has its problems as well. Most importantly the fact that the profit driven pharma machinery has no incentives to work on prevention or quick cures. The entire machinery seems to be focused on symptomatic relief. Another concern is the obstinate , sometimes apparently deliberate attacks on non-patented medicines, and the fact that modern medicine establishment is too centralized and there are conflicts of interest at the top. In several instances, authorities seemed to often ignore almost every evidence of efficacy of medicines, except large scale placebo controlled trials conducted in western nations (often, but not always for good reason).

 

[TEUser2K1]

The so called modern medicine companies have no qualms in finding which ayurvedic /herbal medicine was used historically to treat a particular condition, then isolate the compound which can efficiently treat the ailment, then call the compound modern scientific medicine, all the while stymieing ayurvedic /herbal treatments. Some of those are selling similar compounds at hefty prices too.
Will trust modern medicine more than herbal treatments, but will not entirely put down ayurvedic /herbal treatments calling those pseudoscience, which is a new age insta-influencer prick like fad.

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

The so called modern medicine companies have no qualms in finding which ayurvedic /herbal medicine was used historically to treat a particular condition, then isolate the compound which can efficiently treat the ailment, then call the compound modern scientific medicine, all the while stymieing ayurvedic /herbal treatments. Some of those are selling similar compounds at hefty prices too.
Will trust modern medicine more than herbal treatments, but will not entirely put down ayurvedic /herbal treatments calling those pseudoscience, which is a new age insta-influencer prick like fad.

Potential pricing issues aside, what would you have them do ? Ignore things that work ? In general, I think cost issues are more of a government / systemic issue. From what i have heard countries like Singapore and japan have been able to provide cost effective medical care to their population, while unfortunately we are going the American way perhaps.

Only anecdotal account - but i had plenty of time wasted through these ayurvedic/alternative treatment clincs throughout my childhood because of my parents. Morons couldn't even diagnose my asthama and only in my mid 20s did i realize that i had it after going to OPD of a nearby hospital. More things like that + my parents are still devout in their beliefs and so they are always taking these meds even when its not working.

One thing is very often there - For all things that dont have cure so far, these c** will often have 100% working solutions. vaat pit kaf can fo.
sry for rant, but i have strong feelings about these c*.

 

[Neotheone]

COVID has been an eye opener for me personally, and forced me to see some of what passes for modern medicine. Amid conflicting guidance by medicine regulators in early /mid 2020, I had to resort to reading scientific papers after papers to form my own view. and realized that modern science is still willing to somehow still expect one size fits all solutions and often ends up pushing for mass implementation of commercial solutions without adequate long term risk-reward assessment. These solutions often benefit large interest groups.

In case this interests any of you, please spend some time on how vaccine efficacy is calculated and marketed by authorities and vaccine manufacturers alike, and you would see through the joke that the risk reward assessment was for the COVID vaccine. Its also true for many other drugs and vaccines. All this while, drug combinations with much better outcomes and safety profile (which were known to be safe for decades, and were OTC before COVID) were suppressed through fearmongering apparently because there were no patents on these. Also, the establishment completely ignores that human immune response has an adaptive component that can, in most cases, create antibodies that deal with infections well, including from variants of a virus once it is exposed to another strain. It also ignored other aspects of the immune response that can help even if antibodies do not work as intended, and went ahead to recommended boosters where the risk reward was even more unfavorable.

Further, doctors across the world prescribe stuff like paracetamol indiscriminately even for mild fever, while it is established knowledge that fever is part of the immune response, and should be tolerated in healthy individuals unless it becomes life threatening. Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703655/

Let it ride​

Those in the “let it ride” camp advocate that fever is a protective mechanism with benefits ranging from enhancing immune-cell function to promoting antimicrobial activity (16,17). In the past decade several studies have supported this hypothesis. A randomized control trial published by our institution in 2005 sought to evaluate the impact of antipyretic therapy on outcomes in critically ill patients (18). Patients were randomized to an aggressive treatment group, consisting of acetaminophen 650 mg every 6 hours for fever >38.5 °C with addition of a cooling blanket for temperature of >39.5 °C, or a permissive group where treatment was initiated at a temperature of >40 °C with acetaminophen and cooling blankets. The study had to be terminated at the interim analysis as there were seven deaths in the aggressive group and only one death in the permissive group. Another randomized controlled trial in critically ill patients without neurotrauma or severe hypoxia also failed to support the treatment of fever showing no significant differences in fever recurrence, infection, antibiotic therapy, ICU and hospital length of stay, or mortality between those receiving external cooling for temperature ≥38.5 °C vs. no antipyretic treatment (19).

