Support NeoGAF

[Mistake]

Incorrect. If the proteins are not derived from the actual, naturally occurring pathogen or a piece (read: portion) of it, you do not have, by definition, a vaccine but something else. The end result may be immunity (which the Covid vaccine doesn't provide, by the way) but the means to get there are different enough to warrant distinction. But don't take my word for it:



But this is all beside the point, cancer is not a pathogen. Vaccines are for preventing pathogens. Why are we calling this type of treatment a vaccine when there is no pathogen involvement? It's a misnomer.

Right. And therapeutics don’t prevent the ailment, they treat it

 

[jufonuk]

 

[SF Kosmo]

Incorrect. If the proteins are not derived from the actual, naturally occurring pathogen or a piece (read: portion) of it, you do not have, by definition, a vaccine but something else.

Bruh. Come on, what the fuck are you doing?

"Actual, naturally occurring"? You're pulling nonsense qualifiers straight out of your ass now. The vaccine uses mRNA sequenced from the virus to reproduce the virus' spikes without the virus, which is "a part of the pathogen's structure."

You are about to collapse in on yourself in some kind of identity puzzle paradox about whether clones of a part virus' structure count as "part of a virus structure." This is a nonsense point, that also no longer resembles your earlier very bad point.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time but we're playing Ship of Theseus games with spike proteins at this point and it's really dumb. You've moved the goalposts clean off the field at this point, just admit you were wrong.

The end result may be immunity (which the Covid vaccine doesn't provide, by the way)

Citation. Fucking. Needed.

But this is all beside the point, cancer is not a pathogen. Vaccines are for preventing pathogens. Why are we calling this type of treatment a vaccine when there is no pathogen involvement? It's a misnomer.

Or, it's just a new application of vaccine technology.

It's like saying electric cars aren't cars because cars use combustion engines. Like, okay, that was true at one point but now we have electric cars also.

 

[Rentahamster]

But this is all beside the point, cancer is not a pathogen. Vaccines are for preventing pathogens. Why are we calling this type of treatment a vaccine when there is no pathogen involvement? It's a misnomer.

You're being pedantic. New types of vaccines that use different methods to achieve the same primary function of stimulating the body's immune system without having to get the actual disease are still, for all intents and purposes, vaccines. When you rewrite the textbook with new discoveries and information, you must update that textbook.

 

[Ichabod]

Bruh. Come on, what the fuck are you doing?

The vaccine uses the mRNA sequenced from the virus to reproduce the virus' spikes without the virus, which is "a part of the pathogen's structure."

You are about to collapse in on yourself in some kind of identity puzzle paradox about whether copies of a part virus' structure count as "part of a virus structure." This is a very bad point, that also no longer resembles your earlier very bad point.

Just admit you didn't understand and you were wrong, it's fucking fine dude. I'm not trying to give you a hard time but we're playing Ship of Theseus games with spike proteins at this point and it's really dumb.


Citation. Fucking. Needed.



Or, it's just a new application of vaccine technology.

It's like saying electric cars aren't cars because cars use combustion engines. Like, okay, that was true at one point but now we have electric cars also.

1) We can agree to disagree. Although MRNA therapy may get to the same answer, the math is different enough for me to make the distinction. Also, if they were so interchangeable with one another, FDA approval would be all systems go already, don't ya think? How's that working out?

2) For your citation request, a two second web search pops up articles like:

COVID Vaccine Breakthrough Cases Explained As People Catch Virus After Shot

Scientists have said the infections are rare, but also to be expected during a mass vaccination program.

www.newsweek.com

"Although vaccines have been shown to prevent COVID illness in clinical trials, they are not 100 percent effective."

I mean, I could spend a few minutes and find more, but I doubt it would change your mind. Ask yourself, even once vaccinated do you still have to social distance? Do you still have to wear a mask? Can you still be an asymptomatic carrier? Do you have a chance of reinfection? If any of the above is a "yes" then you aren't immune.

3) If we were treating the same thing, maybe that example would hold up. Treating an infection vs. treating a disease process are different animals.

You're being pedantic. New types of vaccines that use different methods to achieve the same primary function of stimulating the body's immune system without having to get the actual disease are still, for all intents and purposes, vaccines. When you rewrite the textbook with new discoveries and information, you must update that textbook.

Am I, though? Let's take a look at the FDA has to say:

Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

• Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
• Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
• Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

Gene therapy products are being studied to treat diseases including cancer, genetic diseases, and infectious diseases.

What is Gene Therapy?

Human gene therapy is the administration of genetic material to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene product or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

www.fda.gov

Why rewrite definitions when perfectly good definitions already exist? Oh, that's right, gene therapy is scawwy. Vaccines are neato, just like my flu vax I get every year!

 

[SF Kosmo]

1) We can agree to disagree. Although MRNA therapy may get to the same answer, the math is different enough for me to make the distinction.

Yes, and that distinction is "mRNA vaccine" compared to "adenovirus vaccine," not "make up a new word for this over a pedantic dispute about how the proteins got made." It's like "electric car," we can distinguish it from "cars" in general, but just because it's electric doesn't mean it's a lamp post and not a car.

Can we unpack the REAL reason you don't want to use the word "vaccine," here?

Also, if they were so interchangeable with one another, FDA approval would be all systems go already, don't ya think? How's that working out?

It's working out extremely well. FDA approval requires two full years from the start date of Phase III trials, which is still more than a year out, but so far all of the data is obviously overwhelmingly good, and full approval is pretty much guaranteed at the end of the waiting period.

2) For your citation request, a two second web search pops up articles like:

COVID Vaccine Breakthrough Cases Explained As People Catch Virus After Shot

Scientists have said the infections are rare, but also to be expected during a mass vaccination program.

www.newsweek.com

"Although vaccines have been shown to prevent COVID illness in clinical trials, they are not 100 percent effective."

You understand there's a difference between "Not 100% effective" and "doesn't give you immunity," right?

No vaccine is 100% effective. But if you take the vaccine your chances of getting it fall 90% and the severity of your symptoms if you do get it also fall similarly. That's because it fucking gives you immunity.

Am I, though? Let's take a look at the FDA has to say:

Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

Why rewrite definitions when perfectly good definitions already exist? Oh, that's right, gene therapy is scawwy. Vaccines are neato, just like my flu vax I get every year!

THAT'S NOT WHAT IT DOES DUDE. It's fucking staggering how you can sit here and split hairs about "naturally grown proteins" and "lab grown proteins," and yet you have no problem labeling something that has nothing to do with your genes "Gene Therapy."

We went through this whole conversation and now you're retreating back into made up bullshit. Gene therapy is stuff like CRISPR. It changes your genes. It's a permanent thing used to treat diseases that have a genetic cause. Gene therapy is a cool, cutting edge field that is being used to treat many previously incurable diseases but it has nothing to do with the Covid vaccine.

These mRNA vaccines are completely different than that, it's a finite number of mRNA precursors which never enter the cell's nucleus and which produce spike proteins that are expressed from the cell, and then the mRNA breaks down. No genes are modified and each mRNA capsule gets used once and then breaks down. There' NO GENE EDITING.

You hear that?

NO. GENE. EDITING.

It's becoming super obvious you have not a clue what you're talking about and you aren't understanding anything that is said to you. You're just parroting the same stupid shit as every idiot Karen on a Facebook QAnon group.

 

[SoftFromware]

From the video you posted,

“The immune system is hypervigilant against foreign mRNA entering the body.”

I wonder what a reasonable person with common sense could take away from this scientific observation?

Yes, it's a worldwide conspiracy. Only you are brilliant enough to see the truth for what it is and only you are heroic enough to stand up to the video game message board oppressors. Never stop speaking truth to power, GAMETA.

Oh. Nevermind.

Labeling something a ‘conspiracy’ is an easy way to hand-wave away concerns and discussion, but it’s naive or disingenuous or both.

Take for example something like the lipid hypothesis. Public policy, dietary guidelines, doctor recommendations... for decades, they have all synchronistically ruined the health of the American public, telling everyone to avoid fats and eats grains/sugars.

Were all those scientists/doctors/politicians/CEOs conspiring together? Or were they all just ignorant?
Reality is likely a combination of the two.

This isn’t a conspiracy; it’s how the world works. Science isn’t safe from the misdeeds of humans, and it’s never settled.

 

[tsumake]

From the video you posted,

“The immune system is hypervigilant against foreign mRNA entering the body.”

I wonder what a reasonable person with common sense could take away from this scientific observation?




Labeling something a ‘conspiracy’ is an easy way to hand-wave away concerns and discussion, but it’s naive or disingenuous or both.

Take for example something like the lipid hypothesis. Public policy, dietary guidelines, doctor recommendations... for decades, they have all synchronistically ruined the health of the American public, telling everyone to avoid fats and eats grains/sugars.

Were all those scientists/doctors/politicians/CEOs conspiring together? Or were they all just ignorant?
Reality is likely a combination of the two.

This isn’t a conspiracy; it’s how the world works. Science isn’t safe from the misdeeds of humans, and it’s never settled.

To be fair I think the reason the user was banned was the user’s ad hominem attacks.

Scientists should be skeptical as a general rule. We act on the best information at the moment, for that’s all we have, but it needs to be constantly scrutinized and debated if only to test the strength of a concept.

 

[SoftFromware]

To be fair I think the reason the user was banned was the user’s ad hominem attacks.

Scientists should be skeptical as a general rule. We act on the best information at the moment, for that’s all we have, but it needs to be constantly scrutinized and debated if only to test the strength of a concept.

I couldn’t possibly agree more.
This is a very mature and reasonable understanding of science.
And it’s why i don’t believe science ALONE should be the driver of public policy.
Wisdom, common sense, reason ... these are messy but critical tools of discourse and decision making.

Unfortunately, for many people nowadays it’s much easier to defer to “science” with a sort of... ignorance-based faith.
And this behavioral tendency of the public is encouraged by corporations who have the money to fund/find studies to support whatever narratives suit their bottom line.

 

[tsumake]

I couldn’t possibly agree more.
This is a very mature and reasonable understanding of science.
And it’s why i don’t believe science ALONE should be the driver of public policy.
Wisdom, common sense, reason ... these are messy but critical tools of discourse and decision making.

Unfortunately, for many people nowadays it’s much easier to defer to “science” with a sort of... ignorance-based faith.
And this behavioral tendency of the public is encouraged by corporations who have the money to fund/find studies to support whatever narratives suit their bottom line.

When you see people call their vaccinations “science juice”, you see the public’s perception of science. Empiricism and the scientific method has arguably done more to uplift humanity than any other human accomplishment. But when people “believe” in science rather than understand it, it becomes indistinguishable from a faith.

 

[SF Kosmo]

When you see people call their vaccinations “science juice”, you see the public’s perception of science. Empiricism and the scientific method has arguably done more to uplift humanity than any other human accomplishment. But when people “believe” in science rather than understand it, it becomes indistinguishable from a faith.

Joe Rogan had an old bit that said "You take the smartest person on the planet, put him on a desert island with a hatchet, how long until that guy can send me an email?"

Individual humans are not that smart. All the incredible achievements of humanity are the result of our ability to share knowledge across time and space, and cooperate on shared knowledge structures. Incorporating the knowledge of others into our own is literally how we function. All the civilizations that advanced were the ones that contacted diverse groups of people and wrote shit down. Areas that we're isolated would stay living in huts for thousands of years.

