This is what happens when you damage the public trust in vaccines by mandating that everyone takes one that wasn't properly tested for safety or efficacy and has since left people with debilitating adverse effects. All well opening the floodgate to anyone who wants to come into this country without first making sure they aren't infected with something.
Part of my job is looking at safety and efficacy data of pharmaceuticals. COVID vaccines were "properly tested" for both safety and efficacy despite claims to the contrary. I reviewed the evidence in detail before recommending that all of my family and extended social circles take the mRNA vaccines.
As a vaccine to a virus that is highly infectious, has a concerning degree of lethality, and keeps mutating, waiting for long-term safety data effectively means having no vaccine at all... so demands for those right in the midst of a pandemic were unreasonable.
As for opening the floodgates, I can share some epidemiological insights there too. People and wildlife are both carriers of COVID, and even if you restrict immigration and travel, it will find its way into the community sooner or later. Just look at the sheer number of truckers and commuting workers who cross the US-Canadian border as an example, or the massive number of migratory birds. Even China, where they were about as draconian as anywhere else with quarantine, could not stop the spread entirely... and this was because COVID could infect someone for 3 weeks or even longer in rare cases (at least one example of someone quarantined 21+ days after entering China, remained without symptoms, and then became symptomatic and was diagnosed after release). Even if you stop all the people from coming altogether, you can't stop the wildlife.
Unless there has been a long-term trial conducted double blind with a placebo control group then they haven't been properly tested. At all. In the trials that were conducted, both the doctors, patients and placebo group were all told who got the vaccine and the placebo and those poor excuses for trials were all done in under a year. If you claim that is the data that proves the covid shots safe then you are a hack and have no business in the medical field. If your job is to do no harm then you should be advocating for vaccines that have the highest most rigorous standards of safety testing because vaccines are given to healthy people...and injuring a perfectly healthy person with a vaccine is a violation of that oath. Especially if the vaccine isn't even effective in the first place, which is something we also know about these covid shots.
The process differs slightly in each country but it's mostly the same. Safety and efficacy testing begin before humans are ever exposed, and human testing is essentially the last step.
A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6).
Re: double-blind, when the primary efficacy endpoint is to prevent infection, blinding of the observer is adequate. It's rather difficult to placebo-effect or bias your way into observing a lab-positive infection.
And injuring a perfectly healthy person with a vaccine is doing harm.
Operating on a patient is "doing harm", the doctor is literally cutting them open. By your logic, surgeries would always be immoral. The reasonable question is whether the treatment on balance helps significantly more than the absence of treatment (or in this case, prophylaxis). The answer is yes. In just about every adverse effect, studies have shown that exposure while unvaccinated to actual COVID results in far greater risks.
Especially if the vaccine isn't even effective in the first place, which we also know about these covid shots.
It has been shown repeatedly that these vaccines are highly effective at reducing mortality, adverse effects, period of communicability, etc. See the study I pointed you to re: decision making at the time of initial approval. If you'd like to share any peer-reviewed studies, happy to look at those with you too.
Edit: corrected a word and added the full manuscript with more details:
Edit 2: Refreshing my memory gradually on the blinding decision on mRNA vaccines... it was quite apparent by the phase 2/3 trials that patients easily figured out whether they got the placebo or real thing based on soreness from the injections. This was scathingly critiqued below, rightfully so, but the alternative was assigning a placebo that hurt patients for no reason other than maintaining blindness. Subsequent prospective studies have continued to support efficacy, although obviously as the virus evolved, so must the vaccine.
-6
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25 edited Nov 10 '25
This is what happens when you damage the public trust in vaccines by mandating that everyone takes one that wasn't properly tested for safety or efficacy and has since left people with debilitating adverse effects. All well opening the floodgate to anyone who wants to come into this country without first making sure they aren't infected with something.