4 ms·

[flagged]

by __MatrixMan__ 2mo ago

[flagged]

chancer131 2mo ago
[flagged]
- chancer131 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - r_lee 2mo ago
    I mean this is liberal/left heavy, it's to be expected, you can't just rummage in and expect people to be like hm good points you're right! when most of the audience is against you it's expected if you could delve into what supports your arguments that'd help more than "trust me instead" I personally am skeptical of many things, including pharma, but I'm not going to claim that vaccines don't work when historically they have, and I'd have to do a bunch of research to prove an internet argument wrong. do I think that covid vaccines were/are 100% safe and totally not rushed due to the pandemic? no.
    - chancer131 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - drop_star 2mo ago
        Why dont you ask your doctor these things?
        ryandrake 2mo ago
        Why ask an educated professional when YouTube will validate whatever opinion you already have?
      - biophysboy 2mo ago
        Every vaccine licensed for use in the USA has a clinical review memo that list the adverse events that you claim are dismissed. You live in an imaginary fantasy world.
      - wizzwizz4 2mo ago
        > HN pretends there's nothing to discuss here. Have you read the discussions on vaccine stories? See, for example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26629234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26629234 – chosen arbitrarily using the search box at the bottom of the page. I've not read anyone pretending this. > shut up People are being dismissive of you, but nobody has told you to shut up in this thread. (The closest thing is flagging the comments which started with broad-spectrum insults, but this only occurred after you wrote this.) Despite its tone, I'm going to have to second GP's assessment that you're responding to imagined slights.
    - chancer131 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - __MatrixMan__ 2mo ago
        So I'm not an expert, but I did take immunology last semester... You're definitely right that we'd benefit from more study of the long term downstream effects of adjuvants. When you put the immune system on high alert, it sometimes remembers the wrong thing from the experience and continues to target it later. But you've got to weigh those risks against the risk of dragging our feet on rolling out new vaccines. It's likely that many autoimmune diseases are caused by pathogens which are either undiscovered, or which are known, but whose link to the autoimmune disease is undiscovered. This is because there is evolutionary pressure encouraging pathogens to resemble self-antigens. If a pathogen has markers that cause it to resemble the human liver, the human adaptive immune system won't typically attack it because it wants to avoid attacking its own liver. So the pathogen is safe. This is called molecular mimicry. But the mimicry isn't perfect, so sometimes the immune system does become sensitized to the pathogen, attacks it, clears it, and starts slowly attacking the liver (or whichever tissue bears the same epitope as the mimic). It shows up years later as an autoimmune disease, but the data just isn't there to isolate its cause to that pathogen. So the best strategy, if we can pull it off, is to vaccinate against the original pathogen (or prevent it via other means... clean food and water, etc), but to target epitopes which do not resemble any human tissues, and with adjuvants that do not sensitize the immune system against any human tissues. As for how long adjuvants stay in the body, it's definitely worth studying more, but their whole function is to sound the alarm, so I'd expect that they're cleared rather quickly. Anything that fails to do that is by definition not an adjuvant. But assuming that an inappropriate response was triggered in the first place, you'd see the same effects whether or not the adjuvant was still around: If the initial exposure has triggered clonal replication of whichever B and T cells attack the antigen, self or otherwise, they'll stick around in your lymph nodes for years and years, and they'll re-up their numbers with each subsequent exposure.
    - billfor 2mo ago
      It didn't start out as liberal/left, so a lot of the people that have been here since 2010 want to keep most politics out it entirely. After all the name of the group is "Hackers". Most of the people in compsci/engineering were libertarian prior to 2007 anyway. It's really undergone a shift which is fine, but it actually adds absolutely nothing, from an intellectual point of view imho. It would be nice to at least send a warning note, to any accounts that solely post political stuff here - or give them their own subgroup. For God's sake if you are going to talk about Hepatis-C then talk about here, rather than using it to bring up issues with an administration you don't like.
      - mft_ 2mo ago
        In 2010, vaccines weren’t really a divisive topic that was politically aligned. That’s come later as the right started to take an interest, and then accelerated via COVID and disagreements about the various approaches implemented to manage the epidemic by the government that caused controversy - masks, lockdowns, and vaccines. Which is to say, it’s not so much the liberal/left causing a problem here - I think they’re just holding the ground they’ve always had - that vaccines are generally safe and generally a good thing.
        r_lee 2mo ago
        I think before it was mostly a nonpartisan topic, but after COVID it was kind of a thing where if you're on the left, you'd be on the side of science and thus vehemently defend vaccines while assuming the other side is a bunch of antivaxxers and then the other side doesn't want to be associated with the other and thus ... it should've never been politicized in the first place

