4 ms·

> Why don't people focus on their general health instead of taking more and more medicines and vaccines and whatnot Why are these mutually exclusive? The scien

by csb6 2y ago

> Why don't people focus on their general health instead of taking more and more medicines and vaccines and whatnot Why are these mutually exclusive? The scientific community agrees that Americans have unhealthy diets and lifestyles and that this needs to be addressed. They also agree that it is good for people to spend time in nature and that some exposure to pathogens helps in building immunity (this is actually the idea behind vaccines). > Well, maybe, it could be, perhaps, that the vaccines were not that effective as they were marketed, has there been mangled / cherrypicked with data The “vaccines cause autism” study is the definition of manipulated and cherry-picked data, yet RFK Jr still pushes it and claims like it. You don’t have scientific evidence on your side that proves vaccines are dangerous/causing health problems, so why should anyone take your claims seriously? Vague statements like “what if it’s true” is not good policy.

gitaarik 2y ago
> They also agree that it is good for people to spend time in nature and that some exposure to pathogens helps in building immunity (this is actually the idea behind vaccines). Yes, but the new mRNA vaccines work in a very different way. Normally you would need to take a vaccine one or two times, in a span of several years or even just one time in your life, and then you trained your imune system against the pathogen. With mRNA vaccines, you are not really protected against the pathogen, you are still vulnerable, although supposedly less. And you need to take boosters kind of regularly. Apart from that, mRNA is a very new technology that hasn't been tested a lot. Normally a vaccine has a testing period of 5-15 years before it is deployed to the public. That is to me a valid reason to be sceptical about the technology, and I find it suspicious that there is so much opposition to people that are sceptical about it. > Why are these mutually exclusive? Not saying they are, but there's a right balance between them, like everything. I remember a lot of studies showing that Vitamin D treatment was just as effective as the vaccine, but there wasn't much attention for it, probably because you can't patent it and make lots of money with. > Vague statements like “what if it’s true” is not good policy. There are lots of things to question and to be sceptical about. I think many people are prejudgemental about the criticism and are closed minded about it. And then we cannot even have a healthy discussion about it. Which is a reason for many people to be more suspicious about the whole thing.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > Normally you would need to take a vaccine one or two times, in a span of several years or even just one time in your life, and then you trained your imune system against the pathogen. That's an incomplete understanding. If you really want to understand vaccines, you need to start by understanding our immune system, because every vaccine platform interacts with it. Basic primer links, in order of increasing verbosity. Note that all of these are first-semester, undergraduate-level understandings of the topic for people who actually develop drugs. The details get much more complex. [0] https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/why-vaccine-boosters.html https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/why-vaccine-boosters.html [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279364/#_i2225_whichpartoftheimmune_ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279364/#_i2225_whichpa... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590614/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590614/ > With mRNA vaccines, you are not really protected against the pathogen, you are still vulnerable, although supposedly less. You are protected against the pathogen, because you're generating the same targeted antibodies as other vaccine platforms stimulate. Also, that mRNA injections are inherently consumed by the immune system as part of their function is specifically what increases mRNA vaccines' safety profile, as opposed to other vectors (e.g. carrier viral). [0] The fact that boosters are needed has nothing to do with mRNA being used as a vaccine platform, but is instead a characteristic of the virus being targeted -- if you made a measels vaccine using an mRNA platform, it would also be a once-lifetime vaccine. (Because measels isn't as liable to mutate as flu-type viruses) Why isn't that done? Because mRNA platforms are newer, and we've already figured out effective vaccines for the more "easy", less mutating viruses of consequence. [0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/different-types-of-covid-19-vaccines/art-20506465 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i... > I find it suspicious that there is so much opposition to people that are sceptical about it. Because (a) COVID was a worldwide pandemic, (b) during that pandemic certain people used vaccine skepticism for political gain (whether or not it had any factual basis), and (c) there are people (RFK Jr) who make a substantial amount of money by talking/writing about vaccine skepticism. The annoyance and hostility towards those making bad faith arguments for personal gain are less to do with closing down discussion and more to do with judging people who actively harm public health. Or to put it another way, if RFK Jr knew that measels vaccinations would stop the outbreak in Texas, do you think he would say so?

by csb6 2y ago

gitaarik 2y ago

> They also agree that it is good for people to spend time in nature and that some exposure to pathogens helps in building immunity (this is actually the idea behind vaccines). Yes, but the new mRNA vaccines work in a very different way. Normally you would need to take a vaccine one or two times, in a span of several years or even just one time in your life, and then you trained your imune system against the pathogen. With mRNA vaccines, you are not really protected against the pathogen, you are still vulnerable, although supposedly less. And you need to take boosters kind of regularly. Apart from that, mRNA is a very new technology that hasn't been tested a lot. Normally a vaccine has a testing period of 5-15 years before it is deployed to the public. That is to me a valid reason to be sceptical about the technology, and I find it suspicious that there is so much opposition to people that are sceptical about it. > Why are these mutually exclusive? Not saying they are, but there's a right balance between them, like everything. I remember a lot of studies showing that Vitamin D treatment was just as effective as the vaccine, but there wasn't much attention for it, probably because you can't patent it and make lots of money with. > Vague statements like “what if it’s true” is not good policy. There are lots of things to question and to be sceptical about. I think many people are prejudgemental about the criticism and are closed minded about it. And then we cannot even have a healthy discussion about it. Which is a reason for many people to be more suspicious about the whole thing.

ethbr1 2y ago
> Normally you would need to take a vaccine one or two times, in a span of several years or even just one time in your life, and then you trained your imune system against the pathogen. That's an incomplete understanding. If you really want to understand vaccines, you need to start by understanding our immune system, because every vaccine platform interacts with it. Basic primer links, in order of increasing verbosity. Note that all of these are first-semester, undergraduate-level understandings of the topic for people who actually develop drugs. The details get much more complex. [0] https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/why-vaccine-boosters.html https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/why-vaccine-boosters.html [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279364/#_i2225_whichpartoftheimmune_ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279364/#_i2225_whichpa... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590614/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590614/ > With mRNA vaccines, you are not really protected against the pathogen, you are still vulnerable, although supposedly less. You are protected against the pathogen, because you're generating the same targeted antibodies as other vaccine platforms stimulate. Also, that mRNA injections are inherently consumed by the immune system as part of their function is specifically what increases mRNA vaccines' safety profile, as opposed to other vectors (e.g. carrier viral). [0] The fact that boosters are needed has nothing to do with mRNA being used as a vaccine platform, but is instead a characteristic of the virus being targeted -- if you made a measels vaccine using an mRNA platform, it would also be a once-lifetime vaccine. (Because measels isn't as liable to mutate as flu-type viruses) Why isn't that done? Because mRNA platforms are newer, and we've already figured out effective vaccines for the more "easy", less mutating viruses of consequence. [0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/different-types-of-covid-19-vaccines/art-20506465 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i... > I find it suspicious that there is so much opposition to people that are sceptical about it. Because (a) COVID was a worldwide pandemic, (b) during that pandemic certain people used vaccine skepticism for political gain (whether or not it had any factual basis), and (c) there are people (RFK Jr) who make a substantial amount of money by talking/writing about vaccine skepticism. The annoyance and hostility towards those making bad faith arguments for personal gain are less to do with closing down discussion and more to do with judging people who actively harm public health. Or to put it another way, if RFK Jr knew that measels vaccinations would stop the outbreak in Texas, do you think he would say so?