Seems like I’d better start working on my PhD in virology so I can have a valid opinion.
Everyone here speaks in very absolute and very confident tones. There are some scientific beliefs which have been proven to be absolutely truthful and others that are open for debate. Such is the nature of the scientific method. There is still much to be learned about this pandemic. The politicians like to say follow the science as if it’s the absolute truth. Which it is not, at least wrt this pandemic.
The politicization of this pandemic is abhorrent. The political class putting their objectives in front of the welfare of the American people is selfish and sad. Both sides are guilty but I’d say the left has been worse than the right.
As with anything in life the best path forward is one that lies between the extremes. Moderation. Common sense. Accommodation of different perspectives are all important.
In my opinion vaccination is appropriate for most people. But there are exceptions. Each individual should consult with a medical professional regarding their specific situation.
Verbally attacking others with differing opinions is totally unacceptable. Disagree in a polite and adult manner. Especially if you want your opinion to be heard.
The government has proved to be very helpful in the development and distribution of a vaccine. They’ve been less helpful in developing confidence by the American people in the validity, motivation and truth in what is being told to them. Which is sad.
... Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents ...
"COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way. Both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines deliver instructions (genetic material) to our cells to start building protection against the virus that causes COVID-19. However, the material never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html
Just to expand on this a bit, since it seems to be an area highly susceptible to disinformation due to the specialized nature of the topic — i.e., most people have no basis in their knowledge to evaluate these wild claims about vaccines altering your genes.
First, the mRNA vaccines cannot alter your "genes" because they don't contain any DNA. The mRNA enters your cells, makes its way to the ribosomes in the cytoplasm, where it gets transcribed to make Covid spike proteins, and then is immediately destroyed. The spike proteins are released and cause an immune response. This entire process simply uses the cell's machinery to manufacture proteins in exactly the same way the cell naturally manufactures proteins and destroys mRNA produced internally. But they key thing to remember about mRNA vaccines is they don't contain any DNA, so there is no DNA to "alter your genes".
The viral vector vaccines work differently and require an additional step — i.e., the production of mRNA — after which the process is identical to the way mRNA vaccines work, as described above. The viral vector vaccines do contain DNA, but they also don't "alter your genes" because they simply don't have the ability to do so. Here's a good explanation of why this is so from https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91604 "Here's Why Viral Vector Vaccines Don't Alter DNA
— It's pretty simple -- they can't" [emphasis mine]:
Potential to Change DNA?
Adenoviruses deliver DNA that can enter the cell nucleus, which brings up the question of whether they can alter DNA. That's an easy one -- no.
Adenoviruses -- even as they occur in nature -- just do not have the capacity to alter DNA. Unlike retroviruses such as HIV or lentiviruses, wild-type adenoviruses do not carry the enzymatic machinery necessary for integration into the host cell's DNA. That's exactly what makes them good vaccine platforms for infectious diseases, according to Coughlan.
And, engineered adenoviruses used in vaccines have been further crippled by deleting chunks of their genome so that they cannot replicate, further increasing their safety.
"The cell lines that are used for adenovirus vaccines are highly and well characterized cell lines. They are classified by the FDA as nonintegrating, meaning there has never been any evidence in humans and multiple animal models of vector-borne DNA integrating into a host," said Gregory Poland, MD, of the vaccine research group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
The enzymatic machinery, which these adenoviruses don't have, in case you are wondering, refers to enzymes that are capable of opening up DNA strands to allow DNA to be inserted. Without this, it's completely impossible for it to "alter your genes" because it simply has no way to do so. It's basically like not having a key to a lock, without which you cannot unlock the door, and in this case unlocking the door is the only possible way in.
Anyone you hear saying something contrary to the above simply does not understand the science they are referring to, and probably not science generally, something all too common these days.
Science rarely fails to deliver its intended outcomes there are robust scientific methods and legal recourse to ensure this. Where science invariably fails is in its unintended outcomes due to lack of consideration for the context of application.
Your commentary is flawed in that cellular reproduction unzips the DNA to RNA. Let’s hope the vaccine mRNA doesn’t make an untimely quantum visit to the delivery room or we won’t be handing out cigars, we’ll be handing out tumours. But I’m sure that context has been very, very well considered.
Ok, well, it's pretty clear you have no knowledge of this: "unzips the DNA to RNA". Go learn something and then come back and post when you can write something that isn't nonsense.
I guess we should ignore the rest of your comments if you didn’t know even this.
Really, you need to get educated. Your understanding is so limited that you don't even understand that the link you posted does not support your statement that "cellular reproduction unzips the DNA to RNA".
DNA and RNA are different molecules and DNA does not become RNA simply because the strands unwind and the base pairs unlink, like during replication or transcription.
Secondly, unlinking the base pairs is entirely different from causing an opening in the strand that would allow new DNA to splice in — one is like pulling apart the strands of a string while the other is like cutting a string in half. There are entirely different bonds that would require entirely different enzymes to break — just like you pull the strands of a string apart with your fingers but use a scissor to cut it. So, no, there is no risk that the viral vector DNA could become "integrated" at that time.
Really, all these crazy fears are borne of ignorance. But, if you don't know the science, the best advice is don't listen to people with no standing in science, listen to the experts.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
It seems you are a person type who gets shocked easily by trivial things. Or are you just belonging to anti-vax camp. And maybe you haven’t realized it yet. That you are in denial of the human progress in medicine.
