Researchers from Pritzker Molecular Engineering, under the guidance of Prof. Jeffrey Hubbell, demonstrated that their compound can eliminate the autoimmune response linked to multiple sclerosis. Researchers at the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) have developed

  • Polar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpopular opinion: Anyone who refused the COVID vaccine should be banned from getting this.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly asking, why even bring this up? What does this have to do with the topic of the post?

      All you do is start an argument and divert away from the topic that was supposed to be discussed.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just spiteful.

          Wanting to have two seperate conversations about two seperate vaccines is “spiteful”? Really?

          And ironic if you really want to claim to care about public health

          And I do care about public health, allot. For the record, I’m fully vaccinated.

        • ilex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Science isn’t a religion. It’s a process. Just because it’s called a vaccine doesn’t mean its safe. You can be anti-this-particular-vaccine without being anti-all-vaccines.

          (Edit - I misremembered what was hinky. For posterity, I’m restructuring my comment and preserving the bad take struck out below.)

          In the case of the covid vaccines, that process was intentionally minimized as to bring the vaccine to market faster.

          The vaccine did have benefits. It also had complications

          that instead of being found out in trials were found out after release.

            • ilex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              There were side effects that were serious. The vaccines and boosters effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious side effects.

              Covid effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious complications.

              In the instances where the risk of serious side effect was more likely than the risk of serious complication, at least one of the boosters was more likely to be bad for the patient.

              If it is more likely to cause harm, I can understand not wanting to take that version.

              My point is it’s ok to refuse medicine based on medical evidence.

          • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They did not skimp on the process with the Covid vaccines. Not with the big ones like Moderna or Pfizer, anyway. They accelerated the process, but they did not skip steps. They did steps in parallel.

            • ilex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed. I misremembered what the issue was. It’s been a second.

              The issue was balancing risk of serious side effect versus risk of serious complication.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            By refusing COViD vaccine despite all evidence showing it safe and effective, you put others in danger. I agree on being spiteful: you endanger me and my family because you don’t trust science , then you don’t deserve the personal benefit of science treating your auto-immune disease

            • ilex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I didn’t refuse the vaccine. Get the fuck out of here.

              E: And all evidence didn’t show it was safe. There were risks. In the case of the vaccine itself, iirc, the risks of serious side effect were less than the risk of serious complication from covid. The primary 2-stage vaccine is a good call.

              I did refuse a particular booster because the available data on it showed for my demographic the risks outweighed the potential gains; it was more likely to harm me than help me.

              • Polar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And all evidence didn’t show it was safe. There were risks. In the case of the vaccine itself, iirc, the risks of serious side effect were less than the risk of serious complication from covid.

                Just wondering how you justify saying garbage like that when people died, have serious heart conditions, taste problems, balancing issues, etc. from catching COVID?

                • ilex@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t understand your comment. To put it another way, vaccine was less bad than covid. Or Covid was worse than the vaccine. Do you still object with the simplified phrasing?

          • wantd2B1ofthestrokes@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I believe the COVID vaccine trials were the largest ever done, or close. And most of the “complications” were simply the same issues of “long COVID” but scaled down significantly.

            Anyway, if people were only against the COVID vaccine, then that’s better than more broad anti medical stances. And I think it would be stupid to deny someone medicine for almost any reason, least of all that.

            It really is / was a difficult information landscape.

            • ilex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Forgive my ignorance on the subject. Instead of reading studies directly, I used the opinions of doctors quoting studies to inform my opinions. If memory serves, for the first booster, it was more likely that young men would develop serious complications from the vaccine booster than if they developed covid instead. I think they were heart complications.

              So if a drug is shown to be more detrimental than helpful, why is it bad to refuse it, or ask for a different drug, or for more investigation?

          • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wish I didn’t have to encounter people like you. You give medical science a bad name, and anti vaxers confidence.

            • ilex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              How do I give medical science a bad name? Do I speak for the field?

      • Polar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t want to get a vaccine to help others + yourself, you shouldn’t be allowed to “believe in science” when it benefits you and only you.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You don’t want to get a vaccine to help others + yourself, you shouldn’t be allowed to “believe in science” when it benefits you and only you.

          Such a non-sequitur answer. And for the record, I’m fully vaccinated.

          Go somewhere else to talk about your favorite vaccine. Don’t DERAIL this conversation about a completely different vaccine.

          • Polar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t DERAIL this conversation about a completely different vaccine.

            I was replying to a question. Please follow the context thread, or go away.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Don’t DERAIL this conversation about a completely different vaccine.

              I was replying to a question. Please follow the context thread, or go away.

              Here’s what you said, context wise …

              Unpopular opinion: Anyone who refused the COVID vaccine should be banned from getting this.

              You weren’t responding to a question, you were just offering your own opinion, an opinion that was different from the topic and the context of the conversation being discussed, and hence my reply to you, calling you out for it.

              You’re being intellectually dishonest.

              • Polar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ya, I am allowed to post my opinion. I don’t think people who refuse a vaccine that can help save others should be allowed to receive a vaccine that benefits only them.

                If you’re upset, you’re part of the problem. Not my fault. If you don’t want to see my comments, which I am free to post, block me.

                In fact, don’t worry about it. I will block you, because your reply is insane. Literally complaining to me because I posted my opinion, and then calling me intellectually dishonest. Nutters.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ya, I am allowed to post my opinion.

                  No one says you’re not. The only point I was making is you’re posting your opinion in the wrong place and you’re ‘muddying the waters’ of the conversation.

                  That point was said straightforward to you, but you chose to ignore it and try to move the goal posts onto something else.

                  If you’re upset, you’re part of the problem. Not my fault.

                  I’m not upset at all, I was just asking a question, why are you expressing an opinion that doesn’t match the conversation being had and that you know would be inflammatory and pollute the conversation.

                  You keep trying to warp the meaning of my initial critique of your initial opinion into something else to win an Internet argument.

                  You continue to be intellectually dishonest.

        • RiikkaTheIcePrincess@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          6g comes out, carriers push everyone to get new 6g phones as the 5g networks get worked over. Bunch of vaxxers just walking around like “Nah, mine’s fine. Why spend hundreds on a new one? 🤷” AT&T and Samsung suddenly sponsoring research to undo vaccinations and turn the frogs hetero 🤣

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re going to need a booster every year to continue getting good reception or more g’s

            • RiikkaTheIcePrincess@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              [Punny jokeness] Now that I think about it, isn’t there a limit to how many g’s a human body can handle? We’re all gonna have to train like fighter pilots or switch our cell network naming scheme 🤔

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not that i necessarily support this policy, but to the people who are acting all offended at the idea you might be cut off from future scientific advances because of you’re hurting the public good (“Consequences? For my actions?!”): You could just get the vaccine.

    • bioemerl@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      59
      ·
      1 year ago

      People should be allowed full decision over the treatments they want to get, no matter how arbitrary, stupid, or contradictory. To suggest otherwise is a horrific dystopia

      • Zexks@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bullshit. You don’t get a new kidney and get to keep on drinking.

        • thantik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, he’s right. They SHOULD be allowed full decision over the treatments they want to get.

          However, those decisions should not be free from the rules we as a society have put in place.

          Us banning COVID vaccine deniers this treatment could be a good compromise. They freely get to decide, and they also suffer the consequences of that decision. Win/Win.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            this is honestly why I thought vaccine cards to sit at restaurants, attend concerts… These are good ideas.

            • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              We do this in Australia for kindergarten, if your kids aren’t vaccinated you don’t get the childcare subsidy.

              For reference, the subsidy can be the difference between paying $200 a week and $1200 a week.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right. I don’t care if COViD deniers chose not to get a vaccine. I care that they endanger people who want or need to be more careful. Let them make the choice, as long as the rest of us can choose not to be exposed to them

              • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So people with autoimmune deficiency can choose to just hide indoors or die, because selfish pond scum spend too much time on Facebook?

                Nah, that’s the wrong way around. Meet the basic expectations of society or accept you will be excluded from it.

                • Polar@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Literally me. I’ve been locked inside since 2020 because I had a double lung transplant and COVID will most likely cause my lungs to reject, and I die.

                  Assholes refusing to put a damn n95 mask on has pretty much thrown my life away. My transplanted lungs wont last forever. My final years are locked indoors because a fucking mask is political.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you mean liver? That’s the organ alcohol primarily harms. Kidneys are somewhat secondary.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, because kidneys are a rare and valuable thing what drinking would prevent from working

          That makes zero sense for your petty ass sense of vengeance by denying people easily manufactured treatments because they turned down a vaccine you think they should have gotten.

          • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That most of society thinks they should have gotten. That results in other people dying if they don’t get it.

            GTFO of here acting like your right to a fist doesn’t end where my nose begins.

              • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                so·ci·e·ty

                /səˈsīədē/

                noun

                the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

                • pirat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thank you for proving my point.

                  To be clear, societies exist regardless of the existence of states. The fact that states are trying to control societies and communities doesn’t make any state “The Society”… Society is people.

      • thantik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, you do get to decide the treatments you want to get. Nobody is forcing any treatments on you. But just like freedom of speech, it doesn’t mean freedom from consequences of that speech. Too stupid and didn’t want to participate in saving your fellow human? Well, said fellow humans don’t want to participate in saving you either.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The dystopia of arbitrarily punishing people with inability to get things that would literally cure their diabetes because they refused a vaccine

          • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Imagine having diabetes, but refusing to get vaccinated so you’d be eligible for a cure.