Hacker News Reader

Comment by fp64 | Hacker News Reader

Is there any evidence supporting the claim there is a significant overlap between the group of people who "refuse injections the government recommends" and the group of people who take "peptides"? The article is carefully crafted to evoke this impression without clearly stating it, listing only anecdotal evidence.

View on HN

RFK Jr using the blue dye stuff for one thing

How?

“Blue dye stuff” meaning methylene blue? Ironically that is one of the most extensively studied compounds in medicine, with hundreds of clinical trials over 100 years…

That doesn't support the claim that people who take peptides are anti-establishment.

I imagine the entire Joe Rogan sphere with being anti vax (or vax skeptical)... While promoting a billion supplements.

*anti untested vaccines - people should be skeptical of untested vaccines, just like peptides.

Indeed, but that’s not the point: many anti-vaxxers are against all vaccines, irrespective of how they were tested. (And will argue against e.g. the FRA approvals.)

But you confuse that set of people with people who don’t know want to inject untested vaccines into their body.

(I don’t)

I’m genuinely not aware of a DIY or grey market in vaccines. Peptides, yes, but vaccines?

In the absence of this, I suspect you’re either confused or straw-manning…

I was referring to the MRNA vaccines, which were relatively untested when released to the public. Suspicion of that is very reasonable.

Okay; noting that the argument has moved from "untested" to "relatively untested".

To clarify, is your concern the inadequacy of the approval process FDA uses for (all) vaccines (noting that many vaccines --e.g. influenza-- are refreshed on a fairly regular basis to account for new strains of viruses) or something specific to approval of the MRNA vaccines?

Or is it that MRNA vaccines were a new approach for vaccines more generally, and so there wasn't/isn't the same long-term data that there was/is for multiple generations of vaccines based on older technologies (viral vector, toxoid, etc.)?

Untested is always relative. And the second, but what’s your point?

> Untested is always relative.

I disagree; "untested" is a very definitive statement. Not tested. Especially when it's in a thread discussing people using all manner of less tested or sometimes literally untested peptides. (Hence my initial thought that maybe you were aware of people taking a DIY route that I wasn't.)

Anyway, when discussing a subject so popularly controversial as vaccines, it's probably better to be precise.

> And the second, but what’s your point?

I wanted to understand your perspective.

Which untested vaccines are regularly given to patients?

He means the COVID vaccine but knows people will make fun of him if he says what he actually believes so he's playing pretend like there is some plague of untested vaccines being used instead of there being one fast tracked vaccine deployed in response to a massive pandemic

Reply on news.ycombinator.com