Hacker News Reader

> And a lot of "religious exemptions" are being turned down. This would be a bit like taking a staunch vegan and forcing them to eat something (via threatening career) that was tested on animals while they said otherwise.

Considering all of the other household items that are also commonly tested using fetal cell lines (including acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, albuterol, pseudoephidrine), the analogy doesn't apply.

Heh, incidentally, there was a hospital that (reportedly) said, "okay sure, if you're swearing off all those other things you can claim a vaccine exemption":

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/hospital-staff-must-...

Many (most?) of those medicines are quite old and were developed before widespread legalization of abortion, let alone use of fetal stem cells in drug development.

Nevertheless, human cell culture testing has become a fundamental part of the safe production of many common drugs. FDA regulation and approval extends not just to the chemistry of a drug but also to how it is manufactured, to ensure that the delivered product is safe.

Old medicines are still evaluated for ongoing safety profiles, including interactions with new classes of drugs that may come on the market. Users of these medicines benefit from this.

As an example, here's a 2018 study on Tylenol using the HEK 293 line: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29273526/

Just to clarify this YouTube link: HEK293 cells are used in TONS of research, yes they are derived from fetal cell lines in the 70s. When I say tons, I mean if you say "HEK cells" to someone who does any cell culture they know what you're talking about. It is completely noncontroversial, and cancer/bioenergetic research utilizes them.

I don't appreciate this YouTube channel doing what they are doing, it is pouring fuel on a giant nothingburger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEK_293_cells

> I don't appreciate this YouTube channel doing what they are doing, it is pouring fuel on a giant nothingburger.

That's their MO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

Wikipedia says about using wikipedia:

> Wikipedia can be a great tool for learning and researching information. However, as with all reference works, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased.

So, there's also that to consider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wik...

That's why you can (and should!) scroll to the bottom of an article and consult the references, if you're unsure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#References

I have worked with HEK cells and linked to Wikipedia as it is generalized enough for public consumption.

Here's a Nature Communications paper on HEK293 containing a brief history with an impact factor ~13. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5767

Above 10 is considered of significant worth.

If that's not good enough for you, stick to whatever it is you're good at, and stop citing trash.

> I imagine it's also picked up steam since last weeks revelation from leaked internal Pfizer emails[2] that they used cells from aborted fetuses while testing the RDNA vaccine (testing - it's not in the vaccine), but have publicly stated otherwise.

The fact that fetal cells are used in testing has been public for a long time.

This article dates back to last December, for example: https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-t... (and here's me citing it two months ago, in case you want to claim a ninja-edit "last week": https://www.reddit.com/r/bestoflegaladvice/comments/p6f6yl/l...)

The “it’s the vaccine mandates!” argument has to figure out a way to explain why all the other airlines weren’t similarly affected when they instituted theirs.

Alex Berenson is… not a reputable source. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-...

TBH, neither is The Atlantic.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/07/atlantic-editor-concede...

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/16/im-at-a-loss-for-words-...

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/02/washington-post-atlantic-...

https://web.archive.org/web/20190911050141/https://www.daily...

https://archive.ph/MWN6K/again?url=https://www.theatlantic.c...

And many other examples.

OTOH, Derek Thompson predicted in 2017 that Bitcoin is overpriced at $16K, so maybe he knows something we don't?

It is a good thing that employers are rejecting made-up religious objections that have no basis in consistent and longstanding practice. If they don't, it will come back to bite them over and over and result in endless litigation.

It's telling that this is downvoted, even though it presents actual evidence from an actual SWA employee vs the random speculation found elsewhere in the thread. The cause isn't leanness or MBAs, its pilots protesting against vaccine mandates, by the testimony of an actual pilot who works there.

That is because it goes agaist the narrative that the only people that oppose mandates are backwater rednecks that have no education.

It can not be that high skilled professionals oppose having their body autonomy revoked... it can not be that "my body my choice" should extend to more medical choices than 1...

no no. this can not be allowed

There is a concerted effort to eliminate autonomy and individual agency

If fetuses were infectious - if you could stand by a pregnant person at the bus stop or grocery store or school, and suddenly find yourself pregnant by breathing the same air - "my body, my choice" would not be the reproductive rights slogan.

That is both a weak and dangerous argument if you place any value at all on individual freedom. As a vaccinated person I have a MUCH MUCH greater risk of dying in a car accident on the way to the grocery store than I do of contracting a deadly case of COVID.

Before the vaccine was widely available you may have had a case but once you become vaccinated your risk level drops to well below other risks we already accept as part of having a free society.

Our society has always balanced individual freedoms versus the impacts exercising them have on others.

I cannot have murder, child porn, or heroin use be a part of my religious ceremonies. I cannot have libel be a part of my free speech and expression. I cannot be Typhoid Mary and spread disease around. I cannot open a restaurant that skips hand washing. I cannot go to public school unvaccinated for measles and a number of other diseases in most states. I cannot drive drunk, despite research showing doing so actually improves my chances of surviving an accident (https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/odds-favo...).

Immunocompromised people exist. Tens of millions of children aren't yet eligible for the vaccines. I'm inclined to consider their individual freedoms not to be needlessly infected by a pandemic disease as important, too.

That is a very weak rebuttal and does nothing to address that fact that risk from COVID once you are vaccinated falls below the other accepted risks of society.

Care to address that or do you just want to keep building strawmen?

> once you are vaccinated

Again, this is fairly key. A large portion of the country is not yet eligible for the vaccines at this time.

> That is a very weak rebuttal

That is a very weak rebuttal.

2 Points

1. Vaccinated people still spread covid, Vaccination primary effect makes a person asymptomatic, this has been proven.

2. "Large portion" is false, it is children under 12, who have a lower chance of serious illness than a vaccinated person. That said if you as a parent feel that risk to do high then you as a parent can take measures to ensure you children only come in contact with vaccinated person, this however does not mean you can impose that desire via government. To be clear I am fine with parents advocating business require vaccinations of their own business policy, I am not fine with government telling a Bar that is for adults they also must require vaccinations. Government mandates bad, private business choices good.

> Vaccinated people still spread covid

Vaccinated people still spread COVID, but they're less likely to. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...

"When infected with the delta variant, a given contact was 65 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. With AstraZeneca, a given contact was 36 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated."

> "Large portion" is false, it is children under 12

That's about 50 million Americans, a number I consider fairly large. https://www.statista.com/statistics/457786/number-of-childre...

That's clearly not true given that the number of cases in highly vaccinated countries is as high or higher than before.

Firstly, NBC? They're not exactly going to give you a balanced view, are they. Anyway. The article is about an academic study. Those are near worthless: even theoretical studies with 100% external validity frequently come out too late to be informative. The real world data is what matters here. Perhaps someone who was literally just jabbed spreads it less, but if the protection lasts three months it's irrelevant and misleading to make a temporally unbounded claim "vaccinated people are less likely to spread COVID".