11 ms·

Not trying to be cheeky: How many millions of citizens here in the U.S. will abstain from a potential cancer vaccine if based off this research? Would the same

Not trying to be cheeky: How many millions of citizens here in the U.S. will abstain from a potential cancer vaccine if based off this research? Would the same religious/tribal objections be held, for example, if the disease to be prevented was cancer vs a virus of unknown origin? Would it still be viewed by so many as a political/big-pharma conspiracy ("But where did the cancer come from?" etc.)? Cynical me says it would.

acomjean 5y ago
There is a cancer vaccine (HPV) for cervical cancers. Its a touchy subject but reports are vaccinations are declining. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/well/live/hpv-vaccine-children.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/well/live/hpv-vaccine-chi... "that parental intent not to vaccinate their adolescents against HPV rose from 50.4 percent in 2012 to 64 percent in 2018. Many parents resisted the vaccine despite their doctors’ recommendations, Dr. Sonawane said. Ironically, parents were most resistant — at 68.1 percent — to vaccinating girls, the very group for whom this vaccine was initially developed to prevent cervical cancer." https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html When in a doctors office with a cancer diagnosis, people will take it.
- snarfy 5y ago
  My trump loving father-in-law tried to deny my niece from getting the HPV vaccine because it would 'increase promiscuity'. It's literally a cure for cancer and they don't care.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    The logic of "I'll make sure my minor child doesn't have sex with the threat of an untreatable STD and substantially higher lifetime risk of cancer" is so incredibly insane to me I have a hard time empathizing on any level. Seems akin to "I'm going to forbid my child from wearing a seatbelt to ensure they pay attention while they drive."
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I hope you set him straight on that count.
    - qzw 5y ago
      Boromir meme: One does not simply set a trumpy FIL straight. Source: have a trumpy FIL.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    Well Trump is a great authority on promiscuity :-)
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    Ask him if he's removed his smoke detectors because they encourage children to play with matches.
- josephwegner 5y ago
  Men too :) HPV is most commonly known for being a cause of cervical cancer, but it can lead to other sorts of cancer that men are also prone to. HPV vaccines are good for everyone! https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm
- kemayo 5y ago
  I got it for my daughter the instant she was eligible last year, because cervical cancer is awful and it seemed stupid not to. My experience suggests that it was something the doctor's office wasn't actively pushing -- they made it known that it was available without me having to ask, but it was presented very much as a "do you want to?" thing, rather than as part of the "of course you'll be getting this" set of earlier vaccines. Then it was sort of a pain to actually get, because it required an extra doctor visit for the second shot in the series. I can see all that adding up to hurting uptake.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > When in a doctors office with a cancer diagnosis, people will take it. That's a bit late.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    It may not even be true - cancer has a denial phase.
- mmastrac 5y ago
  When the research showed it was useful for men (in both self- and other-protection regards), it was still not an easy task to get my doctor to prescribe it for me. Zero hesitation on my part to get it, even with the extremely high price tag.
  - maweaver 5y ago
    My doctor told me I was too old for it. I went to CVS instead and got it for free, zero questions asked.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      If you already have HPV I'm not sure it does any good.
  - zhengyi13 5y ago
    I'm curious how long ago this was for you? When my 15 year old son went to his new doctor earlier this year, they immediately strongly suggested it as a very good idea.
    - mmastrac 5y ago
      Approx 3 years ago, but I was in my late 30s.
shadowgovt 5y ago
People have a belief that they can just tough out COVID, and so the vaccine is a long-term-risk tradeoff: suffer unknown side-effects of the vaccine, or maybe die of this disease that my friend had and recovered from? This immunotherapy is cotemporal with "traditional" immunological and chemo treatments, so the mortality calculus is different: "Suffer potential unknown side-effects of an mRNA therapy or content myself with that 'three months' number the doctor gave me?"
bkjelden 5y ago