Firstly, As some one have already pointed out - the vaccination does not modify your genes, contrary to what you are thinking. It’s a fact. And you got your facts WRONG.
Secondly, the society needs to function, what other measures than ‘passports’ do you suggest for mitigating the risk of spreading COVID-19, when the society tries to get to new normal? Or you just criticize the solution without offering any alternatives? Sounds like a grumpy asshole.
Thirdly, the provided to you link https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/why-covid-19-vaccines-offer-better-protection-than-infection.html Is an interview with Virologist Sabra Klein, PhD ‘98, MS, MA, who says an immense amount of data collected in a short time have made clear the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and the limited immunity that comes from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is funny how easily you dismiss the information coming from a virologist.
Fourthly, you have provide in a later comment 3 links, basically claiming that it is the prove (for you) that natural immunity is better than vaccine. But your claim is wrong. Let’s look into the links you have provided. In the 1st link: there is no such information about what is better In the 2nd link: there is no control group / initial testing. It doesn’t consider that all vaccinated people are documented, but only a part of the infected people are making the test and are diagnosed being sick with COVID-19. Thus the number of people who were newly infected and were already sick with COVID-19 some time in the past isn’t known. This means that the statistics in the article and the conclusion that vacinated people 6 times are more likely to get sick than people with the natural immunity is NOT CORECT AND MISLEADING. In the 3d link: there is finally a control group initial testing done. And the numbers tell us that 4,85% percent of people get reinfected (=62/1278), and only 3,85% vacinated people got infected (=5449/141480). So even in the link you have provided, you proved your own statement is WRONG. You got your facts wrong AGAIN.
You are not simply getting the facts wrong. You are spreading LIES or your own ASSUMPTIONS.
PLEASE STOP IT!!!
That was a lot of effort to be mostly wrong. And for you to embarrass yourself by calling me a "grumpy asshole" lol (points for humor!). A gene is a a segment of DNA or RNA that carries information. Do you know what the 'RNA' in mRNA is referring to? I'll give you one guess. Did I say it modifies your DNA? You don't even have to guess on this one, I'll tell you: no. What it does do is use genetic code to trigger protein production by ribosomes, rather than using inactivated virus particles, like the vast majority of vaccines out there.
It's funny how you maintain the idea of vaccine passports, despite the fact that they don't account for natural immunity, and that vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission, which would be the whole point of limiting travel. But maybe that's a bit too complex for you to sort out, or you're just too triggered by all this to think clearly.
You ask about solutions? Well, the average age of death is around 80 years old, so lets make sure all the elderly are vaccinated (already done! >%90 are in the US). Let's also make sure that anyone who is at risk, with commodities, has the opportunity to get a vaccine (done! they're practically darting people along the sidewalks). Lets also develop a traditional, inactivated vaccine, rather than the gene therapy vaccines that focus only on spike proteins, and thus don't confer a full immune response. The use of 'leaky' and incomplete gene therapy vaccines promotes the creation of variants by making it easier for the virus to evade defenses (if you're vaccinated, you're helping to create variants faster, it's basic science).
In short, you should probably know what you're talking about before spouting off on the internet and accusing people of lying.
I actually like you You can really well write coherent sentences. But it by itself doesn’t make your point correct.
It seems that you avoided to response to my main concern: your erroneous claim about superiority of natural immunity over vaccination. And actually in the 3d link you have provided, the numbers look better in favor of the vaccination. So basically, you have contradicted to your statement with that link.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Outside of the rare case where science reveals an absolute truth in the case of scientific laws which takes years if not decades to identify, it is hardly absolute. Think of the different prevailing views between general relativity and Newtonian physics. Both have their usefulness. And that’s in the realm of physics. Biology is a much less “hard” science. I’m not an anti-vaxer by any means. They do work, and the current statistics show the COVID 19 vaccine to be effective. My concern was with how fast to market it came. Because much testing has not been done, there’s always that risk of adverse reactions we don’t know about. I for for one was leery about the risk vs benefits, but ultimately decided to go with it. Science is done by scientists, who are fallible and make mistakes, even in groups or when they have checks and balances in place to HELP prevent errors. Science is a useful tool for gaining knowledge and producing helpful things, but is no where near absolute truth.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Is this statement intended to be deliberately ironic? Because it's the most absurdly false statement about science that I've ever seen.
It’s okay to question science but it’s NOT okay to question it using non-scientific evidence or hearsay, conspiracy theory. We have the flat earthers who choose to not believe science without a single shred of evidence to support their position. We have fundamentalist preachers who claim humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together yet have no valid evidence to support it. One of them has even opened a Creation Museum in, drum roll, Kentucky with dioramas depicting humans and dinosaurs living peacefully together.
