InstantHockey

btw careful with the american lobby here. I have already been called an anti-vaxxer for wanting MORE vaccines on the market, they will throw something equally ridiculous at you for wanting more types of vaccines.

yes. Thats literally what i said earlier. For any given nation that's not a major manufacturer ( aka us), it makes sense to use the mRNA ones first and then transition to the more long lasting forms as they come out. The pharma lobby pressure comes into play to keep a cornered market cornered. Thats all. This is basic greed angle, not a conspiracy. If i cornered the market first with my produt, i would wanna keep it that way. If you were the authorities wanting to give people the most choice and see true competition, you would not want to have it that way and i would have to exert pressure to keep it that way. This is literally how every major business sector works - i am simply pointing that out and how in this case, the chance of it turning into an epidemic is what puts the onus on us to ask our government to give us the most variety of options possible.

i would be very surprised if it got approved to be honest. If we didn't allow sputnik to conduct user trials in Canada, i don't see why we would allow another vaccine from a weaker foreign power to upset the american gravy train. But its a matter of time before it gets approved for international travel, same with Sputnik.

they beat the yanks to space and it also seems they beat the yanks to making the best vaccine on the market. Can't say i am surprised about the nation that started mass scale retroviral research decades before anyone else.

well what i said here is a matter of record. Last i checked, its not the indians,chinese, japanese or russian pharma industry that deliberately lied to cause mass scale opioid addiction in its own consumers. last i checked, its not them who block AIDS medication to the world's poorest and last i checked, its them who donated the most vaccines in the initial days of the pandemic while our overlords in the US put USA first. So pardon me if i want to give my fellow Canadians more options than stick to the spiel of the most nefarious end of the medical pool worldwide.

Yes. i believe i covered this in my first post on the topic. Covaxin is an inactivated viral vaccine. They take longer to develop, as the entire virus given to the human body takes longer study. Hence it came out much later, despite coming from the largest vaccine producer's market. Same with Sinopharm one. different types of vaccines have their pros and cons. As with different types of tech for the same outcome. The main attraction of the IVC types is that it sees far less efficacy drop over time ( again, the reason is obvious) and is cheaper to transport. The main drawback is, it takes longer to produce, has lower overall efficacy and slightly higher risk of vaccine injury. The main advantage of the mRNA is that it is quickest to develop and hit the market and a higher initial efficacy. The main drawback is, it drops off efficacy the worst over time, while being the most expensive to transport. The attenuated viral vector vaccine ( sputnik, AZ) sit between these two in terms of development cycle time and transportation cost, their efficacy rate has too big a spread ( AZ is at low 70s percent initially, Sputnik is at low 90s) to effectively classify it relative to the other two tech types. These are the pros and cons of the various types in a nutshell. Hence i think we should approve more, with a greater flexibility for the canadians to take it in the future - as if this becomes an epidemic and not a pandemic ( ie, not iradicated completely), then the question of vaccine for people not born yet becomes the next factor to consider.

.

and while i am at it, you can dodge away basic questions and come up with ridiculous charges to protect your financial interests at the expense of giving canadians more choices. Lets hear it again how the guy who wants more vaccines on the market is the anti-vaxxer.

if you think i am going to provide you with my employer info, you must be new to the world of messageboards. Also, why dodge my question re: efficacy drop ?

so its tinfoil hat to point out that we have made no efforts to approve vaccines that use the oldest vaccine technology and is made by manufacturers who routinely clash in the WTO with the american ones we are buying from over trade practices ?? I notice how none of you will touch the actual arguments re: the various types of vaccines and use outright lies to keep the american bottomline intact

for academia.

so mr medical professional - are you disputing the fact that its the mRNA vaccines that have shown the greatest efficacy drop over time compared to the IVC and the AVV types ?

i wasn't around 18 hrs ago, he is basically taking a shot at me because i am new here and exposing his likely financially motivated self-interest bias due to working in the medical industry.

thats a bit of a leap over vaccines...i am simply saying that the pros and cons of the vaccine types in the markets make it clear that its now time to transition to other options. Or make them available. The greatest pro of the mRNA is that it is the easiest type to develop and make. Hence it makes the greatest sense to go for it first, as it hits the market. But once the IVC types are out, its time to move towards them, as they are the most tried and proven vaccine technology and have the least efficacy drop over time. How on earth is that not the most optimal scenario for us ??

oh and correction- Canada used a single non american vaccine before we quickly caved to american oligarchic interests for the vaccines that have the greatest ease of manufacture and the greatest efficacy drop over time. I believe i listed the pros and cons of all three main vaccine types in the market.