5 ms·

We Got Covid Shots in One Year. Why Did a Malaria Vaccine Take 35?

8 points by nightwalkerid 4y ago

WaxedChewbacca 4y ago
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  ivermectin is very effective, but only if you have parasites, and it's not at all effective against COVID. hcq isn't effective against COVID either. that said, there are some relatively good antivirals for COVID at this point.
- vincnetas 4y ago
  Wow, your HN submissions history shows some clear tendency. Why you decided to go on this crusade to enlighten HN about fake covid vacines?
  - WaxedChewbacca 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwme_123 4y ago
Because there may be serious side effects but we're still figuring it out? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35088548/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35088548/ Edit: Follow-up article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1262363622000210?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S126236362...
- trumpablehump 4y ago
  That "study" has a n=1, a single "73-year-old Japanese woman". You can safely disregard this.
  - throwme_123 4y ago
    That's new results, takes time to assemble and probably rare. There are more cases, look at the linked articles. Also, it's probably a very unpopular research theme: No government would want this out if true. The authors are with a very reputable university. FYI I may be concerned too and have no family history
    - trumpablehump 4y ago
      You made it sound like it was anything meaningful. There is a lot of research into side effects by big and respected institutions, funded by governments. It is a very popular research theme with lots of potential reward for solid studies.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    That isn't a study, and doesn't claim to be one. It is a case report, as stated right in the title. Case reports have "n=1" by definition. As for being able to "safely disregard" it... an insufficient number of data points doesn't mean that at all. It means you can't draw conclusions one way or another. Let's put it this way: your team has a new chemical that's supposed to do (amazing thing). You decide to test it on yourselves. The first guy takes it and dies instantly. Do you then say "Hey, 'n=1', so I can 'safely disregard' the fact that Dave just keeled over." and take it yourself? I think not. To be clear here, I think the COVID-19 vaccines deployed in the United States are both safe and effective -- but the solution to bad statistical reasoning is not even worse statistical reasoning.
    - trumpablehump 4y ago
      A scientist working on this topic should obviously not disregard anything like that. They should know how to interpret and filter such events. I was speaking as and for random people on a technology internet forum where "$person got a vaccine on date ABC. $person got diagnosed with diabetes on data XYZ." has absolutely no merit discussing as causation or mental trigger that there might very well be "serious side effects" as stated by OP. I am sure many people died within minutes of receiving their shot because of simple statistics. Also you went to paint a extreme example without any need. Please don't do that. No one died instantly, that's a huge over-exaggeration of what the linked paper is about. If you want to speak with analogies, maybe "1 person who bought this item also bought that item" versus "people who bought this item also bought that item" might be more suitable.
hprotagonist 4y ago
because the covid vaccine work started in the 80s, too. because coronaviruses are easy mode, for vaccine development, especially compared to that massively sneaky fucker malaria.
elmerfud 4y ago
Because one is a virus and one is a parasite. Two very different things.
ki_ 4y ago
Personally, and please dont bombard me with hate, i dont believe we have covid vaccines. The shots we received dont really seem to do anything against covid. It's not rare to see certain media figures brag about their shots and then a few weeks later hear reports that they have covid... that being said, because i dont know who received which brand, i cant really say that none of them work.. they have their differences and 1 might have positive effects against covid. Anyway. I'd say we are still a few years away from having a covid "vaccine".
- tiborsaas 4y ago
  I thought it was repeated till boredom that vaccines will not prevent you from catching the virus, it prepares your body to fight them well when the real threat comes.
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    >I thought it was repeated till boredom that vaccines will not prevent you from catching the virus, it prepares your body to fight them well when the real threat comes. No, in mid 2021 the uncensored science detailed >90% immunity after the 2 shots. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34002089/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34002089/ The 10% was more in relation to people who are immunocompromised. They absolutely said these vaccines would prevent you from getting infection. They absolutely said the vaccines would provide herd immunity and get us out of lockdowns. The censored science, including the discoverer/inventor of the mrna vaccine, said no such thing is possible. Instead of a healthy discourse on this, he got banned from everything until joe rogan brought him on. >In immunogenicity analyses completed during phase I/II vaccine trials, 100% of participants developed both binding and neutralizing antibodies following vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and 90% of participants developed binding and neutralizing antibodies following vaccination with the Janssen vaccine The problem hit when there was small towns with high vaccination rates had more people sick than unvaccinated people. Literally proving the vaccines don't work. So then and only then did they start saying that the shots dont prevent you from catching covid. Has anyone counted the moral/ethical violations above? They published lies and censored the truth. They blasted informed consent out of the solar system.
projektfu 4y ago
TLDR: low initial funding, lack of facilities in affected locations, progressing from adults to infants for safety reasons although infants are the target, difficulty recruiting volunteers, the large scale and timeline of the studies required, and coronavirus being an easier target for a vaccine.
etiam 4y ago
The premise here seems wrong. SARS-2 vaccine development rides on the development of SARS vaccines. That's already almost two decades. Probably boosted halfway by research to manage the even more concerning MERS. And that's not even the start of it. Those R&D efforts ride on about a century of basically successful vaccination against viral diseases. Sure, there are plenty of species that are too slippery for now, and coronaviruses do their due diligence in attempts to escape the immune system, but to my understanding it's not a comparison on the same scale to ask for overcoming the immune evasion arsenal of a eucaryotic parasite with a complex multistage lifecycle, and Plasmodium is arguably in the big league within that category.
Aeolun 4y ago
- Qem 4y ago
  And Palestine doesn't.
juancn 4y ago
Two reasons: - Malaria is caused by a parasite, not a virus. Viruses are easier targets for vaccines. - The economics of a COVID vaccine are way better. It's a lot easier to get funding and the ROI is much easier to see.

