/ef/ - Everfree

Doesn't matter, the antivax people do not care about data or evidence

Imagine sticking poison in your veins because of a little cough and flu lmao.

Real Chads like me just naturally fought off the virus

>>2702
>
>>2703
See?

I will be an unvaccinated zombie child that died from the flu for Halloween

>>2705
the people who wanted more evidence before deciding can now safely support mRNA vaccines, tho. so that's a win

>>2706
that is unfortunate

>>2715
There is literally nobody waiting for new evidence. You are either not an idiot and understand vaccines, or a vax skeptic who is now radicalized and believe dr fauci is the antichrist. There's no middle ground

>>2715 Perhaps putting a round of mRNA vaccine into someone to prime the initial response isn't a terrible idea. Putting a second equivalent round into people is questionable at best, because the existence of memory T-cells already targeting the expressed antigens of interest allows for much faster cytotoxic recognition of antigen-expressing cells than during the initial vaccine/exposure (assuming the first exposure worked). Plus, pre-existing antibodies against surface-expressed antigen can recruit additional Fc- and complement-mediated effector mechanisms that have now become available thanks to the initial vaccine. An increase in inflammatory tissue damage can expose additional normal cellular antigens and can increase the risk of epitope spreading or other loss-of-tolerance mechanisms in susceptible individuals. Does that mean everyone develops an autoimmune disorder? No. But I'm also not surprised that many people did. And before people even started taking mRNA vaccines en masse, it was the outcome that I personally predicted.

You also have the issue that equivalent mRNA doses were given for rounds 1 and 2, even though round 2 was being delivered into a fundamentally different immunological environment vs round 1. Whether that additional stimulation was worthwhile is a population-specific risk/benefit question, not something that should simply be assumed from the success of dose 1. It's not as simple as “mRNA vaccines bad” or “vaccines bad”; repeated stimulation of an already-primed immune system can have different and unintended effects. In my opinion, heterologous schedules (mRNA for priming followed by a conventional protein-antigen vaccine) would have made more sense, and such schedules were shown in trials to be immunogenic without demonstrating the same clear dose-2 myocarditis signal seen with repeated mRNA vaccination, although additional trials would of course have been needed in that case as well.

tl;dr "trust the science, bro" was always a bullshit response to serious mechanistic concerns about one-size-fits-all approaches to medicine.

>>2718
These were never serious concerns, they were political posturings

Imagine being retarded enough to care. Wether it was safe or not, you cant do anything about it

>>2720
You're right, just let the UK become muslim. Nothing you can do about it.

>>2719
>These were never serious concerns, they were political posturings
What you stated is a factually incorrect post hoc rationalization. These serious concerns were present before a political argument even existed. Whether you knew about them or not is irrelevant. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

>>2723
Hm. Weird then, how every right-leaning retard suddenly became an immunobiology expert in 2020. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

>>2724 I'm by no means an immunology expert, or right wing for that matter. I was, however, immediately skeptical of "The Science" based on the obvious red flags when the official narrative conflicted with what I remembered from literal Immunology 101. I didn't remember all of the specific pathways, just the general concepts as one might remember such thing from years prior, but even that was enough for me to say "this doesn't seem right" to the point that I started doing my own research and came to my own conclusions. That others arrived at the same positions after I did is, again, 100% irrelevant.

>>2725
It is relevant because it changed the very narrative around vaccine safety and the fact you don't see that tells me you lean right

>>2726 I think the narrative around vaccine safety changed when scientists started making policy recommendations based on moral arguments rather than the actual data they had in hand, but that's just me - what do I know...

I've seen multiple people working in different labs who I personally knew, get kicked out of their programs and shipped back to India in disgrace for less.

>>2728
>>2727
So is there some reason you were deciding to talk around your political bias and pretending you were above it for some reason?

>>2729 I'm a pragmatist, a true independent, and a centrist. I reject whatever idiotic shibboleths you're trying to invoke. Let your argument stand on its own merits, or admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>2730
>I'm a true centrist

Lol

Lmao

Do you really believe that? How well do you think you know yourself? Your argument solely exists because millions of angry internet retards suddenly vaccine opinions in 2020 and you were very much a part of that and you're not hiding it very well.

>>2731
Lol
Lmao

I know myself a fair bit better than you do. Your position seems to be "doesn't adhere blindly to my beliefs based on what others have told me, therefore supports the opposition." But if you read the fine print, my position doesn't blindly support what you pretend is the evil misguided opposition either. It's ok though if reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Most people are not smart enough to arrive at their own conclusions, and you appear to be no exception.

