> the ones for the CV vaccine were listed on many pages of tiny text (both from Pfizer and from Moderna)
The size of the pages side effects were written on says absolutely nothing about what the side effects are or their severity.
> Then there are the long term consequences, many studies keep coming out with surprises (recent buzzword “Ribosomal frameshift”
Ribosomal frameshift is in itself not a “long term consequence.” It is simply that depending on where translational of a piece of mRNA starts, different proteins can be produced. This is an essential part of how our own (or any other organism’s mRNA) is translated into proteins. other proteins present in a cell can regulate which proteins can be produced - again an essential part of how our cells function. This has been known about for decades.
It is one of the main potential areas that could lead to side effects of an mRNA vaccine so understanding what other proteins might be translated and under what circumstances is important.
Please don’t fear monger without any actual evidence to back it.
I think the methylated pseudouridine is actually a tRNA component. Could be wrong. I’m not sure what the 3D structure of the vaccine mRNA is, but it could depart quite a bit from the high-school-biology linear strand portrayal of mRNA.
> other proteins present in a cell can regulate which proteins can be produced - again an essential part of how our cells function
I thought manipulating this was a design goal.
Regardless, I somewhat doubt the simple story presented to the public is 100% accurate.
Appropriate medical treatment to manage immediate allergic reactions must be immediately available in the event an acute anaphylactic reaction occurs following administration of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.
Postmarketing data with authorized or approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within the first week following vaccination. For Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, the observed risk is highest in males 18 years through 24 years of age. Although some cases required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential long-term sequelae.
How did that make it "the right thing to do" for healthy people to take the COVID shots? Given their extremely poor effectiveness against transmission, the odds of the groups in those last two points eventually being infected with SARS-CoV-2 were no different with vaccine uptake at 60% or 90% or 99%. What, then, is accomplished by forcing healthy adolescents (for example) to take these shots?
I lost track of COVID research in the past two years. Can you please provide me some good articles about bad transmission effectiveness? I’ve seen this mentioned many times here, but my search seems contradict to that: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073587/
Conflicting papers have been published on transmission effectiveness. Everyone believes whatever they want.
“Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.
Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations.”
I thought that we had some new hard evidence, or revelation. So does this mean we still don’t know, or is there a considerable skew to one side in the statistical meaning, like in the case of eating red meat, or climate change, but as with everything there are contradicting studies?
I like to look at the big numbers when it comes to the effectiveness of measures. To me they tell the story. But that requires a lot of work, so I can’t really recommend diving into it.
None of the studies showing some level of effectiveness against transmission/infection show anything close to what would be necessary to establish herd immunity and thus provide durable protection against eventual infection for those who can't be vaccinated.
> but the ones for the CV vaccine were listed on many pages of tiny text (both from Pfizer and from Moderna).
A whole bunch of OTC drugs carry CYA lists like this, it's not the gotcha you think it is.
> but to me as a healthy 40yo person, with no known immunity issues, not overweight etc.
My father is getting a stent put in for a 70% artery blockage. Older of course but skinny, looks after his health, exercises. He had no symptoms like pain or being out of breath. Just high cholesterol.
A friend of mine in his early 30's healthy nearly got taken out by RSV last year because it aggravated a heart condition he was unaware of.
People aren't as healthy as they like to convince themselves they are.
Yeah you gotta love the people like “COVID is only super dangerous if you have comorbidities!” Yeah dude have you ever walked around and looked at people? Then have you ever talked even to people who outwardly appear healthy?
mRNA will eventually save the day for everyone, including for perfectly healthy individuals, but to me as a healthy 40yo person, with no known immunity issues, not overweight etc. etc. it is in my opinion still too risky to take just like that.
It's an interesting take. From what we know so far, the risk from taking vaccine is much smaller than from covid infection. You might counter this with highlighting the "so far" part, but keep in mind that many studies keep coming out with surprises not only regarding vaccine side effects, but also negative long term effects of covid.
It's not a dichotomy. The vaccine is effectively only for a couple of months so you have to compound the effects of the vaccine PLUS the effects of infection. You also don't know if the effects of the vaccine are cumulative with each new booster.
And that's even assuming it's effective in the first place. The "it reduces symptoms" mantra is gaslighting since the whole point of its accelerated approval and forced application was for the reduction of transmission.
I'll tell that to my colleague that got Covid vaccine induced blood clots, and has been told he will be on blood thinners for life.
While this is anecdotal, the amount of people I know personally that have told me they had significant health issues with a Covid vaccine or covid booster is weird.
Blood clotting in COVID is higher than instances of Vaccine induced clotting, in every measure. For every example like your colleague, there are many more for COVID itself.