[flagged]

chancer131 2mo ago

[flagged]

chancer131 2mo ago
[flagged]
- r_lee 2mo ago
  I mean this is liberal/left heavy, it's to be expected, you can't just rummage in and expect people to be like hm good points you're right! when most of the audience is against you it's expected if you could delve into what supports your arguments that'd help more than "trust me instead" I personally am skeptical of many things, including pharma, but I'm not going to claim that vaccines don't work when historically they have, and I'd have to do a bunch of research to prove an internet argument wrong. do I think that covid vaccines were/are 100% safe and totally not rushed due to the pandemic? no.
  - chancer131 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - drop_star 2mo ago
      Why dont you ask your doctor these things?
      - ryandrake 2mo ago
        Why ask an educated professional when YouTube will validate whatever opinion you already have?
    - biophysboy 2mo ago
      Every vaccine licensed for use in the USA has a clinical review memo that list the adverse events that you claim are dismissed. You live in an imaginary fantasy world.
    - wizzwizz4 2mo ago
      > HN pretends there's nothing to discuss here. Have you read the discussions on vaccine stories? See, for example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26629234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26629234 – chosen arbitrarily using the search box at the bottom of the page. I've not read anyone pretending this. > shut up People are being dismissive of you, but nobody has told you to shut up in this thread. (The closest thing is flagging the comments which started with broad-spectrum insults, but this only occurred after you wrote this.) Despite its tone, I'm going to have to second GP's assessment that you're responding to imagined slights.
  - chancer131 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - __MatrixMan__ 2mo ago
      So I'm not an expert, but I did take immunology last semester... You're definitely right that we'd benefit from more study of the long term downstream effects of adjuvants. When you put the immune system on high alert, it sometimes remembers the wrong thing from the experience and continues to target it later. But you've got to weigh those risks against the risk of dragging our feet on rolling out new vaccines. It's likely that many autoimmune diseases are caused by pathogens which are either undiscovered, or which are known, but whose link to the autoimmune disease is undiscovered. This is because there is evolutionary pressure encouraging pathogens to resemble self-antigens. If a pathogen has markers that cause it to resemble the human liver, the human adaptive immune system won't typically attack it because it wants to avoid attacking its own liver. So the pathogen is safe. This is called molecular mimicry. But the mimicry isn't perfect, so sometimes the immune system does become sensitized to the pathogen, attacks it, clears it, and starts slowly attacking the liver (or whichever tissue bears the same epitope as the mimic). It shows up years later as an autoimmune disease, but the data just isn't there to isolate its cause to that pathogen. So the best strategy, if we can pull it off, is to vaccinate against the original pathogen (or prevent it via other means... clean food and water, etc), but to target epitopes which do not resemble any human tissues, and with adjuvants that do not sensitize the immune system against any human tissues. As for how long adjuvants stay in the body, it's definitely worth studying more, but their whole function is to sound the alarm, so I'd expect that they're cleared rather quickly. Anything that fails to do that is by definition not an adjuvant. But assuming that an inappropriate response was triggered in the first place, you'd see the same effects whether or not the adjuvant was still around: If the initial exposure has triggered clonal replication of whichever B and T cells attack the antigen, self or otherwise, they'll stick around in your lymph nodes for years and years, and they'll re-up their numbers with each subsequent exposure.
  - billfor 2mo ago
    It didn't start out as liberal/left, so a lot of the people that have been here since 2010 want to keep most politics out it entirely. After all the name of the group is "Hackers". Most of the people in compsci/engineering were libertarian prior to 2007 anyway. It's really undergone a shift which is fine, but it actually adds absolutely nothing, from an intellectual point of view imho. It would be nice to at least send a warning note, to any accounts that solely post political stuff here - or give them their own subgroup. For God's sake if you are going to talk about Hepatis-C then talk about here, rather than using it to bring up issues with an administration you don't like.
    - mft_ 2mo ago
      In 2010, vaccines weren’t really a divisive topic that was politically aligned. That’s come later as the right started to take an interest, and then accelerated via COVID and disagreements about the various approaches implemented to manage the epidemic by the government that caused controversy - masks, lockdowns, and vaccines. Which is to say, it’s not so much the liberal/left causing a problem here - I think they’re just holding the ground they’ve always had - that vaccines are generally safe and generally a good thing.
      - r_lee 2mo ago
        I think before it was mostly a nonpartisan topic, but after COVID it was kind of a thing where if you're on the left, you'd be on the side of science and thus vehemently defend vaccines while assuming the other side is a bunch of antivaxxers and then the other side doesn't want to be associated with the other and thus ... it should've never been politicized in the first place