I'm perfectly willing to take positions from both sides depending on how well those positions align with the underlying moral calculus that I adhere to.

and I literally started formulating the position myself the moment I heard that mRNA vaccines were being considered as a solution to Covid. Again, whether other people agree with some or all of what I arrived it is irrelevant, aside from showing that you care more about "us" vs "them" than you do about objective reality.

Good talk.

>>2718
>>2728
yes, i believe there were some questions like that early in the pandemic, and the vaccines were certainly rushed -- but it was a societal cost/benefit (risk) equation rather a scientific one in which traditional vaccine safety standards needed to be followed.

some scientists wanted to only follow traditional safety-verification methods. others decided to temporarily set them aside. as for individuals, some decided their particular individual cost/benefit equation was different from the one applied to them generally by the government and scientists who decided to temporarily set aside traditional safety-verification standards for the societal-level cost/benefit equation. then there were the people who were fine with traditionally-formulated vaccines but didn't think mRNA vaccines had been studied enough to be used generally. lastly, there were anti-vaxxers who just didn't like vaccines in general, some of which were anti-being-told-what-to-do-by-those-in-authority.

the most serious recent argument about mRNA vaccine safety had been about if the extra DNA that had been chopped up during the mass production of the vaccine (because there were so many strands) could integrate into human DNA after vaccination. after two years of a vaccine-skeptical administration, this has not been shown.

i asked chatgpt to analyze your general argument and of note, it said:

"2. The T-cell argument is directionally right, but it's incomplete
...
4. The biggest problem is the leap to epitope spreading and autoimmunity
...
7. The heterologous-vaccine proposal is plausible—but the evidence is more nuanced than the post suggests
...
9. There's a particularly important counterargument missing

The author treats the second exposure primarily as:

more immune activation → potentially more immune pathology.

But there's another side:

more immune memory → potentially less viral replication → less infection-induced inflammation and tissue damage.

That's especially important because SARS-CoV-2 infection itself has substantial immunological consequences."

>>2733 That's true, but unfortunately what this brainlet >>2731 and others like him attempt to do, is label perfectly reasonable skepticism and any derived opposition as a single strawman political position, which is frankly absurd. He may recall that, early on, it was Trump's "right wing" administration pushing the very same vaccine, and so my literally science-based position on it hasn't changed regardless of which political faction is the most recent to push it.

>the most serious recent argument about mRNA vaccine safety had been about if the extra DNA that had been chopped up during the mass production of the vaccine (because there were so many strands) could integrate into human DNA after vaccination. after two years of a vaccine-skeptical administration, this has not been shown.

That has never been my argument, or my concern.

>i asked chatgpt to analyze your general argument and of note, it said:
>
>"2. The T-cell argument is directionally right, but it's incomplete
>...
>4. The biggest problem is the leap to epitope spreading and autoimmunity
>...
>7. The heterologous-vaccine proposal is plausible—but the evidence is more nuanced than the post suggests
>...
>9. There's a particularly important counterargument missing
>
>The author treats the second exposure primarily as:
>
>more immune activation → potentially more immune pathology.
>
>But there's another side:
>
>more immune memory → potentially less viral replication → less infection-induced inflammation and tissue damage.
>
>That's especially important because SARS-CoV-2 infection itself has substantial immunological consequences."

What Chat GPT is saying, is essentially that I'm not focusing on the benefits of the vaccine, and that's true. I'm focusing on the problems I would expect given the method of administration.

If Covid were the airborne equivalent of ebola, then I'd have a very different conclusion about the relative risks and benefits. But it's not. And so, given that I would expect some level of self-imposed autoimmune disorders as a consequence, vs most people just having a bad cold, I'll take the cold, thank you very much.

And if that means grandma dies because we haven't vaccinated 100% of the population, as far as I'm concerned, grandma's already had a good life, and she can rest easy knowing she'll no longer be a burden on the top-heavy social welfare system that can no longer reasonably sustain her anyway.

>>2734
>>2732
>good talk
Not really, do some self reflection before you decide you need to debate, again

Also, not a strawman if it's true.

>if that means grandma dies, she dies
Ah, yes the very 'centrist' position of letting people die if they aren't economically useful. Very libertarian of you.