While these poor souls may have a right to their opinion we are under no obligation to respect or accept their ludicrous ideas. Same goes for the anti-vaxxers and pandemic conspiracy theorists, like those here who claim ‘natural immunity’ (whatever that even means) is better than vaccines. While the flat earthers and creation science believers can safely be ignored the vaccine deniers and pandemic conspiracy theorists cannot be ignored. They are killing people with their bullshit. They need to be denied a platform, suppressed, dealt with immediately.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
No worries. Soon there will be plenty of data on delta variant. But at the same time not sufficient data for gamma variant.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
I think it's obviously sarcastic, or perhaps their idea of a parody of the idea that we should trust science. As to "labelling" others "who do not share your views" as anti-science, there is certainly no problem with saying people who express anti-science views are anti-science; let's not lump all differing views together or pretend that all opinions are equally valid. Telling someone they are wrong and/or that they don't know what they are talking about when they clearly are and/or don't is not arrogant, hypocritical or anti-science, it's simply refusing to accept their ignorance as equally valid with knowledge.
That being said, I can't imagine what you mean when you say that, "the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant." Quite a lot is known about it: it's more contagious, it appears to be more virulent, it has a higher rate of breakthrough infections compared to other variants, it seems to result in more severe illness in younger people and children than other variants. I'm sure there are some questions about it that are still unanswered, or at least not thoroughly understood — such as exactly what makes it more infectious — but, in the big picture, exactly what is "still out there"?
There's a difference between scientific certainty and scientific uncertainty on the one hand, and belief and ignorance on the other. I know the anti-science crowd like to try to create false equivalencies around these things, but they are just that, false. And let's not pretend that all knowledge that can be collected under the heading of science has the same level of uncertainty. This is also a favorite, but specious, idea that the anti-science crowd attempts to promote: "it's just a theory!". They also like to ignore the fact that they are using 'theory' in an ordinary language sense, while scientists use 'theory' in a very special sense. There are varying degrees of confirmation that apply to things that fall into any specific theory, from as near certainty as is possible for anything to highly conjectural — i.e., some things in science are "known" with essentially 100% certainty, while other things are less well confirmed and may have lesser levels of certainty. (There's also, of course the conflation of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' which are not really the same thing.)
Take evolution, a perennial favorite target of a certain faction of the anti-science crowd. That evolution occurs through the process of natural selection is so well confirmed at this point to make it a practical certainty. There is simply no scientific question about this "theory" any longer. That humans are descended from a common ancestor of other primates — apes, moneys, lemurs, bush babies — is established science, so well confirmed that there is no scientific question about it. That humans evolved somewhere in Africa, no question. Where there may be questions is in details such as, exactly what selection pressures are most likely to have caused humans to evolve to exactly the form we see ourselves in today, or which came first, tool use or language. So when one says that Evolution, with a capital 'E' is a theory, yes it is in the sense that it's a body of knowledge that in its broad strokes is so highly confirmed that there is no question of whether those broad strokes are 100% true or not, they are.
So it is with Covid-19, its variants, and vaccines. There are certain things we know, confirmed through multiple studies, that are not in question: they are known facts. There are other things we "know" that are less well confirmed, but for which we have sufficient confirmation to posit that they are very likely true. There are things we think may be true but need additional studies for confirmation. There are things that at this time are best guesses based on what we do know about Covid-19 and what we know about viruses generally, as well as other viruses similar to Covid-19 and about vaccines. And then there are things that are conjectural, or speculative.
Critics of the science on Covid-19 like to lump all the knowledge we have about Covid-19, variants and vaccines into the latter category of speculation. Largely because this supports their agenda of science denial, but it also demonstrates a profound ignorance of what scientific knowledge is and how science works.
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
…
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
Oh man. Your sense of certainty with your repeated “there is no question“ statements belies everything else you said, which was waaaay too long.
That Covid is deadly to some is certainly true, but to say something like that as a general truth lacks nuance as it is not deadly to the vast majority of people. Your biggest error was bringing up masks. Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not effective against airborne viruses. Only in the last 18 months did this become politicized. It is truly rich that the people who point fingers at supposed anti-science people also claim that regular cloth masks have any efficacy with regard to airborne particles which pass right through them. If you want to go ahead and wear a tight fitting N-95, then yes, it’s going to be reasonably effective. But the masks everybody else is wearing is pure theater not backed up by decades of research and data. That the government continues to push regular masks severely undermines their credibility and suggests they have a serious messaging problem.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
I think it's obviously sarcastic, or perhaps their idea of a parody of the idea that we should trust science. As to "labelling" others "who do not share your views" as anti-science, there is certainly no problem with saying people who express anti-science views are anti-science; let's not lump all differing views together or pretend that all opinions are equally valid. Telling someone they are wrong and/or that they don't know what they are talking about when they clearly are and/or don't is not arrogant, hypocritical or anti-science, it's simply refusing to accept their ignorance as equally valid with knowledge.
That being said, I can't imagine what you mean when you say that, "the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant." Quite a lot is known about it: it's more contagious, it appears to be more virulent, it has a higher rate of breakthrough infections compared to other variants, it seems to result in more severe illness in younger people and children than other variants. I'm sure there are some questions about it that are still unanswered, or at least not thoroughly understood — such as exactly what makes it more infectious — but, in the big picture, exactly what is "still out there"?
There's a difference between scientific certainty and scientific uncertainty on the one hand, and belief and ignorance on the other. I know the anti-science crowd like to try to create false equivalencies around these things, but they are just that, false. And let's not pretend that all knowledge that can be collected under the heading of science has the same level of uncertainty. This is also a favorite, but specious, idea that the anti-science crowd attempts to promote: "it's just a theory!". They also like to ignore the fact that they are using 'theory' in an ordinary language sense, while scientists use 'theory' in a very special sense. There are varying degrees of confirmation that apply to things that fall into any specific theory, from as near certainty as is possible for anything to highly conjectural — i.e., some things in science are "known" with essentially 100% certainty, while other things are less well confirmed and may have lesser levels of certainty. (There's also, of course the conflation of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' which are not really the same thing.)
