Submitted by fchung t3_zqx96i in technology
Vanman04 t1_j13awur wrote
Reply to comment by optimist31 in Universal flu vaccine may be available within two years, says scientist by fchung
>I'm all for vaccines that work
Goes on to explain how they are not in fact for vaccines that work.
optimist31 t1_j13qleb wrote
Quality of information over karma points any day. Make your argument at least.
optimist31 t1_j13q74t wrote
Ooof, brace for my rant lol.. they.. you.. thing..
It's sad how people blindly tag along with headlines with a promise of magic for the sake of their opinion on a social platform without having adequate and educated argument... and don't understand what the article says.
Nevermind considering that articles such as this are made for fast investment, rather than informing.
Is it already too much to ask just for testing and present evidence of it working as well as actual effects before jabbing?
I know that antigen flu shots work since they're safe version of flues themselves. Even the cancer cells in the shot don't bother me since it's been proven safe. mRNA on the other hand is literally telling your body what the response should be over a period of months.
The tradeoff of medicine is the strain/stress on your immune system to work on more important thing. It will be harder for your body to maintain itself leading to faster biological aging of some of the organs.
Prof John Oxford is looking at it as an achievement or progress in medicine. What I don't want it to be is another "everybody is considered stupid, and gets an express made jab to keep a job".
He is one of the best to tell us what to expect, but he will not be able to tell me using his mouth that there will be no side-effects such as physical exhaustion. If he would say it, I would believe him without a question.
I want people to be responsible for what they promise when the time comes for another global pandemic management. Otherwise they turn access to government decisions for profit globally. It's a scale that can be misused and I see right through these articles that are written for simpleminded approach.
I'm more of evidence of results guy, not let's argue who's opinion is right.
Feel free to contribute with counter argument, but don't assign your view of me without even trying to understand what I'm saying.
Edit: Looks like there's no disagreement, but general dislike of the idea to demand to be better informed of the "magic" vaccine for uncurable virus. Redditors are so dense when it comes to a challenge in ideas..
redditor54 t1_j14i8wu wrote
right on, glad there are still sane people out there.
optimist31 t1_j14r3b5 wrote
Thank you. I find that there're different states of mind and perception when it comes to discussions. Comments are more 1 dimensional that doesn't translate well as knowledge, extension of the subject, or just common talk.
I'm wrong for challenging their hope, not that I'm of wrong opinion of realistic expectations on the subject. Even welcoming counter arguments to see where I'm wrong, but I get downvotes due to short circuits lol
[deleted] t1_j14a203 wrote
[removed]
Vanman04 t1_j15gysd wrote
>I'm more of evidence of results guy, not let's argue who's opinion is right.
Nothing wrong with that but you have done nothing but provide a name and opinion. I am not going to waste my time providing links to evidence the vaccines were effective.
You want to show some evidence they weren't and were just to fill contracts feel free to do so but baring that all I am seeing here is opinion not worth wasting time on as it's all been done before thousands of times
optimist31 t1_j161dg8 wrote
I will do it for you. The research on the 3 shots that I received is right here(CDC on Pfizer), the link can't be better. To sum it up, vaccines did save lives of 0.0029% of people that received the shots. About 3000 in 1 million at a peak of infections(effective use of vaccinations within 3 months).
And the side effect is myocarditis (weakening of the heart walls) which caused around 0,00036% to die in the control test (same report). About 380 in a million.
The point is that I don't want to repeat is these unknown factors (unknown efficacy, effects and adverse effects).
My question is what damage it could've caused to heart walls long term. No one can answer that, as we're yet to get an answer on that if someone dares to question.
It's not entirely appealing to take something that does a little bit of damage in a million of people and actually save 3000 (minus 380 and others in adverse reactions, minus ineffective efficacy due to not receiving new jabs about and few other variables).
All I want is not to be forced to be a lab rat, forcibly "voluntarily" agree that I take responsibility for any side-effects, and I "now allow it to be administered". I felt like taking those jabs in a lawyers office. They never did that with a flu shot. I don't want that to repeat. And all that was required by law after I suffered through multiple strains and gained own immunity to them.