Once I figured some of this out, I have been much healthier by simply eating better, fixing my routine, and working out. I have not had to suppress fever even once in four years now, although I got COVID thrice. No serious illness since 2020, although the delta variant did give me extreme lethargy and brain fog for two odd weeks.

 

[ibose]

In case this interests any of you, please spend some time on how vaccine efficacy is calculated and marketed by authorities and vaccine manufacturers alike, and you would see through the joke that the risk reward assessment was for the COVID vaccine. Its also true for many other drugs and vaccines. All this while, drug combinations with much better outcomes and safety profile (which were known to be safe for decades, and were OTC before COVID) were suppressed through fearmongering apparently because there were no patents on these. Also, the establishment completely ignores that human immune response has an adaptive component that can, in most cases, create antibodies that deal with infections well, including from variants of a virus once it is exposed to another strain. It also ignored other aspects of the immune response that can help even if antibodies do not work as intended, and went ahead to recommended boosters where the risk reward was even more unfavorable.

Going off-topic, but did you take the COVID vaccine and the booster dose ?

 

[Neotheone]

Going off-topic, but did you take the COVID vaccine and the booster dose ?

I took both doses of the AstraZeneca (Covishield) vaccine because at that point, the risk of COVID seemed to be getting lowered meaningfully due to it, based on the data published then. Although now, it appears that the data was misleading (both in terms of quality of adverse reporting and also the way the data was interpreted and reported), and I had also not adequately factored the effect of rapid mutations in MRNA viruses, which makes vaccines less useful for such viruses to begin with. I would not have taken any doses, had I known what I know about the issues with trials of the vaccine now. Off course I did not take any boosters.

Edit: And I see the contradiction that Covishield might well have helped my chances with the delta variant. Yet, I'm not quite sure, given the absence of reliable data on Covid mortality and other outcomes among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Some countries did report data that suggested that vaccinated were actually more vulnerable, but swiftly proceeded to offer vague explanations and stopped publishing such data thereafter. Interestingly, it should be easy to conduct retrospective studies to credibly find the truth but I do not expect such studies to be funded or rewarded, let alone publicized.

 

[ibose]

I took both doses of the AstraZeneca (Covishield) vaccine because at that point, the risk of COVID seemed to be getting lowered meaningfully due to it, based on the data published then. Although now, it appears that the data was misleading (both in terms of quality of adverse reporting and also the way the data was interpreted and reported), and I had also not adequately factored the effect of rapid mutations in MRNA viruses, which makes vaccines less useful for such viruses to begin with. I would not have taken any doses, had I known what I know about the issues with trials of the vaccine now. Off course I did not take any boosters.

I took both and the booster (Covaxin) and my senior citizen parents (my mother has co-morbidities) did the same. I survived two bouts of Covid (both times some fever and cold, the second one milder than before) and my parents survived one bout of Covid.
Folks seem to forget that COVID is unprecedented in history with no precedent whatsover. You can curse all the vaccines as much as you like but I and my parents are thankful that they were even able to have any vaccines created in that incredible span of time. I am sure they compromised and cut corners given the extraordinary circumstances but to trash them away does not support the data.
I would request Mods to move the COVID posts to the COVID thread.

 

[Neotheone]

Potential pricing issues aside, what would you have them do ? Ignore things that work ? In general, I think cost issues are more of a government / systemic issue. From what i have heard countries like Singapore and japan have been able to provide cost effective medical care to their population, while unfortunately we are going the American way perhaps.

Only anecdotal account - but i had plenty of time wasted through these ayurvedic/alternative treatment clincs throughout my childhood because of my parents. Morons couldn't even diagnose my asthama and only in my mid 20s did i realize that i had it after going to OPD of a nearby hospital. More things like that + my parents are still devout in their beliefs and so they are always taking these meds even when its not working.

One thing is very often there - For all things that dont have cure so far, these c** will often have 100% working solutions. vaat pit kaf can fo.
sry for rant, but i have strong feelings about these c*.

Valid points here. There are pressing issues with alternative treatments. Yet, I benefited greatly with some of these alternatives, although admittedly you could claim that it was placebo.

I feel that the best approach would still be evidence based medicine. Yet, the approach to understand evidence needs to expand and include systems thinking and holistic thinking. Medicine needs to listen to experts in other disciplines including gas behavior , statisticians, and risk experts (incidentally I've worked on risk for over a decade and its disconcerting to read how authorities do risk reward assessment).

Most importantly, bodies like WHO/CDC , and Indian regulators need to be reformed with more competencies, and also freed of political and economic conflicts of interests. Alternative medicine approaches need to be forced to produce evidence , and given deadlines for it producing credible studies to support treatment.

There needs to be a start on this, although I do not think there are any magic bullets, and governments decision making in large democracies are almost sure to be influenced by economic interests. Effectively, the policy is unlikely to work for the people as a result, simply because trust based consensus becomes illusory in such large populations. Humans never learned to trust at the scale of 1.4 billion people.

I took both and the booster (Covaxin) and my senior citizen parents (my mother has co-morbidities) did the same. I survived two bouts of Covid (both times some fever and cold, the second one milder than before) and my parents survived one bout of Covid.
Folks seem to forget that COVID is unprecedented in history with no precedent whatsover. You can curse all the vaccines as much as you like but I and my parents are thankful that they were even able to have any vaccines created in that incredible span of time. I am sure they compromised and cut corners given the extraordinary circumstances but to trash them away does not support the data.
I would request Mods to move the COVID posts to the COVID thread.

I would struggle to call it evidence based in case the underlying assessment wasn't done credibly and corners were cut. There can be no excuse for cutting corners especially when implementing a nationwide effectively mandatory intervention, when informed consent is effectively a joke amid fear and coercion through mandates at work / travel etc.

The scientific method does not leave room for ignoring or not placing evidence on record. Once that is known, I would label the COVID vaccine as just a shot with unproven efficacy. When it was not known to me, I was happy taking it , just trusting the authorities but I have no hesitation in saying that my trust was misplaced.

I am conscious that there's a chance that the shots were helpful, but transparent disclosures and retrospective studies would have helped, but they are absent amid he poor VAERS reporting, which just solidifies my view.

 

[ibose]

I would struggle to call it evidence based in case the underlying assessment wasn't done credibly and corners were cut. There can be no excuse for cutting corners especially when implementing a nationwide effectively mandatory intervention, when informed consent is effectively a joke amid fear and coercion through mandates at work / travel etc.

I am yet to see any counter except the anti vax rhetoric.

The scientific method does not leave room for ignoring or not placing evidence on record. Once that is known, I would label the COVID vaccine as just a shot with unproven efficacy. When it was not known to me, I was happy taking it , just trusting the authorities but I have no hesitation in saying that my trust was misplaced. The poor VAERS reporting, and absence of disclosures and retrospective studies just solidifies my view.

I wonder if you put yourself in the shoes of the doctors and scientists involved in making the vaccines and struggling with the fact that it was not something remotely comparable like measles, polio or smallpox. Scientific method ? The protocols for treatment and isolation for COVID were ever changing based on what they were observing and discovering. New notifications from WHO and CDC were a daily affair. It is what you would call - learning on the job.
You are basing something on after the fact although I am yet to see any fact for that matter. Besides, if it was not known to you at that time of taking the vaccines, did you try finding out instead of blindly "trusting the authorities" ?

retrospective studies

You want to see retrospective studies for the first COVID vaccines before they were administered to you ? Well, then you should have waited to take the vaccine because those "studies" were all on the live population on whom the vaccine was administered and would not have been available until much later.

