General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I been reading (somewhere on DU) that when a vaccination is created [View all]Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)I will review the published studies, read critiques, study the theory if, as anticipated it may not be a clone of existing vaccines.
A good example is that all relevant US groups now recommend statins automatically for all type 2 diabetics. That is certainly easier than making the tougher individualized assessments necessary to individually manage CVD risk. But statins are not innocuous. I'm addition to blocking the production of cholesterol, they also block the production of other compounds that are essential to heart (and other) health. For many people with diabetes cholesterol is a more significant risk, and statins are necessary. But not all cholesterol is the same. When I look at European recommendations, they are more refined (i.e. It is not an all or nothing recommendation) And when I drop down another layer to look directly at the risk factors, I have not, in the entire time I have had diabetes, even come close to the level of dangerous cholesterol that would decrease my CVD risk by taking statins, and it might even increase it.
So doctor's recommendation: statins - all the relevant U.S. Orgs say they are safe, and you need them.
Independent verification: nope. Not a good risk fit for me. I'm tracking my cholesterol, and if/when that changes, we'll revisit it.
As to the vaccines, without having any details yet, since there are so many in the pipeline, at a minimum, it has to be safe (so I will be carefully reviewing side effects) and at least 50% effective. Beyond that, it has to use a mechanism that makes scientific sense.