Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Anti-Vaxx 101 Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    I think anti-vaxxers like to use video specifically because it takes more time and effort to debunk it.

    That and the fact that it's the main way their preferred audience gets information.
    If I were in charge, all informational videos posted online would have transcripts or at least time-stamped summaries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    You know, it would be really nice if you summarized the contents of the videos you keep posting, including the evidence in them. Otherwise, you're basically forcing the rest of us to watch every video you post if we want to take part in a conversation, which is pretty rude.
    I think anti-vaxxers like to use video specifically because it takes more time and effort to debunk it.

    That and the fact that it's the main way their preferred audience gets information.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Interview with immunologist Dr. Robert Clancy.

    My lay summary of several points:

    -- mRNA vaxes not shown to be more effective than traditional "mushed up antigen" vaxes.

    -- No way to control or predict distribution of antigens throughout body.

    -- Phospholipid coating of mRNA vaxes mean they can penetrate any cells, and cause any cells to express antigens on their surfaces, making cells throughout the body targets of immune response.

    -- No way to predict or control amount of antigens produced, so no way to predict where immune response will fall on the tolerance-immunity-tolerance "bell" distribution curve.

    -- No way to ensure reverse transcriptase will convert the mRNA into DNA, potentially leading to new cancers. (That one was only mentioned briefly, so I may have butchered it more than the others).

    -- Diminished returns from repeated "boosters."

    -- "Mucosal" infections like Covid generate different T-cell response compared to, e.g., measles, so vaxes have to be approached differently.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post


    Previous mass-vax programs were halted for lower incidence of adverse effects than are documented with the mRNA jabs.

    FDA and Pfizer are withholding important data.
    You know, it would be really nice if you summarized the contents of the videos you keep posting, including the evidence in them. Otherwise, you're basically forcing the rest of us to watch every video you post if we want to take part in a conversation, which is pretty rude.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post

    You are comparing apples with oranges. Some diseases (like the flu or covid) mutate faster and/or are less accessible to the adaptive immune system in their initial stages. It's why vaccines AND previous infection only offer protection for a limited time.
    True enough - Covid vaccine is more like a tetanus shot. Even vaccines against measles and mumps are not 100% effective for all people.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied


    Previous mass-vax programs were halted for lower incidence of adverse effects than are documented with the mRNA jabs.

    FDA and Pfizer are withholding important data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    Well, when I got childhood vaccines they basically protected me from those illnesses. That's what a vaccine should do. I never caught chicken pox, measles, polio, small pox (etc.) and I credit the vaccines to that (in part).
    You are comparing apples with oranges. Some diseases (like the flu or covid) mutate faster and/or are less accessible to the adaptive immune system in their initial stages. It's why vaccines AND previous infection only offer protection for a limited time. Vaccines are not drugs, they don't interact with pathogens and are out of the body in a couple of weeks at most. It's also why it's silly to worry about "long term effects" from the vaccine. Any negative side effects will be triggered in a short time after vaccination (usually after your second shot).

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post


    That, and I think he is upset he didn't get credit or a cut of the profit for him having come up with the idea for the vaccine. Sour Grapes. And he seems like a ego nut who is relishing in the notoriety he gets from the conspiracy groups now. If he can't get his portion of fame from the science community he will take it wherever he can.
    Audience capture also happens with p much every social media personality. The more they cater to the audience, the better feedback they get, which encourages them to cater more and more to the audience, with no real regard for facts or truth. IE: I know a guy who filmed himself inside the capitol saying he & others broke into the capitol on January 6. He got higher and higher off his "predictions" to the point where he thought Trump was sending him psychic messages only he and the chosen ones could receive. Started off getting into JFK conspiracies, then qanon. When Trump lost the election he lost his marbles completely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    When your knowledge of molecular biology is below high school level and you just gotta inform everyone of it:

    Originally posted by mossrose View Post

    Just out of curiosity, do you know what mRNA does down the road to a very small child?

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied

    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    You can tell him he's right. Because before the CDC ridiculously changed the definition of the word "vaccine" in 2021, it meant, and still does mean:

    a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and [bold] provide immunity[/bold] against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.


    The CDC, like so many left-leaning persons these days, (see "birthing person", for example) changed the definition of the bolded words to "provide protection" after they saw that the shot didn’t prevent people from getting the disease.

    These anti-covid shots should not be called vaccines. And instead of changing the definition of the word, the CDC should have apologized and started calling it something other than "vaccine".

    No vaccine in existence fits your stupid misunderstanding of immunity.If you understood how the immune system works (you don't) and understood how vaccines work (you don't), you'd know that. Like Stoic said, the definition was reworded because ignorant and arrogant people like you started braying about how this "isn't a real vaccine" based on your complete ignorance of how vaccines actually work.

    And you have no excuse for being this ignorant in the first place because the flu vaccine never provided anywhere near 100% immunity either. Something does not have to provide absolute immunity to be a vaccine. There is no such thing as a vaccine that provides absolute immunity because vaccines don't fight viruses, they prime the adaptive branch of the immune system to fight a specific pathogen. If your immune system is weak you will get less (or no) protection. Depending on the virus pathology your adaptive immune system may not get much of a chance to fight them until they spread to areas where the virus is accessible. If the virus is lethal enough no amount of immune response will save you. Etc.

    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    What if we "only" put a trace of strychnine in glasses of water and gave them to 100 people, but "only" half of them felt any effect?
    What if the same spike protein was reproduced endlessly, and not fixed in its initial state (like it is in the vaccine) so that it can fuse with cell membranes? This is why scientifically illiterate ignoramuses shouldn't comment on the topic. You have no idea what you're talking about but are simultaneously extremely confident in your gross ignorance.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post


    That, and I think he is upset he didn't get credit or a cut of the profit for him having come up with the idea for the vaccine. Sour Grapes. And he seems like a ego nut who is relishing in the notoriety he gets from the conspiracy groups now. If he can't get his portion of fame from the science community he will take it wherever he can.
    I do try to bear that possibility in mind.

    There's also the fact (assuming he's not straight-up lying) that he got almost fatally sick shortly after receiving one of the shots. That would be highly motivating.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post


    That, and I think he is upset he didn't get credit or a cut of the profit for him having come up with the idea for the vaccine. Sour Grapes. And he seems like a ego nut who is relishing in the notoriety he gets from the conspiracy groups now. If he can't get his portion of fame from the science community he will take it wherever he can.
    He didn't even come up with the idea for a vaccine. He was one of a number of people who did work on the development of mRNAs for gene expression in eukaryotic cells. He's just leveraging that background role to try to give things he believes personally scientific credibility they don't deserve.

    Your ego nut explanation is a not-unreasonable guess as to why he wants that credibility.

    In any case, lots of studies showing the risk of problematic myocarditis is much higher with severe COVID infections.
    Myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis: "These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations."

    Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex: "Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine."

    The myocarditis risk is highest in young men, but tends to be brief and resolve with no need for treatment. If someone's medical history indicates they are at high risk from myocarditis, they should look into getting a non-mRNA vaccine, such as the ones from J&J or Novavax.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post

    Although Lurch didn't respond, anyone is welcome to "enlighten" me, of course.
    Sorry, haven't really looked into the flu shot. I started getting them after a combination of things: hitting 50 and having a really unpleasant infection a few years back. But that's anecdote, and I haven't really looked into the data behind the current recommendations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    I notice he doesn't give any data (or point to any studies) regarding the risk from the vaccines, or the risk from covid-19. We're just supposed to take his word that the former is now higher than the latter, when it has been the opposite all along.

    He really sounds like a guy trying to sell his book.

    That, and I think he is upset he didn't get credit or a cut of the profit for him having come up with the idea for the vaccine. Sour Grapes. And he seems like a ego nut who is relishing in the notoriety he gets from the conspiracy groups now. If he can't get his portion of fame from the science community he will take it wherever he can.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post

    Dear Lurch, while we're at it, do you think the flu shot is worth it for younger people? Say, from 10-60 year range.

    If not, then why the campaign? It's not often on the media as Covid is, but it's still ''widespread'', so as to say.
    Although Lurch didn't respond, anyone is welcome to "enlighten" me, of course.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 01-28-2023, 10:53 AM
1 response
7 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by tabibito, 01-18-2023, 09:26 AM
17 responses
69 views
1 like
Last Post tabibito  
Started by rogue06, 01-13-2023, 11:27 AM
11 responses
67 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by shunyadragon, 01-09-2023, 12:13 PM
2 responses
15 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 01-06-2023, 10:19 AM
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X