 

[Neotheone]

I am yet to see any counter except the anti vax rhetoric.

Hey labels hardly help but my key counters on reason are covered and I would counter with the idea that if you label me as anti-vaxer, you're not likely to see anything that I say as worth thinking over. Yet if I really was an anti-vaxer, I would not have taken two shots myself.

A more nuanced discussion might help though, and maybe we can move to the Covid thread in case you are interested. I am stating my key concerns again in bullets:

1. Calculation of vaccine efficacy is based on relative risk reduction and overstates the benefits from the vaccine.
2. Poor adverse event reporting during the trial understates risks of the jab, and rushed trials had procedural lapses, which makes risk reward unreliable.
3. Covid vaccine trials didn't assess long term risk, and the study was discontinued after a short period. This is inexplicable and the only reason I see is that nobody wants to assess long term risks.
4. Blatant conflicts of interests at drug regulatory bodies, and political pressure to approve vaccines from their own countries and not from countries with competing political interests.
5. Regulatory bodies are inherently bureaucratic with entrenched conflicts of interests and are full of doctors, and lack multidisciplinary competencies.
6. Boosters were approved based on correlates of protection - without any human trials. That is far worse. Correlates of protection are being pushed by the industry as acceptable but the debate is hardly settled on this one.

The protocols for treatment and isolation for COVID were ever changing based on what they were observing and discovering.

I presume you got me wrong there. I have no issues with changing treatment protocols, and in fact am sympathetic. However, my concern is limited to what is known now that corners were cut and processes were not followed specifically for vaccine trials and emergency use authorization of drugs. That simply makes it pseudoscience. It can potentially have devastating consequences and I can not see any reason for a scientist to accept poor practices because population and the political leadership is desperate for a solution. And success is no post-facto justification for such decisions.

You want to see retrospective studies for the first COVID vaccines before they were administered to you ? Well, then you should have waited to take the vaccine because those "studies" were all on the live population on whom the vaccine was administered and would not have been available until much later.

I guess I wasn't clear. I am looking for retrospective studies now, to establish how much worse or better are the unvaccinated cohorts doing now. Please do not see it as an adversarial discussion - I am keen to hear your side and change my stance, but we both have to form our own views based on our perspectives.

did you try finding out instead of blindly "trusting the authorities" ?

I did read what I could at the time, including the papers that covered the outcomes of clinical trials, but admittedly I never thought that the published statistics were not all that there was to be learned. Subsequent revelations , some forced by US courts have been quite disappointing.

 

[TEUser2K1]

@Tracer_Bullet
> what would you have them do ? Ignore things that work ?

What they should do is acknowledge how they derived the product /compound they sell than stymieing ayurveda / herbal medicines from other countries too. All the while patenting and selling compounds they derived from books / knowledge related to ayurveda.
There are implications with patent laws in India, etc. in cases like these.

It's not mistake of Ayurveda that your parents took you to quacks who can't even identify Asthma which even layperson with enough commonsense guide to right hospital properly.
May be Govt. is trying to use Ayush dept for rectifying similar issues.

As for pricing, legal, logistical issues, those are different topic altogether.

 

[ibose]

what is known now that corners were cut and processes were not followed

This was known even then and it is not new. See the long COVID thread here and you will know.

you're not likely to see anything that I say as worth thinking over

The fact remains I have not seen anything new among all that you have said. Even the effect of anti-pyretics is well known and discussed in the COVID thread.

1. Calculation of vaccine efficacy is based on relative risk reduction and overstates the benefits from the vaccine.
2. Poor adverse event reporting during the trial understates risks of the jab, and rushed trials had procedural lapses, which makes risk reward unreliable.
3. Covid vaccine trials didn't assess long term risk, and the study was discontinued after a short period. This is inexplicable and the only reason I see is that nobody wants to assess long term risks.
4. Blatant conflicts of interests at drug regulatory bodies, and political pressure to approve vaccines from their own countries and not from countries with competing political interests.
5. Regulatory bodies are inherently bureaucratic with entrenched conflicts of interests and are full of doctors, and lack multidisciplinary competencies.

