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
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.
Just spiteful. And ironic if you really want to claim to care about public health
Wanting to have two seperate conversations about two seperate vaccines is “spiteful”? Really?
And I do care about public health, allot. For the record, I’m fully vaccinated.
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.deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Just wondering how you justify saying garbage like that when people died, have serious heart conditions, taste problems, balancing issues, etc. from catching COVID?
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?
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.
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?
I wish I didn’t have to encounter people like you. You give medical science a bad name, and anti vaxers confidence.
How do I give medical science a bad name? Do I speak for the field?
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.
I was replying to a question. Please follow the context thread, or go away.
Here’s what you said, context wise …
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.
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.
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.
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.