I tend to think the abstinence rate would be much lower than with the vaccine. Cancer scares people in a way that COVID doesn't. Many of the anti-vaxxers do not perceive COVID as a credible risk, so they let their contrarian/anti-authoritarian/"don't tell me what to do" instincts kick in, because none of it actually matters to them in their mind. When faced with a form of cancer that has a <10% survival rate they will shut up and take the mRNA treatment in a heartbeat.
- hackinthebochs 5y ago
  The operative word being treatment rather than prophylaxis.
- hncurious 5y ago
  I agree. It'd be the same with Covid too if the risk was high. Ultimately the reason so many don't want a Covid vaccine is because the risk of hospitalization is only 1.6% and is well below 1% if you're young and otherwise healthy. Or if you already had Covid and have natural immunity you're about as protected as the vaccinated (<1% chance of hospitalization). If the risk of hospitalization or death was 10%? 30%? Almost everyone would want the vaccine except the real hardcore anti-vaxxers. You wouldn't have to mandate or otherwise coerce people to take something if the threat was that credible generally. Few resist the smallpox vaccine, for example.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    The threat is very credible. Just as the misinformation and bullshit campaign is very powerful. To the point where even a credible threat isn't enough to get people to act in their own best interest. With odds approaching 1:400 across the whole population of death and substantially higher of a serious bout of disease it is quite amazing how many people continue to downplay this because of the age factor. If the odds were that good for the lottery I'd be playing.
    - hncurious 5y ago
      The fear campaign is very powerful too. People radically overestimate the risk. A large % of the population overestimates it by 48.4%! "For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19." https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat... But yes, on the other side of it, if a 60 year old obese person isn't taking the vaccine, they're misinformed too. Their risk benefit analysis is off.
locallost 5y ago
I think that's less problematic as you can't infect someone with cancer if you have it. But my guess is you are right. Although I will say that suspicious people are occasionally right. Trusting science has a proven track record, but it doesn't have a 100% shooting percentage, so I would be ok with not having a debate there.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease You can't infect anyone yet, at least
  - stavros 5y ago
    Sure you can, HPV is infectious and causes cervical cancer.
    - locallost 5y ago
      But that's a virus that can cause cancer. You could theoretically get a cancer vaccine and still transmit HPV if you have it.
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        You can transmit it to those you have sex with. That's a pretty narrow means of transmission, and one that is already a vector for a variety of other diseases.
      - stavros 5y ago
        Hmm, what do you mean? Vaccines generally protect you from the disease more than they protect unvaccinated others from you transmitting it.
        locallost 5y ago
        That you still can't infect someone with cancer. But it's not so important.
toolz 5y ago
I personally don't know anyone that abstains from MMR/polio/chickenpox vaccines. I think this whole anti-anti-vaxxer meme has really got people riled up and ignoring just how many people are already taking vaccines. over 92% of kids have 3 doses of polio vaccine by the time they're 24 months according to the CDC. Something tells me that number gets much higher with just another year or two. It's a sad day for honest debate when being skeptical of an item gets you labeled as being "anti" an entire category of things to which that item belongs. To be clear I don't think your question is expressly stating that anti-vaxxers are a big concern, but if there's a genuine concern that a vaccine is well established to work, an incredibly large majority of people take it in the U.S. so I don't think the concern is warranted.
- brokensegue 5y ago
  I personally don't know anyone who voted for Trump. Who you know is not a representative sample. There are lots of vaccine deniers and they occasionally cause problems.
  - toolz 5y ago
    which is why I gave stats from the CDC
    - brokensegue 5y ago
      20% of americans polled refuse to get any COVID vaccine. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033750072/the-share-of-u-s-adults-willing-to-get-vaccinated-ticks-up-a-new-poll-finds https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033750072/the-share-of-u-s-a... That isn't a small amount. If you don't think this has/will cause at least minimal problems you are mistaken.
      - toolz 5y ago
