Yep. This is what must be accepted when something like a new...

Yep. This is what must be accepted when something like a new vaccine is used long before proper safety trials could be completed.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/954037?src=WNL_mdpls_210706_mscpedit_fmed&uac=170112CY&spon=34&impID=3489516&faf=1

Such trials take years. We don't have years. Sensibly, we accept that risk, but we must be prepared to continue the "testing" (= guinea pig) for several years into the utilisation phase. We don't have the luxury of correct science. The virus skipped that barrier.

We learn as we go along. All recipients are guinea pigs. But with millions receiving each vaccine version we can quite soon see major problems. If the word "major" refers to numbers of victims as well as the actual side effect, then A-Z is as safe as any, including Pfizer. Does anyone think our journalists are competent to understand and disseminate that?

What it really means is that people will rush from one side of the argument to the other, depending on what they read in that morning's paper. And what they read is semi-informed blurbs from uneducated journalists too keen to claim the scoop. Hey everybody, get Pfizer. Oh, wait a bit, Pfizer has thorns. So what's next? The result is dismay, distrust, disaster.

Just get a bloody (not literally) vaccine as long as it's not Sinovac.