Take evolution, a perennial favorite target of a certain faction of the anti-science crowd. That evolution occurs through the process of natural selection is so well confirmed at this point to make it a practical certainty. There is simply no scientific question about this "theory" any longer. That humans are descended from a common ancestor of other primates — apes, moneys, lemurs, bush babies — is established science, so well confirmed that there is no scientific question about it. That humans evolved somewhere in Africa, no question. Where there may be questions is in details such as, exactly what selection pressures are most likely to have caused humans to evolve to exactly the form we see ourselves in today, or which came first, tool use or language. So when one says that Evolution, with a capital 'E' is a theory, yes it is in the sense that it's a body of knowledge that in its broad strokes is so highly confirmed that there is no question of whether those broad strokes are 100% true or not, they are.
So it is with Covid-19, its variants, and vaccines. There are certain things we know, confirmed through multiple studies, that are not in question: they are known facts. There are other things we "know" that are less well confirmed, but for which we have sufficient confirmation to posit that they are very likely true. There are things we think may be true but need additional studies for confirmation. There are things that at this time are best guesses based on what we do know about Covid-19 and what we know about viruses generally, as well as other viruses similar to Covid-19 and about vaccines. And then there are things that are conjectural, or speculative.
Critics of the science on Covid-19 like to lump all the knowledge we have about Covid-19, variants and vaccines into the latter category of speculation. Largely because this supports their agenda of science denial, but it also demonstrates a profound ignorance of what scientific knowledge is and how science works.
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
…
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
Oh man. Your sense of certainty with your repeated “there is no question“ statements belies everything else you said, which was waaaay too long.
That Covid is deadly to some is certainly true, but to say something like that as a general truth lacks nuance as it is not deadly to the vast majority of people. Your biggest error was bringing up masks. Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not effective against airborne viruses. Only in the last 18 months did this become politicized. It is truly rich that the people who point fingers at supposed anti-science people also claim that regular cloth masks have any efficacy with regard to airborne particles which pass right through them. If you want to go ahead and wear a tight fitting N-95, then yes, it’s going to be reasonably effective. But the masks everybody else is wearing is pure theater not backed up by decades of research and data. That the government continues to push regular masks severely undermines their credibility and suggests they have a serious messaging problem.
Be careful of your certainty. It may trip you up.
Here's the problem for your argument against masks: It's refuted by the epidemiology, which shows that masking slows the infection rates for Covid-19.
Your biggest error was bringing up masks. Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not effective against airborne viruses. Only in the last 18 months did this become politicized. It is truly rich that the people who point fingers at supposed anti-science people also claim that regular cloth masks have any efficacy with regard to airborne particles which pass right through them. If you want to go ahead and wear a tight fitting N-95, then yes, it’s going to be reasonably effective. But the masks everybody else is wearing is pure theater not backed up by decades of research and data. That the government continues to push regular masks severely undermines their credibility and suggests they have a serious messaging problem.
Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not 100% effective against airborne viruses. That does not mean they are not effective at all. Actually, even N95 masks are not 100% effective. Even the vaccine is not 100% effective. We have an imperfect situation and imperfect solutions and a bunch of asshats shouting at people making an effort because their efforts aren't perfect.
Wearing a mask is not theatre. Grandstanding and accusing it of being theatre is the fucking theatre.
Your biggest error was bringing up masks. Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not effective against airborne viruses. Only in the last 18 months did this become politicized. It is truly rich that the people who point fingers at supposed anti-science people also claim that regular cloth masks have any efficacy with regard to airborne particles which pass right through them. If you want to go ahead and wear a tight fitting N-95, then yes, it’s going to be reasonably effective. But the masks everybody else is wearing is pure theater not backed up by decades of research and data. That the government continues to push regular masks severely undermines their credibility and suggests they have a serious messaging problem.
Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not 100% effective against airborne viruses. That does not mean they are not effective at all. Actually, even N95 masks are not 100% effective. Even the vaccine is not 100% effective. We have an imperfect situation and imperfect solutions and a bunch of asshats shouting at people making an effort because their efforts aren't perfect.
Wearing a mask is not theatre. Grandstanding and accusing it of being theatre is the fucking theatre.
I agree with you. Nothing is absolute. To those feeble-minded people, no one in the world is saying that getting a vaccine is going to protect you 100% or that wearing a mask will do so either. It's all a matter of degrees. It's cumulative. What they are saying is that doing nothing is the worst of all.
I'm not sure why people are so dense these days. It could be that the population is getting out of control and we need to cull the herd? Normally, that's done through war but we haven't had a large one in a long time. This pandemic was supposed to be nature's way of culling the herd but medical technology is thwarting that effort. Perhaps that's why the wealthy and powerful conservatives want to spread propaganda? After all, they were the first to get vaccinated and are telling their followers to do the opposite. They want natural selection to take place and they know that a lot of their followers will blindly do as they say and not as they do.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
…
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
Oh man. Your sense of certainty with your repeated “there is no question“ statements belies everything else you said, which was waaaay too long.