        What are these problems you speak of? We have countries like Gibraltar which has been 100% vaccinated since April of this year, they continue to have case spikes. It's indisputable that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission and recently in a court of law the Federal government went on record saying it lacked evidence that it even slowed transmission. That's why the courts overruled the CMS vaccine mandates in so many states. Personally, I think this vaccine has done a great deal of harm reduction and I'm glad people in at-risk categories have access to it, but pretending there is some big social consequence for these people not taking the vaccine is ill-informed. They might be hurting themselves, but literally no one who is alive for the next few years will escape being attacked by covid. Because no one will escape covid, there is no logic behind suggesting people refusing vaccinations is a social consequence. It's a personal consequence alone.
kevin_b_er 5y ago
So we'll have a group of people who suffer from cancer and those who don't. Natural selection it would seem.
throwawayboise 5y ago
If it demonstrably cures diagnosed cancer I think most people will not hesitate, especially for cancers that have a high mortality and/or few other treatment options. If it's proposed as a vaccine for cancer that you don't have yet, there would be more hesitancy.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  The HPV vaccine is proven to prevent cervical, throat, and other cancers. Uptake outside of a few developed countries is woefully low considering the benefit. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743520304308 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009174352...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 5y ago
People turn to pseudo-scientific stuff as a last resort (or the only) as well, so I would not necessarily say they would not get the vaccine if it might be their last hope.
nvahalik 5y ago
As someone who is very anti-COVID vaccinations, my problem with it isn't the vaccine itself or the underlying technology so much as it's been the plethora of other issues associated with it. The normal processes for drug approval were bypassed and so as a result we have very limited safety data and no long-term >5yr safety data at all. With something like this, I would expect it to go through those trials and see that we'd have some sort of safety data and further research. Again, I am actually very positive about mRNA therapies—I just want them to be fully tested and vetted first.
- standardUser 5y ago
  Yes, though it is funny how until it became a political issue, virtually no one knew anything about the processes by which new drugs made their way into their body.
- multjoy 5y ago
  So you'd simply let a pandemic rage for five years?
  - nvahalik 5y ago
    The problem, of course, is that vaccinations don't _end_ pandemics. If they did, some places would likely be completely free of COVID. However, they are not. They lessen the effects but many people have pointed out that this whole thing is entirely new territory: We have a flu "vaccination" but the flu us just something people learn to live with. We have never——ever——forced mass vaccination against a viral respiratory infection. Because we cannot vaccinate it away. COVID is here to stay and I (personally) don't think anything will happen until people contract it enough to get a good natural immunity and then things will go away.
  - gassiss 5y ago
    Just because you don't agree with X doesn't mean you need to have an alternative for it
  - donkarma 5y ago
    it seems that this was going to happen vaccine or not
standardUser 5y ago
It depends 100% on if the conservative media and figureheads like Trump think they can make hay out of turning any given medical treatment into a way to oppose liberals. Let's hope they can't.
anonymouse008 5y ago
> Not trying to be cheeky: How many millions of citizens here in the U.S. will abstain from a potential cancer vaccine if based off this research? Would the same religious/tribal objections be held, for example, if the disease to be prevented was cancer vs a virus of unknown origin? Would it still be viewed by so many as a political/big-pharma conspiracy ("But where did the cancer come from?" etc.)? So this misses the full Covid-19 vaccine critique and provides a disturbing slant instead of the proposed hazards. The specific critique is that the protein chosen in C19 vaccines is in fact dangerous in its own right. mRNA as a mechanism of delivering a protein to the body is anything but an empirical debate -- the tech works, and works decently well for risk profiles who have no other option. The philosophical / duty of care debate is whether or not the risks associated with mRNA therapies / vaccines are worth the inherent risks. Equating Covid 19 for the common person as the same as cancer for the common person doesn't appear to balance. If C19 had cancer mortality rates, this pandemic would look drastically different -- with far few people in the room.
disambiguation 5y ago
There are 2 main differences 1. This is article is describing a therapy, not prevention. Your sensibilities will be influenced if you already have a deadly illness. 2. This would be a choice and not a mandate, like chemotherapy is today. Or at least I imagine it would be. I'm sure many anti vaxxers who've died from covid would've accepted the vaccine on their death beds if it improved their chances of fighting the disease at that point.

