3 ms·

I feel that articles like this one are much closer to propaganda than to any explanation of science. 1. In comparing risks of adverse effects of drugs with tho

by aiilns 5y ago

I feel that articles like this one are much closer to propaganda than to any explanation of science. 1. In comparing risks of adverse effects of drugs with those of covid vaccines the author is missing a big point. Namely, medications are given to help patients (i.e. already sick people) or prophylactically to people in serious risk of developing an illness. Covid vaccines have been given and continue to be given to perfectly healthy people who are in minimal risk. Now, other vaccines we do administer to healthy people, so a more proper comparison would be between other vaccines - but, while I don't have any data to quote, I believe you'll find significant higher risks of adverse effects from the covid vaccines than from previous vaccines. 2. > And the principles behind it [mRNA technology] are startlingly simple and elegant. Now this is quite problematic the way I see it. First off, I have a medical degree and I find the technology incredibly complex. Secondly, the author uses "simplicity" as a crutch to support her argument further down that since mRNA translation happens outside the nucleus (where the DNA is) there is in no way any interaction between DNA and mRNA. I'm not saying that the mRNA vaccines alter our DNA; I wouldn't know. I do know there are a couple of ways - at least - that mRNA can go back to DNA (retrotransposons for example). But, I also believe that when developing the technology, issues like this have been given serious thought by smarter and more knowledgeable people than me. That, however, doesn't take away the fact that the author is omitting quite a lot in order to present a nicer, simpler picture of reality. Well, that's quite close to lying in my book. These two issues at least stood out for me. I'm not "anti-vaccine", I'm just "anti-bullshitting". And no, even if you have the best intentions in mind, it's still very much bullshit. edit: minor layout edits

Exmoor 5y ago
> Now this is quite problematic the way I see it. First off, I have a medical degree and I find the technology incredibly complex. Secondly, the author uses "simplicity" as a crutch to support her argument further down that since mRNA translation happens outside the nucleus (where the DNA is) there is in no way any interaction between DNA and mRNA. If someone is concerned about this they are either ignorant of how mRNA viruses such as SARS-COV-2 (and every "cold" and flu virus) reproduce or have to explain away how having a fixed amount of vaccine mRNA translation is bad, but having an unlimited amount of SARS-COV-2 translation (including those same spike proteins) is fine. This is a process that has happened literally billions, if not trillions, of times in every single HN readers body with other viruses not some exotic thing.
- native_samples 5y ago
  I have a genuine question here, that I've tried to find the answer to before and struggled to get good data on. I'd really like to understand the actual size of dosages that you get from both the vaccines and different kinds of viral infections, in comparable units. For example a table mapping viral load in PCR cycle thresholds to microgram dosages of the different brands of vaccines. The assertion that the vaccines give you way less mRNA / cell death than the actual virus sounds like it should obviously be true, but I can't find any papers that measure it, and I keep encountering people for whom the vaccine appeared to actually give them COVID for a day or two. I've also known people who had COVID naturally and whose symptoms and duration was pretty much the same as those people reporting bad side effects from the vaccines, which I'd guess is somewhere between 25%-50% of people taking it, judging from my social circle, but it's hard to know exactly. The best info I could get is that dosages were obtained by simply starting really low and then steadily increasing it until antibody titers were high "enough" and side effects were still considered tolerable. However the dosages of some brands are much higher than others. At that point information became proprietary and I couldn't go further. Still, given the wide range of severities of infections it's not totally clear why this process was expected to yield a drastically lower dose than all possible viral infections.

by aiilns 5y ago

Exmoor 5y ago

> Now this is quite problematic the way I see it. First off, I have a medical degree and I find the technology incredibly complex. Secondly, the author uses "simplicity" as a crutch to support her argument further down that since mRNA translation happens outside the nucleus (where the DNA is) there is in no way any interaction between DNA and mRNA. If someone is concerned about this they are either ignorant of how mRNA viruses such as SARS-COV-2 (and every "cold" and flu virus) reproduce or have to explain away how having a fixed amount of vaccine mRNA translation is bad, but having an unlimited amount of SARS-COV-2 translation (including those same spike proteins) is fine. This is a process that has happened literally billions, if not trillions, of times in every single HN readers body with other viruses not some exotic thing.

native_samples 5y ago
I have a genuine question here, that I've tried to find the answer to before and struggled to get good data on. I'd really like to understand the actual size of dosages that you get from both the vaccines and different kinds of viral infections, in comparable units. For example a table mapping viral load in PCR cycle thresholds to microgram dosages of the different brands of vaccines. The assertion that the vaccines give you way less mRNA / cell death than the actual virus sounds like it should obviously be true, but I can't find any papers that measure it, and I keep encountering people for whom the vaccine appeared to actually give them COVID for a day or two. I've also known people who had COVID naturally and whose symptoms and duration was pretty much the same as those people reporting bad side effects from the vaccines, which I'd guess is somewhere between 25%-50% of people taking it, judging from my social circle, but it's hard to know exactly. The best info I could get is that dosages were obtained by simply starting really low and then steadily increasing it until antibody titers were high "enough" and side effects were still considered tolerable. However the dosages of some brands are much higher than others. At that point information became proprietary and I couldn't go further. Still, given the wide range of severities of infections it's not totally clear why this process was expected to yield a drastically lower dose than all possible viral infections.