I didn't want the mRNA jab (and didn't get it), but I WOULD definitely take this intranasal vaccine as its a classic (live attenuated) vaccine. That class of vaccine technology is not flawless, but it has decades of successful deployment and study.
I asked for opinions and got one and there is nothing non-factual in the response.
My only guess is people have lost their ability (or likely never had it) to separate "it is too new" from "it causes autism"
The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. The lowest risk option for healthy young individuals may or may not be.
The parent is publicly admitting that they chose the more selfish of the two options. This rubs the rest of us (who considered the greater good more important than the incredibly small personal risk) the wrong way.
It's sometimes ok to be selfish, but it's never going to be the most popular decision and don't expect the herd you are a part of to respect your disdain for the well being of the larger group.
Is it better for the herd to hear these people and try to convince them through talking, or to push them away/hiding/ridiculing them, potentially causing the Streisand effect?
Knee-jerk = A Actual = B In my opinion
If the vaccine was very good at stopping infection and transmission, this would be true. It's not though, is it?
Are you aware of the numbers needed to treat in order to prevent hospitalizations and deaths in the younger cohorts (especially in those who had already recovered)? It's quite a lot. Like numbers you probably wouldn't ever guess if you didn't already know them.
We destroyed a lot of faith in public health in the meantime, adding more to the negative side of the ledger for whatever future infectious shit storm comes our way.
You may find the following interesting: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
What "unknown" are you concerned about? Why do you believe we don't have a good understanding of how mRNA works in the body?
The tech was new enough we didn't know about the myocarditis potential side effect. Everyone was so sure, just like you seem to be. "It doesn't work like that" -- except it does cause myocarditis in some patients
Those that would really benefit from its protection are often the same group that would be knocked sideways by its side effects (the very old, infirm, already sick or otherwise vulnerable).
The majority get nothing much in terms of side-effects, but also nothing much in terms of protection over what our bodies could already do for us.
There’s only a small group that are vulnerable enough to benefit significantly, while also being strong enough to tolerate it.
I'm not sure "biology" uses a synthesiser to build nucleic acid into a man-made sequence, and then injects it into the muscles (or accidentally injects it into a blood vessel) of billions of people within the space of a few months.
> What "unknown" are you concerned about? Why do you believe we don't have a good understanding of how mRNA works in the body?
Dr Robert Malone is one of the founding fathers of mRNA vaccine technology. You can read his impressive body of research on the subject here:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ
He made a video statement regarding the Covid mRNA vaccines which I found very alarming. He described negative effects on the heart, brain, lungs and reproductive system. I won't post links here in case I am cancelled for doing so.
For whistleblowing about the mRNA vaccines he was made an instant pariah online, and there was a swift campaign to cancel and silence him, with media outlets instantly refuting his statements (interesting how media "factcheckers" deemed themselves more qualified to opine on mRNA vaccine technology than Dr Robert Malone himself).
I'm not a scientist (at least, not a scientist of biology), and I don't know if Malone was right or wrong about the jabs.
However, the Malone episode made it clear to me that society is NOT "doing science" correctly, while politicians and the media suppress any inconvenient scientific opinions while rolling out their policies and lucrative Big Pharma contracts.
He made claims about the vaccine killing some kid who died in 2013, talked about how the vaccine causes a form of AIDS, and tried to cure it with Pepcid (the anti-acid) and horse-paste. All of that was despite the fact that he took the Moderna vaccine himself, because he had long-COVID. Honestly, I wonder if COVID didn't' damage his brain somehow.
Either way, you probably shouldn't believe some fringe guy from the internet more than mainstream science. If your mind is too wide open the flies will get in.
*EDIT* I should also add that he didn't even come close to "inventing" the MRNA vaccine. He was one of many people who worked on a a similar concept and contributed to the field. No one person could be said to have invented it, but if there was one person it would not be him. His name was not even listed as one of the main authors of the paper he most frequently cites as proof of his claim.
Malone's discussion around "a form of AIDS" was in reference to the negative efficacy of the Covid mRNA injections recorded by some studies.
Annecdotally my wife (tripled mRNA jabbed) has caught symptomatic Covid twice since being jabbed. I tested positive for it only once (I tested as she had it), I had no symptoms. [Obviously the usual caveat applies. Just one data point, etc].
I don't think the science is "done" yet when it comes to understanding the long term side-effects on the immune system of the Covid mRNA injections.
Your disparaging reference to Ivermectin ("horse paste") suggests you haven't seen the latest studies on this subject: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
A lot of people are bad at evaluating risk. The internet makes it worse.
It's years later now, and most/all of the effects from the first round have long faded to a memory. Hence most folks have been boosted at least once. Millions upon millions of people have taken those vaccines, and some of us have taken them several times now. There hasn't been any uptick in all-cause mortality among those people that rose above the noise floor of the reports. In fact the vaccinated cohort tends to have died less often (as one would expect).
They're safe, they're effective, and they're cheap. They aren't perfect, but nothing is. Even if they do prove to be dangerous, the numbers show that the difference would have to be so minimal that your limited attention would be better spent installing new sticky things in the bathtub to prevent you from slipping and falling. Your death by those means are many tens of thousands of times more likely.