3 ms·

> One such thing is sudden onset symptoms well after the thing has left your system, because there isn't a biological way for that to have an effect The hard p

> One such thing is sudden onset symptoms well after the thing has left your system, because there isn't a biological way for that to have an effect The hard part about conversations like this are that you could have written the definitive book on this stuff, or you could be just another dummy on the internet like me. So I have to take a statement like that and do my best to evaluate it myself, since I have no idea how to value your expertise. If you're an expert of some sort, I apologize in advance. We know for a fact that vaccines have long term effects. They wouldn't be useful otherwise. It would be nice if they could only have positive long term effects, but why would there be any guarantee of that? Symptoms could start immediately but be undetectable until they progress far enough (think a tiny little tumor for just one example). Again, not claiming this is happening, just saying that it seems nutty to assume it can't happen. When I read "we understand how vaccines work pretty well", I automatically translate it to "we understand pretty well what happens when we inject a substance into a human body", and then I think "really?". We have some useful models, sure, but "understanding pretty well" seems a vast overstatement of the situation, especially when its laypeople chatting on the internet. The abstract concept of a vaccine is pretty simple. Anybody can regurgitate the picture book version of it. Any specific instantiation of one is remarkably complex, all the way from manufacturing, to transport, to administration, and then interacting with the legacy ball of spaghetti that is the human body and it's various systems. The fact that we humans decided to name some substance the same thing that we named some other substances that we created in the past doesn't necessarily tell you how that substance is going to interact with the body. It can provide you with hypotheses, but hypotheses need to be tested.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> We know for a fact that vaccines have long term effects. They wouldn't be useful otherwise. It would be nice if they could only have positive long term effects, but why would there be any guarantee of that? Correct, but, and this is the important bit: the only lasting thing the vaccines do is leave your body primed to react to certain proteins (everything else they "do" leaves the body pretty quickly, you can think of this as a fairly limited api they're interacting with). This could be a bad thing, but if it is 1. Anyone who naturally caught covid would also suffer the same consequences 2. you'd expect to see the issues as soon as the immune system was primed, this takes days to weeks, not months. So yes, there are all sorts of weird thins that could happen, but I'll reiterate: we know of know biological mechanisms that would make those things happen suddenly, without warning, months after the vaccine. We understand, very well, that such things can't really happen. Just because you don't understand the human body very well doesn't mean the medical establishment also has equally no clue.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  > the only lasting thing the vaccines do is leave your body primed to react to certain proteins That is of course the goal, and assumes nothing goes wrong in the manufacturing, transport, or delivery mechanism for the payload. But if they haven't been tested for long term adverse effects, how do we know this? And again the answer ends up being because we know how vaccines work and round and round we go. But let's leave that and assume that it actually does verifiably only prime the immune system to react to certain proteins. Is that some small thing? Immune disorders can range from annoying to horrific, and they're all from just reacting to certain proteins. > This could be a bad thing, but if it is 1. Anyone who naturally caught covid would also suffer the same consequences This seems to be a hypothesis. The current vaccines are based on a modified little chunk of a now extinct(?) variant of the virus plus some novel packaging. That they should have the same effect on the body as the whole current or future dominant variant (edit: entering the body via a different pathway) doesn't seem obviously true. > you'd expect to see the issues as soon as the immune system was primed, this takes days to weeks, not months Why? I'll use the same example again. If a tiny little tumor were formed, or would be formed over time as a result of some protein reaction that started right after being dosed, why would you expect it to be detectable immediately? The specific mechanism isn't important, it's just the "we can't think of a way it could fail, therefore we dont need to verify this" is just impossible for me to get my head around. Feel free to drop the conversation if this gets frustrating. I will continue to ask until I understand, and I may not get there. I'm actually enjoying this, but I know I'm weird and this drives some people nuts. > Just because you don't understand the human body very well doesn't mean the medical establishment also has equally no clue. Fair, but that's not my claim. I can be at 1, while the medical establishment is at 100, and actual understanding of what's going on in the body could be 10000. We do some black box testing and get some somewhat repeatable results. That's a pretty amazing feat, but still a far cry from really understanding what's going on under the hood.

joshuamorton 5y ago

> We know for a fact that vaccines have long term effects. They wouldn't be useful otherwise. It would be nice if they could only have positive long term effects, but why would there be any guarantee of that? Correct, but, and this is the important bit: the only lasting thing the vaccines do is leave your body primed to react to certain proteins (everything else they "do" leaves the body pretty quickly, you can think of this as a fairly limited api they're interacting with). This could be a bad thing, but if it is 1. Anyone who naturally caught covid would also suffer the same consequences 2. you'd expect to see the issues as soon as the immune system was primed, this takes days to weeks, not months. So yes, there are all sorts of weird thins that could happen, but I'll reiterate: we know of know biological mechanisms that would make those things happen suddenly, without warning, months after the vaccine. We understand, very well, that such things can't really happen. Just because you don't understand the human body very well doesn't mean the medical establishment also has equally no clue.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
> the only lasting thing the vaccines do is leave your body primed to react to certain proteins That is of course the goal, and assumes nothing goes wrong in the manufacturing, transport, or delivery mechanism for the payload. But if they haven't been tested for long term adverse effects, how do we know this? And again the answer ends up being because we know how vaccines work and round and round we go. But let's leave that and assume that it actually does verifiably only prime the immune system to react to certain proteins. Is that some small thing? Immune disorders can range from annoying to horrific, and they're all from just reacting to certain proteins. > This could be a bad thing, but if it is 1. Anyone who naturally caught covid would also suffer the same consequences This seems to be a hypothesis. The current vaccines are based on a modified little chunk of a now extinct(?) variant of the virus plus some novel packaging. That they should have the same effect on the body as the whole current or future dominant variant (edit: entering the body via a different pathway) doesn't seem obviously true. > you'd expect to see the issues as soon as the immune system was primed, this takes days to weeks, not months Why? I'll use the same example again. If a tiny little tumor were formed, or would be formed over time as a result of some protein reaction that started right after being dosed, why would you expect it to be detectable immediately? The specific mechanism isn't important, it's just the "we can't think of a way it could fail, therefore we dont need to verify this" is just impossible for me to get my head around. Feel free to drop the conversation if this gets frustrating. I will continue to ask until I understand, and I may not get there. I'm actually enjoying this, but I know I'm weird and this drives some people nuts. > Just because you don't understand the human body very well doesn't mean the medical establishment also has equally no clue. Fair, but that's not my claim. I can be at 1, while the medical establishment is at 100, and actual understanding of what's going on in the body could be 10000. We do some black box testing and get some somewhat repeatable results. That's a pretty amazing feat, but still a far cry from really understanding what's going on under the hood.