3 ms·

...prepare yourself for massive downvotes. I'm in the same boat - how can I possibly be 'anti vax' if I've gotten pretty much all the PREVIOUS ones (based on t

...prepare yourself for massive downvotes. I'm in the same boat - how can I possibly be 'anti vax' if I've gotten pretty much all the PREVIOUS ones (based on the older tech), and I'm just skeptical of the utility/necessity of this new tech that appears to have non-trivial risks of debilitating or fatal side effects?

nathanaldensr 4y ago
That's because the phrase anti-vax is not meant to be an accurate descriptor; instead, it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you without thinking. You can see many examples of this here in this thread. Be comfortable in your control over your own body and don't engage with those who would destroy you because you don't submit to their collective will.
- grey-area 4y ago
  Who ‘would destroy you’ because you don’t take a flu vaccine?
  - lwhalen 4y ago
    Employers (mostly in Blue strongholds) were EXTREMELY EAGER to fire people - even remote employees - who did not want to submit paperwork showing they took the vaccine. If you refused, they marked you 'refusenik' and you were let go anyway.
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  At the time I wrote this comment, there are literally two occurrences of the term “anti-vax” in this thread and they belong to you and the grandparent.
- haswell 4y ago
  > it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you without thinking I would like to think the average attitude here is closer to one of intellectual curiosity than blind labeling. The trouble is that "anti-vax" sentiment is impossible to distinguish from "vaccine hesitancy" when the only reasons put forward seem to be vague mistrust in the tech / government. Rarely do these conversations lead to real discussions about actual quantified risks, which makes it easy to dismiss hesitancy as garden variety anti-vax sentiment - the kind that is based on verifiable lies and has been around for decades. I'd argue that instead of predicting inevitable binary thinking and dismissals, it'd be more useful to focus on the actual substantial claims to back up the position. Anything less moves the conversation nowhere.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
grey-area 4y ago
There are no credible reports of mrna vaccines having undesirable side effects any more serious than other vaccines. All vaccines are a trade off between side effects and effects, that’s why there are a huge number of hurdles before any vaccine is released and lots of studies of efficacy and side effects after.
- karl_gluck 4y ago
  That’s what I thought too, until a friend sent me the paper “Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination” published a few weeks ago: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798 From what I can understand, it seems mRNA vaccines can cause a non-inflammatory response to actual infection that prolongs the disease. I’m supportive of vaccination, but that doesn’t mean side effects can’t happen especially with new technology.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    Oh, there's more. Remember all those refutations of claims that it changes your DNA? Pretty much all of them went something like "That's stupid, DNA is converted into RNA, not the other way around!" - meanwhile the people who were concerned about it knew about reverse transcriptase enzyme, and months later a study was published showing it can happen in human liver cells: https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73 https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
    - skiman10 4y ago
      Okay but not really though right? https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-say-covid-vaccine-changes-human-dna/ https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-say...
      - Izkata 4y ago
        Yes really, to quote my link: > PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure. They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells in a lab, not in a live human. That would be the next step. But in the meantime the "genomic DNA" part does sound like it made a permanent change to those cells.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

That's because the phrase anti-vax is not meant to be an accurate descriptor; instead, it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you without thinking. You can see many examples of this here in this thread. Be comfortable in your control over your own body and don't engage with those who would destroy you because you don't submit to their collective will.

grey-area 4y ago
Who ‘would destroy you’ because you don’t take a flu vaccine?
- lwhalen 4y ago
  Employers (mostly in Blue strongholds) were EXTREMELY EAGER to fire people - even remote employees - who did not want to submit paperwork showing they took the vaccine. If you refused, they marked you 'refusenik' and you were let go anyway.
matthewmacleod 4y ago
At the time I wrote this comment, there are literally two occurrences of the term “anti-vax” in this thread and they belong to you and the grandparent.
haswell 4y ago
> it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you without thinking I would like to think the average attitude here is closer to one of intellectual curiosity than blind labeling. The trouble is that "anti-vax" sentiment is impossible to distinguish from "vaccine hesitancy" when the only reasons put forward seem to be vague mistrust in the tech / government. Rarely do these conversations lead to real discussions about actual quantified risks, which makes it easy to dismiss hesitancy as garden variety anti-vax sentiment - the kind that is based on verifiable lies and has been around for decades. I'd argue that instead of predicting inevitable binary thinking and dismissals, it'd be more useful to focus on the actual substantial claims to back up the position. Anything less moves the conversation nowhere.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

grey-area 4y ago

There are no credible reports of mrna vaccines having undesirable side effects any more serious than other vaccines. All vaccines are a trade off between side effects and effects, that’s why there are a huge number of hurdles before any vaccine is released and lots of studies of efficacy and side effects after.

karl_gluck 4y ago
That’s what I thought too, until a friend sent me the paper “Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination” published a few weeks ago: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798 From what I can understand, it seems mRNA vaccines can cause a non-inflammatory response to actual infection that prolongs the disease. I’m supportive of vaccination, but that doesn’t mean side effects can’t happen especially with new technology.
- Izkata 4y ago
  Oh, there's more. Remember all those refutations of claims that it changes your DNA? Pretty much all of them went something like "That's stupid, DNA is converted into RNA, not the other way around!" - meanwhile the people who were concerned about it knew about reverse transcriptase enzyme, and months later a study was published showing it can happen in human liver cells: https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73 https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
  - skiman10 4y ago
    Okay but not really though right? https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-say-covid-vaccine-changes-human-dna/ https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-say...
    - Izkata 4y ago
      Yes really, to quote my link: > PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure. They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells in a lab, not in a live human. That would be the next step. But in the meantime the "genomic DNA" part does sound like it made a permanent change to those cells.