That Covid is deadly to some is certainly true, but to say something like that as a general truth lacks nuance as it is not deadly to the vast majority of people. Your biggest error was bringing up masks. Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not effective against airborne viruses. Only in the last 18 months did this become politicized. It is truly rich that the people who point fingers at supposed anti-science people also claim that regular cloth masks have any efficacy with regard to airborne particles which pass right through them. If you want to go ahead and wear a tight fitting N-95, then yes, it’s going to be reasonably effective. But the masks everybody else is wearing is pure theater not backed up by decades of research and data. That the government continues to push regular masks severely undermines their credibility and suggests they have a serious messaging problem.
Be careful of your certainty. It may trip you up.
Wow. Your. Is understanding of mask efficiency is just beyond my understanding. LOL.
It’s like saying that umbrellas are ineffective protection against a rain.
Let’s see who would be dryer when it rains - the person without the umbrella or with an umbrella?
The same goes for masks.
Even in the same household when a child is sick, if a parent has a mask then the parent is 4 times less likely to get infected than without the mask. I read about the study which came with this results.
People still can get sich even when m]wearing a mask. But the likelihood to stay healthy is higher if you are wearing a mask.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
…
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
Oh man. Your sense of certainty with your repeated “there is no question“ statements belies everything else you said, which was waaaay too long.
That Covid is deadly to some is certainly true, but to say something like that as a general truth lacks nuance as it is not deadly to the vast majority of people. Your biggest error was bringing up masks. Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not effective against airborne viruses. Only in the last 18 months did this become politicized. It is truly rich that the people who point fingers at supposed anti-science people also claim that regular cloth masks have any efficacy with regard to airborne particles which pass right through them. If you want to go ahead and wear a tight fitting N-95, then yes, it’s going to be reasonably effective. But the masks everybody else is wearing is pure theater not backed up by decades of research and data. That the government continues to push regular masks severely undermines their credibility and suggests they have a serious messaging problem.
Be careful of your certainty. It may trip you up.
Here's the problem for your argument against masks: It's refuted by the epidemiology, which shows that masking slows the infection rates for Covid-19.
Don’t forget how dumb an average person is. And half of the population is even stupider than that.
E.g. the US army would even reject those any of those people if they belong to those 10% population with lower IQ. (Fact)
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
I think it's obviously sarcastic, or perhaps their idea of a parody of the idea that we should trust science. As to "labelling" others "who do not share your views" as anti-science, there is certainly no problem with saying people who express anti-science views are anti-science; let's not lump all differing views together or pretend that all opinions are equally valid. Telling someone they are wrong and/or that they don't know what they are talking about when they clearly are and/or don't is not arrogant, hypocritical or anti-science, it's simply refusing to accept their ignorance as equally valid with knowledge.
That being said, I can't imagine what you mean when you say that, "the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant." Quite a lot is known about it: it's more contagious, it appears to be more virulent, it has a higher rate of breakthrough infections compared to other variants, it seems to result in more severe illness in younger people and children than other variants. I'm sure there are some questions about it that are still unanswered, or at least not thoroughly understood — such as exactly what makes it more infectious — but, in the big picture, exactly what is "still out there"?
There's a difference between scientific certainty and scientific uncertainty on the one hand, and belief and ignorance on the other. I know the anti-science crowd like to try to create false equivalencies around these things, but they are just that, false. And let's not pretend that all knowledge that can be collected under the heading of science has the same level of uncertainty. This is also a favorite, but specious, idea that the anti-science crowd attempts to promote: "it's just a theory!". They also like to ignore the fact that they are using 'theory' in an ordinary language sense, while scientists use 'theory' in a very special sense. There are varying degrees of confirmation that apply to things that fall into any specific theory, from as near certainty as is possible for anything to highly conjectural — i.e., some things in science are "known" with essentially 100% certainty, while other things are less well confirmed and may have lesser levels of certainty. (There's also, of course the conflation of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' which are not really the same thing.)
Take evolution, a perennial favorite target of a certain faction of the anti-science crowd. That evolution occurs through the process of natural selection is so well confirmed at this point to make it a practical certainty. There is simply no scientific question about this "theory" any longer. That humans are descended from a common ancestor of other primates — apes, moneys, lemurs, bush babies — is established science, so well confirmed that there is no scientific question about it. That humans evolved somewhere in Africa, no question. Where there may be questions is in details such as, exactly what selection pressures are most likely to have caused humans to evolve to exactly the form we see ourselves in today, or which came first, tool use or language. So when one says that Evolution, with a capital 'E' is a theory, yes it is in the sense that it's a body of knowledge that in its broad strokes is so highly confirmed that there is no question of whether those broad strokes are 100% true or not, they are.
So it is with Covid-19, its variants, and vaccines. There are certain things we know, confirmed through multiple studies, that are not in question: they are known facts. There are other things we "know" that are less well confirmed, but for which we have sufficient confirmation to posit that they are very likely true. There are things we think may be true but need additional studies for confirmation. There are things that at this time are best guesses based on what we do know about Covid-19 and what we know about viruses generally, as well as other viruses similar to Covid-19 and about vaccines. And then there are things that are conjectural, or speculative.