1. Again this dispute is not new and has existed since the time, vaccines were created and administered. I am yet to see anything which tells me that not taking the vaccines resulted in lower mortality or lower COVID infection rates.
2 and 3. Trials ? Again something known from before. They did not have proper trials, which, say, were comparable to say making a cancer vaccine. You need to understand that either they could have taken years - followed the perfect scientific method, conducted comprehensive human trials and then released the vaccine. Identifying all adverse effects would have itself needed trials running in years across multiple population samples. Instead they chose to fast-track it and administer it. Of course they could not lay down the full list of adverse effects (unfortunate but it was growing list as they discovered new ones). At least they had a list of adverse effects to begin with. If you were hesitant at that time, no one forced you to take it.
4 and 5. Well this is also not new. It exists from well before COVID. One acronym - WHO. Enough said.
My point remains - you are not saying anything which has not been said before (and I mean from the time the vaccines were first made). You and I, both had a choice. You took the vaccine, survived COVID and choose the bash the authorities and vaccine manufacturers based on disputed information from way long back. I took the vaccine, survived COVID and am thankful, that they even had a vaccine to begin with. I am happy that this "pseudoscience" of vaccines has helped me beat COVID so far.
Anyways, I am out of this conversation.

 

[Neotheone]

I am yet to see any counter except the anti vax rhetoric.

I wonder if you put yourself in the shoes of the doctors and scientists involved in making the vaccines and struggling with the fact that it was not something remotely comparable like measles, polio or smallpox. Scientific method ? The protocols for treatment and isolation for COVID were ever changing based on what they were observing and discovering. New notifications from WHO and CDC were a daily affair. It is what you would call - learning on the job.
You are basing something on after the fact although I am yet to see any fact for that matter. Besides, if it was not known to you at that time of taking the vaccines, did you try finding out instead of blindly "trusting the authorities" ?

You want to see retrospective studies for the first COVID vaccines before they were administered to you ? Well, then you should have waited to take the vaccine because those "studies" were all on the live population on whom the vaccine was administered and would not have been available until much later.

This was known even then and it is not new. See the long COVID thread here and you will know.

The fact remains I have not seen anything new among all that you have said. Even the effect of anti-pyretics is well known and discussed in the COVID thread.

1. Again this dispute is not new and has existed since the time, vaccines were created and administered. I am yet to see anything which tells me that not taking the vaccines resulted in lower mortality or lower COVID infection rates.
2 and 3. Trials ? Again something known from before. They did not have proper trials, which, say, were comparable to say making a cancer vaccine. You need to understand that either they could have taken years - followed the perfect scientific method, conducted comprehensive human trials and then released the vaccine. Identifying all adverse effects would have itself needed trials running in years across multiple population samples. Instead they chose to fast-track it and administer it. If you were hesitant at that time, no one forced you to take it.
4 and 5. Well this is also not new. It exists from well before COVID. One acronym - WHO. Enough said.
My point remains - you are not saying anything which has not been said before (and I mean from the time the vaccines were first made). You and I, both had a choice. You took the vaccine, survived COVID and choose the bash the authorities and vaccine manufacturers based on stuff which is and was pretty well known from way long back. I took the vaccine, survived COVID and am thankful, that they even had a vaccine to begin with. I am happy that this "pseudoscience" of vaccines has helped me beat COVID so far.

"Not new" does not actually address the concern. The concern persists, doesnt' it?

I am yet to see anything which tells me that not taking the vaccines resulted in lower mortality

Two points: 1. It would require retrospective studies to have that evidence. The absence of transparency does not help,
2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Its just an information vaccum.

Instead they chose to fast-track it and administer it. If you were hesitant at that time, no one forced you to take it.

Two points:
1. The choice to fast-track it and adminster it was political and not scientific. Science can not be desperation driven, and this approach could have potentially crippled the population in case adverse events were severe. In theory it still can if in theory the vaccine has long term adverse effects. Any person that understand catastrophic risks would never inflict it on a population.
2. Who are you kidding ? Vaccines were effectively forced. We needed vaccine even to go to office, travel and almost everything at that point !

Identifying all adverse effects would have itself needed trials running in years

Exactly. You can not do what you can not do. And even success does not (on post-facto basis) justify putting a population on a not-fully tested shot, especially as the MRNA virus itself was rapidly mutating and sure to out-evolve the vaccine.

Well this is also not new.

I agree that it is now new - yet it is part of the reason why our medicine approvals / regulation process is in shambles. I really do not get how "not new" is even an argument though. Anything is not new to well read people like yourself, but multiple known things taken together can still add up to a larger point.

I am happy that this "pseudoscience" of vaccines has helped me beat COVID so far.

I am happy too, for everyone including you and myself especially as we survived two man-made threats as a species - first by creating this virus in a lab, and then by inflicting an improperly tested "solution" on a vast majority of population.

Yet, I see how this practice should not be repeated. The scientific method exists for a reason, and one fluke does not justify arbitrary approach do decisions like this. It could very well have resulted in mass debilitation or worse. That is a tail risk but those are the exact risks that policy must guard against.

 

[Sobirvs]

A friend of mine used to BS about yoga, ayurveda, and baba ramdev bla bla, sure, all bad, let's give it a go to modern medicine right? he lost his father 20 days ago. I was there giving a shoulder to his father's body, and when he thought medanta really can help his father with cancer and everything gonna be great, and him losing 22 Lakhs's within few days (half covered by insurance) along with his father, his face was turned so red, like he thought it's all about science , and even in a sad moment, I was so happy, that he had personal loss because of his slavish mentality towards science and modern medicine. I taunted him a week back, "Yeah, so modern medicine did really do wonders for your father huh lol?".

No it is all about money. Whole world has contributed towards modern medicine, so they sat on literally unlimited money to be able to do unlimited r&d of tons of diseases and did tons of testing and now here they are with such monopoly that if they wish, they literally can create a disease and make us spend money for "them" to fix it. Compare to that ayurveda, how much money was really spent on it? Imagine even 10% of funding what modern medicine got from last century, where we would be today. These modern medicine bulls are the same who downplayed ISRO to NASA and laughed on ISRO, well jokes on them.

I have many personal doctor friends and most have one common advise, take medicine what works for you regardless if it's ayurveda or modern medicine but these cult of modern medicine who have me science their religion and defend it no matter what on social media and keep gatekeeping it and even went to lengths to censor scientists/doctors to talk against covid vax via US govt and other state gov's., this ugly cult is ruining it for everybody. They even put down or abuse the modern doctors aswell if by chance they don't glorify modern medicine.

 

[ibose]

1. It would require retrospective studies to have that evidence. The absence of transparency does not help,
2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Its just an information vaccum.

Well I quoted one figure above. You did not counter it with any data. In fact I am yet to see anything apart from opinions or rehashing the same old stuff. You cannot argue for the lack of information by ignoring information that is already present.

Who are you kidding ? Vaccines were effectively forced. We needed vaccine even to go to office, travel and almost everything at that point !

I meant you could have waited instead of taking the vaccines when they were first administered. Those were administered during a WFH scenario, at least for me. I did not realize you had to go to office. Travel required a negative RT-PCR report or a Vaccine certificate.

Exactly. You can not do what you can not do. And even success does not justify putting a population on a not-fully tested shot, especially as the MRNA virus itself was rapidly mutating and sure to out-evolve the vaccine.

So basically you are saying that those vaccines should not have been administered. What alternative were you proposing to save lives at that point then ? It is easy to pass judgement post facto.

"Not new" does not actually address the concern. The concern persists, doesnt' it?

No, it will persist for as long as "you" want it to persist.

 

[TEUser2K1]

@ibose
> Well I quoted one figure above. You did not counter it with any data.

Most of the so called data and data researchers are from those kinds who investigate themselves and find they are doing great.

 

[ibose]

Science can not be desperation driven, and this approach could have potentially crippled the population in case adverse events were severe. In theory it still can if in theory the vaccine has long term adverse effects.

Has it crippled the population ? If not, then was the Science desperation driven ? Where is this theory coming from ? Any data as evidence ?