WaxedChewbacca 4y ago

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
ivermectin is very effective, but only if you have parasites, and it's not at all effective against COVID. hcq isn't effective against COVID either. that said, there are some relatively good antivirals for COVID at this point.
vincnetas 4y ago
Wow, your HN submissions history shows some clear tendency. Why you decided to go on this crusade to enlighten HN about fake covid vacines?
- WaxedChewbacca 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throwme_123 4y ago

Because there may be serious side effects but we're still figuring it out? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35088548/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35088548/ Edit: Follow-up article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1262363622000210?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S126236362...

trumpablehump 4y ago
That "study" has a n=1, a single "73-year-old Japanese woman". You can safely disregard this.
- throwme_123 4y ago
  That's new results, takes time to assemble and probably rare. There are more cases, look at the linked articles. Also, it's probably a very unpopular research theme: No government would want this out if true. The authors are with a very reputable university. FYI I may be concerned too and have no family history
  - trumpablehump 4y ago
    You made it sound like it was anything meaningful. There is a lot of research into side effects by big and respected institutions, funded by governments. It is a very popular research theme with lots of potential reward for solid studies.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  That isn't a study, and doesn't claim to be one. It is a case report, as stated right in the title. Case reports have "n=1" by definition. As for being able to "safely disregard" it... an insufficient number of data points doesn't mean that at all. It means you can't draw conclusions one way or another. Let's put it this way: your team has a new chemical that's supposed to do (amazing thing). You decide to test it on yourselves. The first guy takes it and dies instantly. Do you then say "Hey, 'n=1', so I can 'safely disregard' the fact that Dave just keeled over." and take it yourself? I think not. To be clear here, I think the COVID-19 vaccines deployed in the United States are both safe and effective -- but the solution to bad statistical reasoning is not even worse statistical reasoning.
  - trumpablehump 4y ago
    A scientist working on this topic should obviously not disregard anything like that. They should know how to interpret and filter such events. I was speaking as and for random people on a technology internet forum where "$person got a vaccine on date ABC. $person got diagnosed with diabetes on data XYZ." has absolutely no merit discussing as causation or mental trigger that there might very well be "serious side effects" as stated by OP. I am sure many people died within minutes of receiving their shot because of simple statistics. Also you went to paint a extreme example without any need. Please don't do that. No one died instantly, that's a huge over-exaggeration of what the linked paper is about. If you want to speak with analogies, maybe "1 person who bought this item also bought that item" versus "people who bought this item also bought that item" might be more suitable.

hprotagonist 4y ago

because the covid vaccine work started in the 80s, too. because coronaviruses are easy mode, for vaccine development, especially compared to that massively sneaky fucker malaria.

elmerfud 4y ago

Because one is a virus and one is a parasite. Two very different things.

ki_ 4y ago

Personally, and please dont bombard me with hate, i dont believe we have covid vaccines. The shots we received dont really seem to do anything against covid. It's not rare to see certain media figures brag about their shots and then a few weeks later hear reports that they have covid... that being said, because i dont know who received which brand, i cant really say that none of them work.. they have their differences and 1 might have positive effects against covid. Anyway. I'd say we are still a few years away from having a covid "vaccine".

tiborsaas 4y ago
I thought it was repeated till boredom that vaccines will not prevent you from catching the virus, it prepares your body to fight them well when the real threat comes.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >I thought it was repeated till boredom that vaccines will not prevent you from catching the virus, it prepares your body to fight them well when the real threat comes. No, in mid 2021 the uncensored science detailed >90% immunity after the 2 shots. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34002089/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34002089/ The 10% was more in relation to people who are immunocompromised. They absolutely said these vaccines would prevent you from getting infection. They absolutely said the vaccines would provide herd immunity and get us out of lockdowns. The censored science, including the discoverer/inventor of the mrna vaccine, said no such thing is possible. Instead of a healthy discourse on this, he got banned from everything until joe rogan brought him on. >In immunogenicity analyses completed during phase I/II vaccine trials, 100% of participants developed both binding and neutralizing antibodies following vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and 90% of participants developed binding and neutralizing antibodies following vaccination with the Janssen vaccine The problem hit when there was small towns with high vaccination rates had more people sick than unvaccinated people. Literally proving the vaccines don't work. So then and only then did they start saying that the shots dont prevent you from catching covid. Has anyone counted the moral/ethical violations above? They published lies and censored the truth. They blasted informed consent out of the solar system.

projektfu 4y ago

TLDR: low initial funding, lack of facilities in affected locations, progressing from adults to infants for safety reasons although infants are the target, difficulty recruiting volunteers, the large scale and timeline of the studies required, and coronavirus being an easier target for a vaccine.

etiam 4y ago

The premise here seems wrong. SARS-2 vaccine development rides on the development of SARS vaccines. That's already almost two decades. Probably boosted halfway by research to manage the even more concerning MERS. And that's not even the start of it. Those R&D efforts ride on about a century of basically successful vaccination against viral diseases. Sure, there are plenty of species that are too slippery for now, and coronaviruses do their due diligence in attempts to escape the immune system, but to my understanding it's not a comparison on the same scale to ask for overcoming the immune evasion arsenal of a eucaryotic parasite with a complex multistage lifecycle, and Plasmodium is arguably in the big league within that category.

Aeolun 4y ago

Qem 4y ago
And Palestine doesn't.

juancn 4y ago

Two reasons: - Malaria is caused by a parasite, not a virus. Viruses are easier targets for vaccines. - The economics of a COVID vaccine are way better. It's a lot easier to get funding and the ROI is much easier to see.