Critics of the science on Covid-19 like to lump all the knowledge we have about Covid-19, variants and vaccines into the latter category of speculation. Largely because this supports their agenda of science denial, but it also demonstrates a profound ignorance of what scientific knowledge is and how science works.
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
I think it's obviously sarcastic, or perhaps their idea of a parody of the idea that we should trust science. As to "labelling" others "who do not share your views" as anti-science, there is certainly no problem with saying people who express anti-science views are anti-science; let's not lump all differing views together or pretend that all opinions are equally valid. Telling someone they are wrong and/or that they don't know what they are talking about when they clearly are and/or don't is not arrogant, hypocritical or anti-science, it's simply refusing to accept their ignorance as equally valid with knowledge.
That being said, I can't imagine what you mean when you say that, "the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant." Quite a lot is known about it: it's more contagious, it appears to be more virulent, it has a higher rate of breakthrough infections compared to other variants, it seems to result in more severe illness in younger people and children than other variants. I'm sure there are some questions about it that are still unanswered, or at least not thoroughly understood — such as exactly what makes it more infectious — but, in the big picture, exactly what is "still out there"?
There's a difference between scientific certainty and scientific uncertainty on the one hand, and belief and ignorance on the other. I know the anti-science crowd like to try to create false equivalencies around these things, but they are just that, false. And let's not pretend that all knowledge that can be collected under the heading of science has the same level of uncertainty. This is also a favorite, but specious, idea that the anti-science crowd attempts to promote: "it's just a theory!". They also like to ignore the fact that they are using 'theory' in an ordinary language sense, while scientists use 'theory' in a very special sense. There are varying degrees of confirmation that apply to things that fall into any specific theory, from as near certainty as is possible for anything to highly conjectural — i.e., some things in science are "known" with essentially 100% certainty, while other things are less well confirmed and may have lesser levels of certainty. (There's also, of course the conflation of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' which are not really the same thing.)
Take evolution, a perennial favorite target of a certain faction of the anti-science crowd. That evolution occurs through the process of natural selection is so well confirmed at this point to make it a practical certainty. There is simply no scientific question about this "theory" any longer. That humans are descended from a common ancestor of other primates — apes, moneys, lemurs, bush babies — is established science, so well confirmed that there is no scientific question about it. That humans evolved somewhere in Africa, no question. Where there may be questions is in details such as, exactly what selection pressures are most likely to have caused humans to evolve to exactly the form we see ourselves in today, or which came first, tool use or language. So when one says that Evolution, with a capital 'E' is a theory, yes it is in the sense that it's a body of knowledge that in its broad strokes is so highly confirmed that there is no question of whether those broad strokes are 100% true or not, they are.
So it is with Covid-19, its variants, and vaccines. There are certain things we know, confirmed through multiple studies, that are not in question: they are known facts. There are other things we "know" that are less well confirmed, but for which we have sufficient confirmation to posit that they are very likely true. There are things we think may be true but need additional studies for confirmation. There are things that at this time are best guesses based on what we do know about Covid-19 and what we know about viruses generally, as well as other viruses similar to Covid-19 and about vaccines. And then there are things that are conjectural, or speculative.
Critics of the science on Covid-19 like to lump all the knowledge we have about Covid-19, variants and vaccines into the latter category of speculation. Largely because this supports their agenda of science denial, but it also demonstrates a profound ignorance of what scientific knowledge is and how science works.
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
Which proves nothing but COVID-19 kills, which we already know. We also know vaccines reduce the fatality rate for the intended strain and appear to protect (to a lesser extent) against other strains. We don’t know the long-term effects of the vaccines. History has shown there can be serious issues and this is probably the largest, untested mass-vaccination event in our species history. Any mistake will be a huge mistake & may take us out completely whereas the virus probably won’t.
How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.
Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.
Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic. It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face. It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
No it isn’t- it’s blatantly sarcastic and deliciously so. The poster is critiquing the blind faith people have in science. Whilst scientific methods themselves are eminently contestable, to the point where they can never establish a ‘truth’, people’s faith in science is absolute. Ironically those who champion its cause often do so whilst criticising those of other faiths whilst exhibiting the same zealous behaviour.
The original post is an excellent parody of the sad, hypocritical, deluded state of our western societies and how a little ego-massage has made cattle of us all.
... Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents ...
"COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way. Both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines deliver instructions (genetic material) to our cells to start building protection against the virus that causes COVID-19. However, the material never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html
Just to expand on this a bit, since it seems to be an area highly susceptible to disinformation due to the specialized nature of the topic — i.e., most people have no basis in their knowledge to evaluate these wild claims about vaccines altering your genes.
First, the mRNA vaccines cannot alter your "genes" because they don't contain any DNA. The mRNA enters your cells, makes its way to the ribosomes in the cytoplasm, where it gets transcribed to make Covid spike proteins, and then is immediately destroyed. The spike proteins are released and cause an immune response. This entire process simply uses the cell's machinery to manufacture proteins in exactly the same way the cell naturally manufactures proteins and destroys mRNA produced internally. But they key thing to remember about mRNA vaccines is they don't contain any DNA, so there is no DNA to "alter your genes".