acomjean 5y ago

There is a cancer vaccine (HPV) for cervical cancers. Its a touchy subject but reports are vaccinations are declining. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/well/live/hpv-vaccine-children.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/well/live/hpv-vaccine-chi... "that parental intent not to vaccinate their adolescents against HPV rose from 50.4 percent in 2012 to 64 percent in 2018. Many parents resisted the vaccine despite their doctors’ recommendations, Dr. Sonawane said. Ironically, parents were most resistant — at 68.1 percent — to vaccinating girls, the very group for whom this vaccine was initially developed to prevent cervical cancer." https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html When in a doctors office with a cancer diagnosis, people will take it.

snarfy 5y ago
My trump loving father-in-law tried to deny my niece from getting the HPV vaccine because it would 'increase promiscuity'. It's literally a cure for cancer and they don't care.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  The logic of "I'll make sure my minor child doesn't have sex with the threat of an untreatable STD and substantially higher lifetime risk of cancer" is so incredibly insane to me I have a hard time empathizing on any level. Seems akin to "I'm going to forbid my child from wearing a seatbelt to ensure they pay attention while they drive."
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I hope you set him straight on that count.
  - qzw 5y ago
    Boromir meme: One does not simply set a trumpy FIL straight. Source: have a trumpy FIL.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  Well Trump is a great authority on promiscuity :-)
- mullingitover 5y ago
  Ask him if he's removed his smoke detectors because they encourage children to play with matches.
josephwegner 5y ago
Men too :) HPV is most commonly known for being a cause of cervical cancer, but it can lead to other sorts of cancer that men are also prone to. HPV vaccines are good for everyone! https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm
kemayo 5y ago
I got it for my daughter the instant she was eligible last year, because cervical cancer is awful and it seemed stupid not to. My experience suggests that it was something the doctor's office wasn't actively pushing -- they made it known that it was available without me having to ask, but it was presented very much as a "do you want to?" thing, rather than as part of the "of course you'll be getting this" set of earlier vaccines. Then it was sort of a pain to actually get, because it required an extra doctor visit for the second shot in the series. I can see all that adding up to hurting uptake.
jacquesm 5y ago
> When in a doctors office with a cancer diagnosis, people will take it. That's a bit late.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  It may not even be true - cancer has a denial phase.
mmastrac 5y ago
When the research showed it was useful for men (in both self- and other-protection regards), it was still not an easy task to get my doctor to prescribe it for me. Zero hesitation on my part to get it, even with the extremely high price tag.
- maweaver 5y ago
  My doctor told me I was too old for it. I went to CVS instead and got it for free, zero questions asked.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    If you already have HPV I'm not sure it does any good.
- zhengyi13 5y ago
  I'm curious how long ago this was for you? When my 15 year old son went to his new doctor earlier this year, they immediately strongly suggested it as a very good idea.
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    Approx 3 years ago, but I was in my late 30s.

shadowgovt 5y ago

People have a belief that they can just tough out COVID, and so the vaccine is a long-term-risk tradeoff: suffer unknown side-effects of the vaccine, or maybe die of this disease that my friend had and recovered from? This immunotherapy is cotemporal with "traditional" immunological and chemo treatments, so the mortality calculus is different: "Suffer potential unknown side-effects of an mRNA therapy or content myself with that 'three months' number the doctor gave me?"

bkjelden 5y ago

I tend to think the abstinence rate would be much lower than with the vaccine. Cancer scares people in a way that COVID doesn't. Many of the anti-vaxxers do not perceive COVID as a credible risk, so they let their contrarian/anti-authoritarian/"don't tell me what to do" instincts kick in, because none of it actually matters to them in their mind. When faced with a form of cancer that has a <10% survival rate they will shut up and take the mRNA treatment in a heartbeat.

