https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-rush-for-toddler-vaccines-covid-pandemic-children-fda-pfizer-moderna-medicine-evidence-11656951993
More troubling, vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer's trial were more likely to get severely ill with Covid than those who received a placebo. Pfizer claimed most severe cases weren't "clinically significant," whatever that means, but this was all the more reason that the FDA should have required a longer follow-up before authorizing the vaccine.
Also worrisome: Most kids who developed multiple infections during the trial were vaccinated. This warranted more investigation, since experimental vaccines for other diseases sometimes increase susceptibility to infection.
Scientists are also discovering that triple-vaccinated adults who were previously infected with the Wuhan variant have a weaker immune response to Omicron, leaving them more susceptible to reinfection. This phenomenon, called "immunological imprinting," could explain why children who received three Pfizer shots were more likely to get reinfected.
herbs 发表于 2022-07-06 22:22
这是评论版，基本上都是极右的评论人，你觉得会客观？
疫苗研制上市是要有严格的procedure和标准的，并且有副作用再有效也不能大规模推行。最近的swine flu疫苗测试死了一个人，立马叫停研制。现在活生生的这么多死人的例子，竟然有人还在纠结什么极右言论？common sense都被covid搞掉了是吧？
我儿子打了，没有任何副作用。
perfectpan 发表于 2022-07-06 22:32
这两个视频看得人真难受
June 24th, 2022 12:33 pm| by TheCopenhagenPost
The COVID-19 vaccine will no longer be recommended for children, according to Søren Brostrøm, the head of the Sundhedsstyrelsen health authority. Instead, only particularly vulnerable and Danes over the age of 50 will be recommended a vaccine in the autumn.
PM defends the decision
According to Brostrøm, the vaccination of children last autumn and winter did little to slow the spread of the virus. PM Mette Frederiksen has stood by the decision, saying that no harm was done, and that it was the best decision given the information available at the time.
vitd120 发表于 2022-07-07 09:12
.
楼主要搞清楚 WSJ Opinion 和 WSJ News 是两个不同的东西。这个相当于读者来信，许多新闻媒体为了保证公正性都会开辟Opinion专栏发表热门话题正反两个方面的意见。像楼主这样拿Opinion版的文章冠上WSJ的名字有mislead的嫌疑。
我各人对幼儿疫苗的问题，由于死亡率低，所以也怀疑打疫苗的必要性，但反对楼主这种做法。下面是WSJ关于它的Opinion版的声明，特别强调这两个版的不同，Opinion版的文章不代表WSJ的看法和认可。
https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/
nj_guy 发表于 2022-07-07 07:32
是的，这些报纸不管是NYT 还是 WSJ， opinion pieces 都 要慎看，我现在都跳过了。
楼主要搞清楚 WSJ Opinion 和 WSJ News 是两个不同的东西。这个相当于读者来信，许多新闻媒体为了保证公正性都会开辟Opinion专栏发表热门话题正反两个方面的意见。像楼主这样拿Opinion版的文章冠上WSJ的名字有mislead的嫌疑。
我各人对幼儿疫苗的问题，由于死亡率低，所以也怀疑打疫苗的必要性，但反对楼主这种做法。下面是WSJ关于它的Opinion版的声明，特别强调这两个版的不同，Opinion版的文章不代表WSJ的看法和认可。
https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/
nj_guy 发表于 2022-07-07 07:32
我摘出的3条是事实，不是Opinion。
另外，以前任何以简单科学事实为基础的质疑疫苗的Opinion都不可能在WSJ之类的猪妹发表。
我摘出的3条是事实，不是Opinion。
另外，以前任何以简单科学事实为基础的质疑疫苗的Opinion都不可能在WSJ之类的猪妹发表。
herbs 发表于 2022-07-07 11:03
WSJ本来是就是偏右派的媒体， 十多年前被Fox 老板收购后更是了！还猪妹？？
偏右派的报纸有时候会发偏左的opinion, 左派报纸有时候会发偏右的opinion, 这是常态。 至于这篇文章，跟左右有啥关系？
到底了
Hot Deals
All Deals