The viral vector vaccines work differently and require an additional step — i.e., the production of mRNA — after which the process is identical to the way mRNA vaccines work, as described above. The viral vector vaccines do contain DNA, but they also don't "alter your genes" because they simply don't have the ability to do so. Here's a good explanation of why this is so from https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91604 "Here's Why Viral Vector Vaccines Don't Alter DNA
— It's pretty simple -- they can't" [emphasis mine]:
Potential to Change DNA?
Adenoviruses deliver DNA that can enter the cell nucleus, which brings up the question of whether they can alter DNA. That's an easy one -- no.
Adenoviruses -- even as they occur in nature -- just do not have the capacity to alter DNA. Unlike retroviruses such as HIV or lentiviruses, wild-type adenoviruses do not carry the enzymatic machinery necessary for integration into the host cell's DNA. That's exactly what makes them good vaccine platforms for infectious diseases, according to Coughlan.
And, engineered adenoviruses used in vaccines have been further crippled by deleting chunks of their genome so that they cannot replicate, further increasing their safety.
"The cell lines that are used for adenovirus vaccines are highly and well characterized cell lines. They are classified by the FDA as nonintegrating, meaning there has never been any evidence in humans and multiple animal models of vector-borne DNA integrating into a host," said Gregory Poland, MD, of the vaccine research group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
The enzymatic machinery, which these adenoviruses don't have, in case you are wondering, refers to enzymes that are capable of opening up DNA strands to allow DNA to be inserted. Without this, it's completely impossible for it to "alter your genes" because it simply has no way to do so. It's basically like not having a key to a lock, without which you cannot unlock the door, and in this case unlocking the door is the only possible way in.
Anyone you hear saying something contrary to the above simply does not understand the science they are referring to, and probably not science generally, something all too common these days.
Science rarely fails to deliver its intended outcomes there are robust scientific methods and legal recourse to ensure this. Where science invariably fails is in its unintended outcomes due to lack of consideration for the context of application.
Your commentary is flawed in that cellular reproduction unzips the DNA to RNA. Let’s hope the vaccine mRNA doesn’t make an untimely quantum visit to the delivery room or we won’t be handing out cigars, we’ll be handing out tumours. But I’m sure that context has been very, very well considered.
Ok, well, it's pretty clear you have no knowledge of this: "unzips the DNA to RNA". Go learn something and then come back and post when you can write something that isn't nonsense.
I guess we should ignore the rest of your comments if you didn’t know even this.
Really, you need to get educated. Your understanding is so limited that you don't even understand that the link you posted does not support your statement that "cellular reproduction unzips the DNA to RNA".
DNA and RNA are different molecules and DNA does not become RNA simply because the strands unwind and the base pairs unlink, like during replication or transcription.
Secondly, unlinking the base pairs is entirely different from causing an opening in the strand that would allow new DNA to splice in — one is like pulling apart the strands of a string while the other is like cutting a string in half. There are entirely different bonds that would require entirely different enzymes to break — just like you pull the strands of a string apart with your fingers but use a scissor to cut it. So, no, there is no risk that the viral vector DNA could become "integrated" at that time.
Really, all these crazy fears are borne of ignorance. But, if you don't know the science, the best advice is don't listen to people with no standing in science, listen to the experts.
Now you’re sounding like a Windows user trying to deflect intent with extraneous detail. To be clear, my use of “Unzip” & “Delivery Room” were colloquial not literal. Unzip - at a molecular level DNA & RNA are, of course, different or they would be called the same thing. However they carry compatible information in GACT nucleotide sequences and are therefore interoperable. Delivery Room - is a reference to cellular regeneration. The fatal flaw with all science is it’s contextual myopia. We want to think the introduced mRNA will only impact spike protein production but several forms of RNA are involved in cellular reproduction including transfer RNA & RNA primers. Whilst we want to think their functions are fully isolated & controllable that’s just confirmation bias.
After all we’re messing around with the fundamental biological building blocks of the majority of the human population - what could possibly go wrong?
Comments
DNA and RNA are different molecules and DNA does not become RNA simply because the strands unwind and the base pairs unlink, like during replication or transcription.
Secondly, unlinking the base pairs is entirely different from causing an opening in the strand that would allow new DNA to splice in — one is like pulling apart the strands of a string while the other is like cutting a string in half. There are entirely different bonds that would require entirely different enzymes to break — just like you pull the strands of a string apart with your fingers but use a scissor to cut it. So, no, there is no risk that the viral vector DNA could become "integrated" at that time.
Really, all these crazy fears are borne of ignorance. But, if you don't know the science, the best advice is don't listen to people with no standing in science, listen to the experts.
You can really well write coherent sentences. But it by itself doesn’t make your point correct.
It seems that you avoided to response to my main concern: your erroneous claim about superiority of natural immunity over vaccination.
And actually in the 3d link you have provided, the numbers look better in favor of the vaccination. So basically, you have contradicted to your statement with that link.
While these poor souls may have a right to their opinion we are under no obligation to respect or accept their ludicrous ideas. Same goes for the anti-vaxxers and pandemic conspiracy theorists, like those here who claim ‘natural immunity’ (whatever that even means) is better than vaccines. While the flat earthers and creation science believers can safely be ignored the vaccine deniers and pandemic conspiracy theorists cannot be ignored. They are killing people with their bullshit. They need to be denied a platform, suppressed, dealt with immediately.
Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant. We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous. And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant. Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another. It’s noise.
Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous. At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.
