5 ms·
Flu vaccines aren't immunizing vaccines. They protect against specific strains, and half the time they immunize against a strain that doesn't become widespread
by willmadden 3mo ago
Flu vaccines aren't immunizing vaccines. They protect against specific strains, and half the time they immunize against a strain that doesn't become widespread and do very little or nothing to protect you. They have side effects which vary widely in severity depending on the specific vaccine.
This article has no data about why mRNA flu vaccines will improve these outcomes, and has no data about the risk/benefit ratio or how it was calculated. It doesn't even cite the "studies" it mentions. It's a remarkably bad article written for low information readers by a low information author.
Hard pass until I see some hard data.
- ted_dunning 3mo agoWhat do you mean by "immunizing vaccines"? In the first sentence, you say that flu vaccines are not and in the second you admit they are. Maybe you meant that their coverage is not comprehensive. If so, that's what you should say. mRNA flu vaccines have substantial potential advantages in terms of the ability to target a wider spectrum of variants and faster time to manufacture.
- willmadden 3mo ago[dead]
- jancsika 3mo ago> faster time to manufacture. In other words: improved responsiveness when loading a flu season.
- ted_dunning 3mo agoWow... that took me several, uh, seconds to find. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2516491 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2516491 There's your hard data.
- willmadden 3mo agoThanks. 10 our of 13 of the researchers work for Moderna or another pharma company. That "study" might as well be a marketing brochure.
- _kulang 3mo agoNot everyone is duplicitous, and it’s not surprising that the experts on a technology work at a company that creates the technology. I assume you’d think the study was valid if the Moderna staff were testing a Pfizer vaccine?
- sajithdilshan 3mo agoHe does have a point though, would you trust a study on how there is no long term side effects from smoking published by scientists that works for a tobacco company? I agree that not everyone is duplicitous, but how would you know which one is and which one isn’t?
- willmadden 3mo agoAfter the lies and misinformation we now know we were fed during the COVID era, you would have to be insane to blindly trust this group again, especially the hacker news astroturf squad that's downvoting my comments. Hard data studies only from independent researchers, preferably double blind placebo controlled, and sterilizing vaccines only, not these leaky "get your booster this week before it mutates again" treatments.
- sajithdilshan 3mo agoI agree with you. It seems like the pharmaceutical corporations are trying to convert vaccines into a recurring revenue model with booster shots. I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they introduce a subscription model for vaccines.
- willmadden 3mo ago
- ksenzee 3mo agoThe word you're looking for is "sterilizing."
- jmye 3mo ago> Hard pass until I see some hard data. Are you remotely qualified to understand said data? Or do you, as you did below, just want an easy opportunity to swipe at things you know you lack expertise to understand?
- blxkd 3mo agoAre you suggesting that a governing body can recommend a medicine to the public without requiring publicly available scientific data first?
- jmye 3mo agoI'm suggesting that people like OP who demand "hard data" are frequently the people least equipped to understand it in any way. Why, on earth, do you think I would be suggesting anything about governing bodies?