Which begs the question, how do they know that it was vaccine induced blood clots and not covid or any other possible cause of blood clots?
Since at the same time mass vaccination rolled out, essentially all lockdowns were lifted and at least speaking for myself, that is when I caught Covid (and got sick in general again, no colds for almost two years was nice).
It would take a specific study isolating people that got the vaccine but never tested positive for COVID, which of course is open to some misreporting (1/3 of COVID cases are asymptomatic and most likely never identified).
Yes. The vaccine trains your immune system to create antibodies used to fight off the disease. Already having those antibodies when the virus appears means that it will not last as long and the symptoms will not be as severe.
Without the vaccine, your body has to create those antibodies while you are already sick, and that takes time. This gives the virus a huge head start.
Plus, the trick that this virus uses to kill is that it kicks off a cytokine storm, which is far more likely if your body is racing the virus to eradicate it than if your immune system is already primed and squashes the virus when its infection volume is small and localized.
We're not just talking the flu-like symptoms here, the most relevant symptoms are "risk of death decreased."
There's a key difference here that cancer mRNA vaccine you are taking after you've been diagnosed with cancer.
Otherwise for Coronavirus vaccines you couldn't argue that risks are much smaller for any given person under any given conditions. E.g. a person could be completely isolated for the next 10 years and have virtually 0% chance of getting Covid-19, so in this case there's no calculation that could show a vaccine being with more favourable benefits/risks.
If there's a 1/10,000 chance of giving you a sore shoulder that would be worse in the calculations if you are for sure to be isolated from being anywhere near the virus.
Otherwise for Coronavirus vaccines you couldn't argue that risks are much smaller for any given person under any given conditions. E.g. a person could be completely isolated for the next 10 years and have virtually 0% chance of getting Covid-19, so in this case there's no calculation that could show a vaccine being with more favourable benefits/risks.
Well yes, in completely absurd and unrealistic situation the risk of taking vaccine might be larger than that of Covid-19.
> Well yes, in completely absurd and unrealistic situation the risk of taking vaccine might be larger than that of Covid-19.
What about a person living in simple solitude who works remotely and orders everything in? This is a realistic, non-absurd scenario and they would possibly risk getting Covid-19 on their way to the appointment of getting the vaccine.
> What about a person living in simple solitude who works remotely and orders everything in? This is a realistic, non-absurd scenario and they would possibly risk getting Covid-19 on their way to the appointment of getting the vaccine.
The biggest whine from anti-vaxers was that they were being told they needed a vaccine to do social things they enjoyed , like air travel or coughing on the elderly.
I don't think you're hypothetical neo-hermit would being doing either of these, so itseems unlikely they'll be "forced" to get a vaccine.
I don’t think anyone would care about such a person opting not to get a vaccine. But this describes, pretty much by definition, a very small portion of a society.
For an individual it is a formula of should_vaccinate = (risk_of_getting_covid_19 * bad_outcomes) - (bad_outcomes_from_vaccines + risk_of_getting_covid_19_after_vaccine * bad_outcomes_of_covid_19_after_vaccine) > 0
On the group level you would have to consider the damage on the group level as well from not getting vaccinated due to increase of covid-19 spread, and increased hospitalisation levels.
On the global communication and messaging level I agree you should tell everyone to vaccinate as you can't easily provide everyone with those calculators. And not to mention people not being able to come up with correct values for those factors themselves.
However, pretty much any real world person doing those calculations and arriving at the conclusion that they're better off not getting the vaccine is engaging in motivated rationalization rather than reasoning. Almost no one is actually living as a hermit, unlikely to ever be exposed to covid. And just about everyone who will be exposed will be safer having had the vaccine, considering all the risks and probabilities you listed.
1. Age. Not all age groups were recommended the vaccine.
2. Last time or where you have had Covid-19 at all.
3. General pattern of activity and the amount of contacts with other people.
4. Last time you have had the vaccine.
E.g. in my country through it's technical systems didn't allow you to get a Covid-19 vaccine when you had the virus within last 6 months. While US recommended the vaccine much shorter period of time after having had Covid-19.
> Almost no one is actually living as a hermit
Also consider that in 2021, there were actually many people living as hermits, including I, as I really didn't want to get the virus. At the time I was terrified of getting it. In 2020-2021, I did live with my partner, but we worked remotely, worked out outside away from other people and we did cardio/gym, but with home made equipment or outside keeping distance to other people.
Not only, psychological consequences, lack of socialization, potentially lack of sun exposure, lack of getting medical checkups or adequate treatment etc.