All that is to say, deferring to expertise and consensus is part of how we function. If you achieve a level of expertise in a subject matter, you might find yourself challenging that consensus and you might even be right, but if you aren't an expert? Your "common sense" objections are 99.99% likely wrong.

We've gotten into this real "cult of me" thing in this country where people have so much distrust of government and media and science and everything else that they just start making shit up and believing it like it's fact. Satanic cults and ninjas living underground and whatever crazy bullshit.

They need to remember that we're all fucking stupid unless we work together

 

[Rentahamster]

Am I, though?

Yes. The major connotation of "vaccine" is the immunological protection that the treatment confers. Nitpicking about the part about "pathogen" as if that is the main defining line between what is and isn't a "vaccine" is pedantic. In other words, you're being intentionally (or unintentionally) obtuse. Furthermore, you're cherrypicking when you want to be super strict about following the definition of things only when it suits your personal opinion. I will demonstrate.

Let's take a look at the FDA has to say:


Why rewrite definitions when perfectly good definitions already exist?

It is quite clear you do not understand the definition of "gene therapy", or you do not understand how the mRNA vaccine works, because "Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease", as you bolded, is NOT what the mRNA vaccine does. The mRNA is simple messenger RNA that operates in the ribosomes of the cell. It does not interact with, replace, or insert itself into the DNA (your genes) that reside in the nucleus. I repeat, the mRNA vaccines do not alter your genes. "Gene therapy" alters your genes. mRNA vaccines do not alter your genes. Do you see the difference?

To recap, "gene therapy" has a very clear and well defined definition, which is not what the mRNA vaccine is doing. Simply adding mRNA into your body is not "gene therapy" according to the definition. If you want to be strict about definitions, and if you clearly understand what each treatment does and how it works, then you cannot say that the mRNA vaccine is a form of gene therapy.

Oh, that's right, gene therapy is scawwy. Vaccines are neato, just like my flu vax I get every year!

No, gene therapy is not scary. It is a very promising treatment that can potentially cure ailments like sickle cell disease. I hope we make lots more progress in this field of research.

 

[Ichabod]

Fair enough SF Kosmo & Rentahamster . I'll concede my point about labeling it gene therapy. It's a promising technology, for sure. I just need to see more long term data before I'll be on board 100%.

 

[Rentahamster]

Fair enough SF Kosmo & Rentahamster . I'll concede my point about labeling it gene therapy. It's a promising technology, for sure. I just need to see more long term data before I'll be on board 100%.

As is your right as a consumer. Personally I think there is enough positive data to warrant cautious optimism for the time being. The real threat of COVID is huge compared to a possible yet improbable risk of the vaccine.

 

[Virt McPolygon]

I guess you've never heard of VPNs.

So you don't spend any money online anywhere? Don't enter any personal or payment info?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Incorrect. If the proteins are not derived from the actual, naturally occurring pathogen or a piece (read: portion) of it, you do not have, by definition, a vaccine but something else. The end result may be immunity (which the Covid vaccine doesn't provide, by the way) but the means to get there are different enough to warrant distinction. But don't take my word for it:



But this is all beside the point, cancer is not a pathogen. Vaccines are for preventing pathogens. Why are we calling this type of treatment a vaccine when there is no pathogen involvement? It's a misnomer.

I don't know anything about traditional vaccines and mRNA, but the reason why the term vaccines are used is because there's no other term for it that would make the common person understand it.

To most people, a "vaccine" just means a cure of some kind whether it's viral, mRNA way, or drinking a magic potion.

 

[Burnttips]

30 shots a year confirmed.

 

[IfuckinghateReddit]

So you don't spend any money online anywhere? Don't enter any personal or payment info?

Not if I can help it.

I see we're back to banning people with the wrong opinions on Neogaf.

 

[West Texas CEO]

30 shots a year confirmed.

 

[SF Kosmo]

30 shots a year confirmed.

They're gonna be combining flu and covid into one annual booster. Moderna and Novavax already have these products in the pipe.