I know that is true, however at the time there was a sense of urgency, just not time for the kind of testing you are talking about. For better or worse that was the decision we made.
I am sure these things are true, but do they point to a harmful thing? It seems to me the simplest way to look at that is to look at the overall death rates of those who got vaccinated and those that didn't. The data I've been able to find indicates people who got vaccinated were less likely to die, of all causes, than those who didn't. That's based on data from a wide variety of sources, not on expert (or non-expert) opinions, which vary all over the place on this.
Had we taken more time and testing we probably could have come up with a better vaccine, but it would not have been available as early as this one was. I'm not surprised that its not as effective as some of the older vaccines, really more surprising that its been effective at all.
I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about how all of this happened, one important one would be if the economic damage was justified. I think we need to investigate those questions in an unbiased way and learn from what happened. To do that we need to figure out how to keep politics and the desire to blame people or organizations out of it. There will be more pandemics and some day much worse ones. We need to learn what we can from this to better manage our future, its important.
Because of the urgency, and because all major pharmaceutical companies have nearly 80 years of practice and trials, I will never understand why they didn't develop a traditional vaccine, at least initially, and I can't imagine why the FDA didn't insist on that. The FDA would have rushed it through. Why rush approval on something totally new, never tested on humans, with unknown side effects? Especially when its limited trial results up to 2019 (since 2010) were poor.
True, SARS Co-V 2 was a new virus, but new viruses are nothing new. I am certainly no expert, but I know that the foundational components, characteristics and behaviors of all viruses are very similar. All those features are what classifies them as viruses. So it just makes sense to me that creating a traditional vaccine would be the first move.
Unless - and I really hesitate to say this because I'm not a conspiracy theorist either - unless it was known from the beginning that SARS Co-V 2 was an intentionally genetically altered version of an existing coronavirus. There are several coronavirus that are infectious to humans, the first discovered in the early or mid 1950s....'54, if I remember correctly.
"...do they point to a harmful thing?" Not 100% known, but very likely, yes. Researchers are seeing the vaccine's genetic material and potentially dangerous nanoparticles/nanolipids in people's vital organs. That's not a good thing, and had a traditional vaccine been used this would not have occurred. According to some published reports, the actual virus's genetic material has been seen in some organs as well, post-mortem, so, in that regard, the mRna vaccine carries the same risks as the infection itself.
There are some excellent doctors posting video lectures and generally informative videos about all this on YouTube pretty regularly. Some of the ones I follow are Dr. John Campbell,
Drbeen Medical Lectures, Medicine with Dr. Moran,
Dr. Suneel Dhand (holistic), an excellent French-Canadian doctor's channel called
Merogenomics. I watch a handful of others, too, but mostly these. And mostly they discuss the latest studies, most recent findings, and most recent medical journal publications.