Along with the health drawbacks of a sedentary lifestyle, unless you're vigilant about getting enough intentional exercise to replace the walking around we do over the course of a typical day outside the house.
That's also a weird assumption. The sedentary part. My dream life is owning large amount of land with a house where I can be completely self sustainable, including various automations and this includes having an in-built gym.
I was talking about risks in general population, those are not zero, in spite of some individuals who post factum may turn out just fine after 10 years of isolation.
No, it's a myth (albeit a popular one) that the human immune system benefits from being "toughened up" by actual pathogens. It's more about calibration by non-pathogens we co-evolved with.
What about the isolated populations, e.g. Sentinelese that are documented to die because they don't have the immune system developed to protect themselves against the viruses rest of the World has?
Although I would agree that 10 years later in your life is unlikely to create an issue.
> The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation 1956[9] prohibits travel to the island, and any approach closer than 5 nautical miles (9.3 km), in order to protect the remaining tribal community from "mainland" infectious diseases against which they likely have no acquired immunity. The area is patrolled by the Indian Navy.[10]
A: What behaviors or environments lead to adult immune systems calibrated to minimize autoimmune dysfunctions.
B: Comparing populations that already/ haven't developed inherited countermeasures against certain diseases.
C: (In some cases) Specific pathogens where it is less-damaging to encounter them at different phases of life.
In particular, I'd point out that sometimes a population strong against a particular disease does not necessarily have "better" immune systems... Sometimes it's literally survivorship bias, where all of the vulnerable individuals they used to have already died in tragic ways.
For coronavirus maybe, because it's not much of danger for you in the first place, but those risks would be thousands of times more acceptable for cancer.
There are no side effects observed from mRNA CV vaccines that could be worse when compared to cancers with 1%+ mortality rate.
As a reminder you won't be taking it before the cancer, you would be taking it after the fact.
>those risks would be thousands of times more acceptable for cancer.
This might be true if the treatment was thousands of times more effective than the best available alternative treatment. I don't know enough about this treatment to know if that's the case or not
There are maybe no effects that we know about right now. Different people have different opinions on what their risk tolerance is, so there could be people that may outright disagree with your statement.
And there were even fewer such effects when the vaccines have rolled out back in 2020 with emergency approval, but without being used “in production” beforehand.
Now we know much more about the mRNA platform, but I still can’t exclude the possibility entirely for me. So I will take my chances and focus much more on quality of food, on staying fit, reducing stress etc. etc.
You should do the healthy things to avoid cancer in the first place, but once you are diagnosed with a cancer with high mortality rate, it's a whole different calculation in terms of risks vs benefits compared to Covid-19.
There's multiple vaccines that can also work after you've been exposed to a pathogen. In many such cases risks vs benefits will change by the event.
For example rabies vaccines is not given to everyone, however after you get rabies you will be given that vaccine.
Vaccine in this case is a less harmful training tool to prepare you for the more harmful pathogen that may still be reaching its peak strength.
You can think of vaccines as a training tool. In some cases it might provide you with a response that can completely throw the pathogen out, in other cases it will just be able to fight it better.
>For example rabies vaccines is not given to everyone
If you could spread something as bad as rabies by sneezing. You would see actual mandatory vaccinations, not the mild nudge people have been complaining about the last three years.
But they are all very general and very vague.
Eat right.
Exercise.
Avoiding smoking and alcohol, unless it's red wine.
Be wealthy
Drink Coffee.
Sorry just when I see people suggesting healthy lifestyle under this and other articles for things like heart disease mRNA treatments, it generally betrays that they view being sick as a personal failing.
Get ready to see vaccines be used to prevent and cure conditions you that you probably think are outside the scope of what vaccines can address.
Projecting further into the future, the world is going to be divided into those with access to and willingness to use biotechnology and those who don’t. Note that I am including things like fitness and health tracking apps under the umbrella of biotech.
I have to disagree with this, clearly visible under my profile. In general I try to stay clear of any vaccine debates, in general because of being labeled in certain ways I don’t identify myself with at all.
Where, exactly, are the long term consequences of mRNA vaccination for SARS-CoV-2? Compared with, say, actually developing COVID? (Please note I’m not arguing that receiving a COVID mRNA vaccine is entirely risk free, however on a risk weighted basis receiving a COVID vaccine is much safer than having COVID)
To me the biggest risk is still the unknown, as in not enough experience. They have never been used “in production” until 2020.
I saved this post as a favorite and set up a reminder in 2 years and in 5 years about it. Hope there will be nothing to add, and we just got ourselves a mighty vaccines platform at zero long term consequences.