Make the medicine, make sure it's up to par first. Covid is coming around, and I don't see people running to jab themselves, because this exact thought is at the back of people's minds that it prevents by drawing on your immune system, rather than strengthening it.
Rather take what doctors take, like RX550 (potent immunity booster) that knocks the socks off compared to covid itself and work twice as long. Also alternative medicine was excluded from consideration at a time.. how is that for freedom of choice.
Vaccines are great for chickenpox, but flu is not curable due to seasonal mutations with it, unlike other viruses that your body has to learn once. Even those have side-effects, but I fair trade to become immune to known diseases.
The article in the post, it's a baseline shot, not a cure. I hope this research brings better breakthroughs down the road and keeps the facts straight without toy toying with lives globally.
So to get back to your comment, it's more of ethics that I want to see brushed up and transparency that will make me want to take it rather than read another article on new findings after I had 3 of them. It does make me question about it's benefits or drawbacks.
TLDR: when it's ready in 2 years time, test, then announce the miracle flu shot. Too early for population now to think about.
Vanman04 t1_j166iip wrote
lots of words but from your own link.
The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimates from the observational studies demonstrated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reduced symptomatic COVID-19 when compared to no vaccination (pooled vaccine effectiveness: 92.4% (95% CI: 87.5–95.3%), based on 8 studies) [6,10,11,14,17,18,21,31]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 94.3% (95% CI 87.9–97.3%), based on 8 studies [13,15,17,21,22,25,28,30]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness for prevention of death due to COVID-19 was 96.1% (95%CI 91.5–98.2%), based on 4 studies [13,15,17,25]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 89.3% (95% CI 88.4–90.1%), based on 2 studies [17,24
0.0029% does not appear anywhere in your link so you are pulling that number from god knows where. (I have my suspicions but)
But all of that is really unecessary since you can find the hospitalization numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated.
In this cross-sectional study of US adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during January 2022 to April 2022 (during Omicron variant predominance), COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates were 10.5 times higher in unvaccinated persons and 2.5 times higher in vaccinated persons with no booster dose, respectively, compared with those who had received a booster dose. Compared with unvaccinated hospitalized persons, vaccinated hospitalized persons were more likely to be older and have more underlying medical conditions.
That all by itself puts the lie to the .0029 % number you pulled from apparently no where.
You need to stop listening to quaks and fox news.
You seem to be one of those follks deparate to ensure you have not been mislead and grasping at anything that can give you comfort in knowing you have done your research and you aren't being played like a fool.
You say you don't want to be a lab rat but you refuse to listen to what the labs and actual data is telling you. you are grasping at folks who are grifting for money coming up with made up numbers like .00029 to make yourself feel better. But all you are really doing is fooling yourself and endangering your health and those around you.
I found a source for your .0029 number and it's wild how wrong your conclusions of it are. This is from the post of all places a paper sympathetic to the right wing lunacy.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/11/cdc-study-highlights-covids-low-risk-to-the-vaccinated/
The agency looked at 1,228,664 people who were vaccinated between December 2020 and October 2021 …
Of those, 2,256 developed COVID, or 0.1%
Of those, 189 had a serious outcome, or 0.01%
Of those, 36 died, or 0.0029%
Roughly 28 of those who died had four or more comorbidities, including immunosuppression, diabetes, and chronic kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neurologic and/or liver disease.
In short, if you’re vaccinated, the risk of death, or even hospitalization, from COVID is infinitesimally small. Like being-struck-by-lightning-in-your-lifetime small.
So your .0029 is your chances of dying when you have the booster Pretty freaking impressive really that you came to the exact opposite conclusion that it was just the people saved. Exact opposite of what that number represents it is actually the number it didn't save.
This is why I rarely waste time with folks like you because you think you have done your research but that just means you found folks to confirm your conspiracy nonsense and stopped looking. What's really wild is you know where to look but then refuse to actually read what the studies say.
I wish you luck with your conspiracy theory nonsense and hope that it never bites you in the ass as it has so many r/HermanCainAward
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments