A Scientific Case Against The Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine

Research summary of the study by Pfizer/BioNTech as published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine
  • Over 40,000 participants enrolled in the study, spread out over approximately 150 clinical trial sites. That is a huge number, allowing to make reliable predictions about the effect of the vaccine in protecting against Covid-19.
  • Participants are impressively diverse in terms of gender, age, ethnicity and race. This is a huge accomplishment of the research team, as medical studies have a long history of testing primarily on white straight men, causing bias in the outcomes.
  • The study is a randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trial. This means the highest standards of quantitative methodology have been met, allowing us to rule out that other factors than the vaccine are responsible for the vaccine’s effectiveness.
  • Even the influenza vaccine was never tested amongst so many participants and in such a controlled way, so it is good that we take vaccines more seriously now and at least invest more in studying their efficacy and safety.
  • How safe and effective is the vaccine on the long run, i.e. longer than the 28 days of the trial?
  • How will the vaccine interact with other existing technologies and medications?
  • How will the vaccine interact with pre-existing conditions like chronic illnesses, both mentally and physically?
  • Oxford/AstraZeneca produced a vaccine without experimental technology and shielded the process of knowledge production from private interests. AstraZeneca signed a no profit pledge, although with a time limit. Although the vaccine is still produced by 'fast science', its underlying technology is a lot less experimental and therefore a lot less risky to take.
  • Better medications against Covid are currently being produced as we understand the virus better, using technologies that are often a lot less experimental and controversial than the mRNA tech. A regular and conventional vaccine without mRNA tech developed by Leuven University is to be expected in 2022.
  • We have still not explored many relatively innocent and conventional ways to fight a pandemic properly, such as the vast knowledge available about the power of supplements in staying healthy and/or prevent serious illness. The same can be said about diet, lifestyle and alternative medicine. That means that there is lots of room for improvement in our pandemic response, even without new tech.
  • Beck, Ulrich (1992). Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Munich: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • Klein, Naomi (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Company.
  • Latour, Bruno (2005). Reassembling the Social — An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stengers, Isabelle (2018). Another science is possible: A manifesto for slow science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Tromp, Coyan (2018). Wicked Philosophy. Philosophy of Science and Vision Development for Complex Problems. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Laurens Buijs

Laurens Buijs

110 Followers

Ethnographer, entrepreneur, lecturer; looking for world peace