hackinthebochs 5y ago
The operative word being treatment rather than prophylaxis.
hncurious 5y ago
I agree. It'd be the same with Covid too if the risk was high. Ultimately the reason so many don't want a Covid vaccine is because the risk of hospitalization is only 1.6% and is well below 1% if you're young and otherwise healthy. Or if you already had Covid and have natural immunity you're about as protected as the vaccinated (<1% chance of hospitalization). If the risk of hospitalization or death was 10%? 30%? Almost everyone would want the vaccine except the real hardcore anti-vaxxers. You wouldn't have to mandate or otherwise coerce people to take something if the threat was that credible generally. Few resist the smallpox vaccine, for example.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  The threat is very credible. Just as the misinformation and bullshit campaign is very powerful. To the point where even a credible threat isn't enough to get people to act in their own best interest. With odds approaching 1:400 across the whole population of death and substantially higher of a serious bout of disease it is quite amazing how many people continue to downplay this because of the age factor. If the odds were that good for the lottery I'd be playing.
  - hncurious 5y ago
    The fear campaign is very powerful too. People radically overestimate the risk. A large % of the population overestimates it by 48.4%! "For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19." https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat... But yes, on the other side of it, if a 60 year old obese person isn't taking the vaccine, they're misinformed too. Their risk benefit analysis is off.

locallost 5y ago

I think that's less problematic as you can't infect someone with cancer if you have it. But my guess is you are right. Although I will say that suspicious people are occasionally right. Trusting science has a proven track record, but it doesn't have a 100% shooting percentage, so I would be ok with not having a debate there.

thatguy0900 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease You can't infect anyone yet, at least
- stavros 5y ago
  Sure you can, HPV is infectious and causes cervical cancer.
  - locallost 5y ago
    But that's a virus that can cause cancer. You could theoretically get a cancer vaccine and still transmit HPV if you have it.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      You can transmit it to those you have sex with. That's a pretty narrow means of transmission, and one that is already a vector for a variety of other diseases.
    - stavros 5y ago
      Hmm, what do you mean? Vaccines generally protect you from the disease more than they protect unvaccinated others from you transmitting it.
      - locallost 5y ago
        That you still can't infect someone with cancer. But it's not so important.

toolz 5y ago

I personally don't know anyone that abstains from MMR/polio/chickenpox vaccines. I think this whole anti-anti-vaxxer meme has really got people riled up and ignoring just how many people are already taking vaccines. over 92% of kids have 3 doses of polio vaccine by the time they're 24 months according to the CDC. Something tells me that number gets much higher with just another year or two. It's a sad day for honest debate when being skeptical of an item gets you labeled as being "anti" an entire category of things to which that item belongs. To be clear I don't think your question is expressly stating that anti-vaxxers are a big concern, but if there's a genuine concern that a vaccine is well established to work, an incredibly large majority of people take it in the U.S. so I don't think the concern is warranted.

brokensegue 5y ago
I personally don't know anyone who voted for Trump. Who you know is not a representative sample. There are lots of vaccine deniers and they occasionally cause problems.
- toolz 5y ago
  which is why I gave stats from the CDC
  - brokensegue 5y ago
    20% of americans polled refuse to get any COVID vaccine. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033750072/the-share-of-u-s-adults-willing-to-get-vaccinated-ticks-up-a-new-poll-finds https://www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033750072/the-share-of-u-s-a... That isn't a small amount. If you don't think this has/will cause at least minimal problems you are mistaken.
    - toolz 5y ago
      What are these problems you speak of? We have countries like Gibraltar which has been 100% vaccinated since April of this year, they continue to have case spikes. It's indisputable that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission and recently in a court of law the Federal government went on record saying it lacked evidence that it even slowed transmission. That's why the courts overruled the CMS vaccine mandates in so many states. Personally, I think this vaccine has done a great deal of harm reduction and I'm glad people in at-risk categories have access to it, but pretending there is some big social consequence for these people not taking the vaccine is ill-informed. They might be hurting themselves, but literally no one who is alive for the next few years will escape being attacked by covid. Because no one will escape covid, there is no logic behind suggesting people refusing vaccinations is a social consequence. It's a personal consequence alone.

