Shingrix won't work
Started by Bubba98
Please elaborate on *why* you think that is the case.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
My live CEs and readings/data collected from articles on pharmacists' letter strongly disagree. Please take the time to read some of the articles and evaluate the comparison vs. Zostavax (might be dry/boring and full of statistics, but it's very insightful).
I will say it won't work if you can't get it in stock, LMFAO
I will say it won't work if you can't get it in stock, LMFAO
You have a mind of your own use it. How did Flumist work out?
Ok fine google it
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
Are you asking a question?
Are you expressing surprise that an injection meant to cause an immune response is causing an immune response at the injection site?
So I guess every immunization is a waste then?
Nope
So Shingrix is a waste but everything else still makes sense?? Please explain.
Varicella vaccine=waste
I hear Flumist is coming back.. anyone else hear this? I’m too lazy to search the lit for that..
This is a troll thread. The vaccine underwent rigorous study and trials in order to be approved by the FDA. A significant number of individuals had to have significantly better outcomes than placebo. The drug also has to be safe for humans. Anecdotal evidence and "word of mouth" that it doesn't work are poor sample sizes and should be disregarded.
Edited: Changed some wording as it was pointed out that safety and efficacy are 2 different things. Also, changed a few sentences for semantic purposes.
Edited: Changed some wording as it was pointed out that safety and efficacy are 2 different things. Also, changed a few sentences for semantic purposes.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Shingix is a dead virus mate. So... this is kinda awkward... and its like 97% effective according to CDC.
Unless you have visible, solid evidence to say otherwise... Imma go out on a limb and say that op either just learned how live vaccines work or is a new grad who got too excited and came too early.
Or is just seeking attention by provoking a controversial issue...
Bottom line: who gives a damn? A pharmacist or anyone in medical field that is a proponent of their own delusion over facts should be fired. Lol peace
Unless you have visible, solid evidence to say otherwise... Imma go out on a limb and say that op either just learned how live vaccines work or is a new grad who got too excited and came too early.
Or is just seeking attention by provoking a controversial issue...
Bottom line: who gives a damn? A pharmacist or anyone in medical field that is a proponent of their own delusion over facts should be fired. Lol peace
Last edited:
OP, I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying you believe that live vaccines don't work, only attenuated vaccines? As has been pointed out, Shingrix isn't a live vaccine, plus unless you are related to Unchained, you probably are aware that live vaccines worked for decades in the past, before they were replaced by attenuated vaccines (polio, for example.)
Science > anecdote
You're on the wrong website OP.
You're on the wrong website OP.
OP is probably one of those people who still believes that debunked study about autism and vaccines...
I dont think there was anything to debunk considering that the researcher supposedly just made up the whole thing.
Debunked, made up, whatever you want to call it.
Shingrix PL chart
Do you know what the word elaborate means?
Obviously not. Because you’re fake news bro!
I think the OP barely read past the abstract, lol.
You know, you can always delegate stuff to your rotating student and make them read/analyze 😆
You know, you can always delegate stuff to your rotating student and make them read/analyze 😆
Safety and efficacy are two different concepts. You can't use efficacy data to speak for safety.
Last edited:
I am curious what you mean by this. Better outcomes than what?
yeah honestly all they needed to prove was non-inferiority and it would have gotten approved...especially since it’s not live.
For marketing and uptake I agree it needed to be a bit more.
For marketing and uptake I agree it needed to be a bit more.
Except most drugs that have been approved recently is based on non-inferiority trials....
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Personally I appreciate the ambiguity of the word “better”. The poster could have meant better than placebo, which would be a correct statement. I am just curious what the poster meant as it could be taken many (mostly incorrect) ways.
The statement would have been even better (more ambiguous) if they had just said “it needed to be better” and left out the part about “for approval”. That way they could pivot later and claim they were talking about marketing or some other BS.
Pretty sure that’s what I said
