7 Comments
User's avatar
Winston Smith's avatar

Even if the trial looks relatively good, and it's much less dangerous than the others, we'd only be taking it in an attempt to avoid heavy handed government control (if avoidance in the long term is even possible). We used to take remedies because we were sick - now we are taking them to win back a slither more freedom and try to dodge injury or death in the process? Why would I trust anything that comes out of this pharmaceutical industry (especially after reading Kennedy's book)?

If I had to take anything, not for health, but maybe to avoid incarceration, I'd look to COVAX-19

(https://vaxine.net/projects/) if the Australian government will actually help a home-grown product!

Expand full comment
Isaac Middle's avatar

No way on God's green-ish earth will I be going near this concoction. But, as you said, it's not about us. Thanks for the summary.

Expand full comment
Barry O'Kenyan's avatar

To conclude: Does the Fact Pattern of all currently available data suggest that Novavax is Relatively Safer?

The answer is Yes.

Proof: they have not approved it!

Expand full comment
Unbekoming's avatar

Yes, good point!

Expand full comment
Perplexity's avatar

Yet another 'study' that eliminated its own 'control' group hastily.

Not exactly a confidence 'booster', now, is it?

Expand full comment
Tim Lundeen's avatar

I'm in the same camp, I don't think vaccines are worth the risks.

Still, it is positive is that Novavax does not include aluminum, afaiks.

Interesting article about the adjuvant, based on the soapbark tree: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/10/single-tree-species-may-hold-key-coronavirus-vaccine/616792/

Expand full comment
toolate's avatar

when do you suspect it will hit the shelves? What of Covaxin? Will those who have not yet taken an mRNA vax take it? Will it be approved only as a booster?

Expand full comment