kevin_b_er 5y ago

So we'll have a group of people who suffer from cancer and those who don't. Natural selection it would seem.

throwawayboise 5y ago

If it demonstrably cures diagnosed cancer I think most people will not hesitate, especially for cancers that have a high mortality and/or few other treatment options. If it's proposed as a vaccine for cancer that you don't have yet, there would be more hesitancy.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
The HPV vaccine is proven to prevent cervical, throat, and other cancers. Uptake outside of a few developed countries is woefully low considering the benefit. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743520304308 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009174352...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

johnisgood 5y ago

People turn to pseudo-scientific stuff as a last resort (or the only) as well, so I would not necessarily say they would not get the vaccine if it might be their last hope.

nvahalik 5y ago

As someone who is very anti-COVID vaccinations, my problem with it isn't the vaccine itself or the underlying technology so much as it's been the plethora of other issues associated with it. The normal processes for drug approval were bypassed and so as a result we have very limited safety data and no long-term >5yr safety data at all. With something like this, I would expect it to go through those trials and see that we'd have some sort of safety data and further research. Again, I am actually very positive about mRNA therapies—I just want them to be fully tested and vetted first.

standardUser 5y ago
Yes, though it is funny how until it became a political issue, virtually no one knew anything about the processes by which new drugs made their way into their body.
multjoy 5y ago
So you'd simply let a pandemic rage for five years?
- nvahalik 5y ago
  The problem, of course, is that vaccinations don't _end_ pandemics. If they did, some places would likely be completely free of COVID. However, they are not. They lessen the effects but many people have pointed out that this whole thing is entirely new territory: We have a flu "vaccination" but the flu us just something people learn to live with. We have never——ever——forced mass vaccination against a viral respiratory infection. Because we cannot vaccinate it away. COVID is here to stay and I (personally) don't think anything will happen until people contract it enough to get a good natural immunity and then things will go away.
- gassiss 5y ago
  Just because you don't agree with X doesn't mean you need to have an alternative for it
- donkarma 5y ago
  it seems that this was going to happen vaccine or not

standardUser 5y ago

It depends 100% on if the conservative media and figureheads like Trump think they can make hay out of turning any given medical treatment into a way to oppose liberals. Let's hope they can't.

anonymouse008 5y ago

> Not trying to be cheeky: How many millions of citizens here in the U.S. will abstain from a potential cancer vaccine if based off this research? Would the same religious/tribal objections be held, for example, if the disease to be prevented was cancer vs a virus of unknown origin? Would it still be viewed by so many as a political/big-pharma conspiracy ("But where did the cancer come from?" etc.)? So this misses the full Covid-19 vaccine critique and provides a disturbing slant instead of the proposed hazards. The specific critique is that the protein chosen in C19 vaccines is in fact dangerous in its own right. mRNA as a mechanism of delivering a protein to the body is anything but an empirical debate -- the tech works, and works decently well for risk profiles who have no other option. The philosophical / duty of care debate is whether or not the risks associated with mRNA therapies / vaccines are worth the inherent risks. Equating Covid 19 for the common person as the same as cancer for the common person doesn't appear to balance. If C19 had cancer mortality rates, this pandemic would look drastically different -- with far few people in the room.

disambiguation 5y ago

There are 2 main differences 1. This is article is describing a therapy, not prevention. Your sensibilities will be influenced if you already have a deadly illness. 2. This would be a choice and not a mandate, like chemotherapy is today. Or at least I imagine it would be. I'm sure many anti vaxxers who've died from covid would've accepted the vaccine on their death beds if it improved their chances of fighting the disease at that point.