Not responding to you George. Hugs and kisses. 🤪
That being said, I can't imagine what you mean when you say that, "the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant." Quite a lot is known about it: it's more contagious, it appears to be more virulent, it has a higher rate of breakthrough infections compared to other variants, it seems to result in more severe illness in younger people and children than other variants. I'm sure there are some questions about it that are still unanswered, or at least not thoroughly understood — such as exactly what makes it more infectious — but, in the big picture, exactly what is "still out there"?
There's a difference between scientific certainty and scientific uncertainty on the one hand, and belief and ignorance on the other. I know the anti-science crowd like to try to create false equivalencies around these things, but they are just that, false. And let's not pretend that all knowledge that can be collected under the heading of science has the same level of uncertainty. This is also a favorite, but specious, idea that the anti-science crowd attempts to promote: "it's just a theory!". They also like to ignore the fact that they are using 'theory' in an ordinary language sense, while scientists use 'theory' in a very special sense. There are varying degrees of confirmation that apply to things that fall into any specific theory, from as near certainty as is possible for anything to highly conjectural — i.e., some things in science are "known" with essentially 100% certainty, while other things are less well confirmed and may have lesser levels of certainty. (There's also, of course the conflation of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' which are not really the same thing.)
Take evolution, a perennial favorite target of a certain faction of the anti-science crowd. That evolution occurs through the process of natural selection is so well confirmed at this point to make it a practical certainty. There is simply no scientific question about this "theory" any longer. That humans are descended from a common ancestor of other primates — apes, moneys, lemurs, bush babies — is established science, so well confirmed that there is no scientific question about it. That humans evolved somewhere in Africa, no question. Where there may be questions is in details such as, exactly what selection pressures are most likely to have caused humans to evolve to exactly the form we see ourselves in today, or which came first, tool use or language. So when one says that Evolution, with a capital 'E' is a theory, yes it is in the sense that it's a body of knowledge that in its broad strokes is so highly confirmed that there is no question of whether those broad strokes are 100% true or not, they are.
So it is with Covid-19, its variants, and vaccines. There are certain things we know, confirmed through multiple studies, that are not in question: they are known facts. There are other things we "know" that are less well confirmed, but for which we have sufficient confirmation to posit that they are very likely true. There are things we think may be true but need additional studies for confirmation. There are things that at this time are best guesses based on what we do know about Covid-19 and what we know about viruses generally, as well as other viruses similar to Covid-19 and about vaccines. And then there are things that are conjectural, or speculative.
Critics of the science on Covid-19 like to lump all the knowledge we have about Covid-19, variants and vaccines into the latter category of speculation. Largely because this supports their agenda of science denial, but it also demonstrates a profound ignorance of what scientific knowledge is and how science works.
There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...
Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.
That Covid is deadly to some is certainly true, but to say something like that as a general truth lacks nuance as it is not deadly to the vast majority of people. Your biggest error was bringing up masks. Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not effective against airborne viruses. Only in the last 18 months did this become politicized. It is truly rich that the people who point fingers at supposed anti-science people also claim that regular cloth masks have any efficacy with regard to airborne particles which pass right through them. If you want to go ahead and wear a tight fitting N-95, then yes, it’s going to be reasonably effective. But the masks everybody else is wearing is pure theater not backed up by decades of research and data. That the government continues to push regular masks severely undermines their credibility and suggests they have a serious messaging problem.
Be careful of your certainty. It may trip you up.
Incorrect.
Wearing a mask is not theatre. Grandstanding and accusing it of being theatre is the fucking theatre.
I'm not sure why people are so dense these days. It could be that the population is getting out of control and we need to cull the herd? Normally, that's done through war but we haven't had a large one in a long time. This pandemic was supposed to be nature's way of culling the herd but medical technology is thwarting that effort. Perhaps that's why the wealthy and powerful conservatives want to spread propaganda? After all, they were the first to get vaccinated and are telling their followers to do the opposite. They want natural selection to take place and they know that a lot of their followers will blindly do as they say and not as they do.
The same goes for masks.
We also know vaccines reduce the fatality rate for the intended strain and appear to protect (to a lesser extent) against other strains.
We don’t know the long-term effects of the vaccines. History has shown there can be serious issues and this is probably the largest, untested mass-vaccination event in our species history. Any mistake will be a huge mistake & may take us out completely whereas the virus probably won’t.
The poster is critiquing the blind faith people have in science. Whilst scientific methods themselves are eminently contestable, to the point where they can never establish a ‘truth’, people’s faith in science is absolute. Ironically those who champion its cause often do so whilst criticising those of other faiths whilst exhibiting the same zealous behaviour.
The original post is an excellent parody of the sad, hypocritical, deluded state of our western societies and how a little ego-massage has made cattle of us all.
To be clear, my use of “Unzip” & “Delivery Room” were colloquial not literal.
Unzip - at a molecular level DNA & RNA are, of course, different or they would be called the same thing. However they carry compatible information in GACT nucleotide sequences and are therefore interoperable.
Delivery Room - is a reference to cellular regeneration. The fatal flaw with all science is it’s contextual myopia. We want to think the introduced mRNA will only impact spike protein production but several forms of RNA are involved in cellular reproduction including transfer RNA & RNA primers. Whilst we want to think their functions are fully isolated & controllable that’s just confirmation bias.