3 ms·

> Combined with effect being limited in time (say, for half a year) this would create a steady revenue stream. Why would the effect be limited? I mean it could

by zohch 5y ago

> Combined with effect being limited in time (say, for half a year) this would create a steady revenue stream. Why would the effect be limited? I mean it could be, but it could also cause people to turn green, not sure why we would consider either of those to be likely though without more info. If you are assuming the effect will be limited because the effect of the covid vaccine is limited, this may be more related to covid than to mRNA vaccines, especially since the non mRNA covid vaccines seems to be less effective than the mRNA vaccines, and not more so. And after all, the mechanism of action for mRNA vaccines and non mRNA vaccines are not fundamentally different, both induce an immune response to a pathogen without giving you a disease.

OJFord 5y ago
The second half of the quote? At least I think that's the implication. i.e. No incentive to make it unlimited, or even an incentive to make it limited if unlimited found first. (Or both, and way mark-up the unlimited one.) Not saying I agree/am quite that suspicious/pessimistic necessarily, but that's how I read it.
- zohch 5y ago
  Okay, sure, but this would be quite the feat of medical engineering to hack the immune system to the point where it no longer operates as normal, as the normal function of the immune system is what determines the immune response to a vaccine and the resulting immunity. I mean they could make one that turns you green and then mark up the one that does not also, that has not been the case, and generally vaccines produced by private companies without government involvement have significantly outperformed every vaccine made with government involvement, and every government action in US and most of the west in relation to these covid vaccines has been to favor pharmaceutical companies that make them over it's own citizenry, so basically it seems that the pharmaceutical companies that made these vaccines are much more deserving of public trust than many governments. I mean if the pharmacutical companies abducted your children in the middle of the night and ransomed them back to you that would also create a steady revenue stream, not sure why it would be something to consider.
  - Leparamour 5y ago
    >Okay, sure, but this would be quite the feat of medical engineering to hack the immune system to the point where it no longer operates as normal Is it? We had immunosuppressors for decades, we know about about AIDS and gene therapy. Doesn't sound like such an extreme feat to me.
    - bigfudge 5y ago
      Immunosuppressive drugs are incredibly crude and broad brush.
    - zohch 5y ago
      I am pretty sure that it would be illegal to give people a vaccine designed to induce gene therapy that suppresses your immune system in order to ensure people need to get it more than once. And still, I actually trust the pharmaceutical companies to not do this more than I trust governments to not give them permission to do it, as they have been much better actors in the pandemic than almost every government.
  - buran77 5y ago
    Obtaining a steady revenue stream is something that makes perfect sense in any business. And it's literally documented that curing a disease is a questionable business proposition for the companies that could rather sell the treatment instead. [0] On the other hand turning people green or any other such random proposition makes no sense. This is a weak analogy fallacy, dismissing a strong argument that has been observed in practice again and again by attacking an "analogous" but worthless pseudo-argument like "of course they're not turning people green". And I don't even want to get into the whole "if the pharmacutical companies abducted your children in the middle of the night and ransomed them back to you" nonsense. It's not making the point you think it's making, it just makes it look like you don't understand the discussion. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/curing-disease-not-a-sustainable-business-model-goldman-sachs-analysts-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/curing-disease-n...
    - zohch 5y ago

by zohch 5y ago

OJFord 5y ago

The second half of the quote? At least I think that's the implication. i.e. No incentive to make it unlimited, or even an incentive to make it limited if unlimited found first. (Or both, and way mark-up the unlimited one.) Not saying I agree/am quite that suspicious/pessimistic necessarily, but that's how I read it.

zohch 5y ago
Okay, sure, but this would be quite the feat of medical engineering to hack the immune system to the point where it no longer operates as normal, as the normal function of the immune system is what determines the immune response to a vaccine and the resulting immunity. I mean they could make one that turns you green and then mark up the one that does not also, that has not been the case, and generally vaccines produced by private companies without government involvement have significantly outperformed every vaccine made with government involvement, and every government action in US and most of the west in relation to these covid vaccines has been to favor pharmaceutical companies that make them over it's own citizenry, so basically it seems that the pharmaceutical companies that made these vaccines are much more deserving of public trust than many governments. I mean if the pharmacutical companies abducted your children in the middle of the night and ransomed them back to you that would also create a steady revenue stream, not sure why it would be something to consider.
- Leparamour 5y ago
  >Okay, sure, but this would be quite the feat of medical engineering to hack the immune system to the point where it no longer operates as normal Is it? We had immunosuppressors for decades, we know about about AIDS and gene therapy. Doesn't sound like such an extreme feat to me.
  - bigfudge 5y ago
    Immunosuppressive drugs are incredibly crude and broad brush.
  - zohch 5y ago
    I am pretty sure that it would be illegal to give people a vaccine designed to induce gene therapy that suppresses your immune system in order to ensure people need to get it more than once. And still, I actually trust the pharmaceutical companies to not do this more than I trust governments to not give them permission to do it, as they have been much better actors in the pandemic than almost every government.
- buran77 5y ago
  Obtaining a steady revenue stream is something that makes perfect sense in any business. And it's literally documented that curing a disease is a questionable business proposition for the companies that could rather sell the treatment instead. [0] On the other hand turning people green or any other such random proposition makes no sense. This is a weak analogy fallacy, dismissing a strong argument that has been observed in practice again and again by attacking an "analogous" but worthless pseudo-argument like "of course they're not turning people green". And I don't even want to get into the whole "if the pharmacutical companies abducted your children in the middle of the night and ransomed them back to you" nonsense. It's not making the point you think it's making, it just makes it look like you don't understand the discussion. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/curing-disease-not-a-sustainable-business-model-goldman-sachs-analysts-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/curing-disease-n...
  - zohch 5y ago