>>2734
>implying the Trump admin isn't right wing
Cmon bro, you gotta be more aware than this

Also i just want to double down on calling you a eugenicist because that grandma paragraph at the end really isn't doing you any favors.

>>2735 You have no actual positions, so it's not much of a debate tbh.
>Ah, yes the very 'centrist' position of letting people die if they aren't economically useful. Very libertarian of you.
The willingness of individuals, families, generations, and nations, to bankrupt themselves for the benefit of staving off death an extra week or two, is not a virtue, contrary to popular opinion.

>>2736 I'm not sure what position you're arguing here. Either you're saying Trump is left wing and therefore opposition to his position is also right wing in some sort of word No True Leftist Kafka trap, or you missed the point that my position was consistent regardless of who was pushing it.

You can call me whatever you want. Like I just said, going bankrupt for the benefit of those who've already lived their lives at the expense of others is incredibly selfish.

>>2737
And asking people to die because you can't afford it isn't selfish? Interesting, it's almost like you put money before people.

Where do you get the idea of going bankrupt over vaccines, anyway? Weird tangent for you to go on

>>2738
I can't afford it as an individual, and we can't afford it as a nation. The top heavy social security/medicaid/medicare system is why, in the US at least, we are literally going bankrupt. It's almost half of ALL federal expenses and accounts for three-fourths of mandatory spending. That's insane. And thus, we're slowing the spread, flattening the curve, and lining up to get vaccines, in order to perpetuate the thing that is explicitly destroying the nation - the overwhelming number of post-working-age individuals in a time where life expectancy FAR exceeds what it was when those programs were created, and where entitlements have ballooned to a ridiculous extent in order to appeal to the masses and secure votes.

And so, keeping grandma alive for an extra 2 weeks today is of much lower value, than the collapse in life expectancy for everyone if and when the top-heavy system comes crashing down. So yes, I care MUCH more about the people who are still productive individuals, who still have their whole lives, or any life ahead of them, over those who frankly shouldn't even be here any more. Death is a part of life, and the irrational fear of death is why we have devoted an astronomical amount of time, money, and effort to keeping people alive long beyond the point where they should have naturally checked out and made way for future generations. And if a mild cold is what wipes them out, so be it. The people currently running the world reached the top and pulled the ladder up behind them; and your attempts to shame me for not being willing to devote myself or anyone else for that matter, to their perpetuation at our expense, doesn't move me in the slightest.

And the same applies for any consideration related to this calculus.

"We must all get vaccinated to protect grandma." Ok.... using this experimental vaccine that is expected to cause complications in some people, and that demonstrably causes complications in some individuals? "yes." and if I experience one of these complications? "sucks to be you" ok well how about no, then? I'm not taking part in your bullshit lottery, regardless of if my chance of complication is 0.1% or 0.00001%, when the alternative is a bad cold. but I'll gladly lay a flower at grandma's funeral and say a few words.

>>2739
Okay bro I get it life is worthless to you, thanks for clarifying.

God damn never thought I'd see someone go this far to defend an antivax stance wow.

Did your grandmother shove a red hot poker up your ass when you were a kid or something, boat? This level of hatred for the elderly is unusual, to say the least.

>>2741
It's called triage and it saves lives.

>>2740 I mean, if you got myocarditis just to prove me wrong about how safe the vaccine is, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
I'm also not antivax. I am anti this-particular-vaccine-for-this-particular-reason-under-this-particular-circumstance. Big difference.

>>2741 I'm simply using the moral argument that was presented to me ad nauseam - that you're literally killing "grandma" if you don't get the vaccine. You can apply it to anyone else of your choosing, but the argument fails if you substitute most anyone else because Covid was barely an inconvenience for the young and healthy.
Also what >>2742 said.

>>2743
>I'm not antivax
Yet you're taking it upon yourself to argue as one

>>2743
This is literally an antivax talking point and if this was about triage, you would have said so. Instead, your entire argument is founded in how little you care about the elderly. I hope you're never in a position where you have to take care of someone who's sick.

Itt Boat is both apolitical and constantly virtue signalling, somehow

>>2744 It's very disingenuous to say that an argument about one vaccine means someone is explicitly against all vaccines. But if your argument has no actual substance, then I'm certainly not surprised when you do that. Definitely not the first time I've encountered such lazy argumentation.

>>2745 yet another logical fallacy. Someone else agreeing with me on a position does not mean I hold all of their positions.

I care more about the young and healthy in aggregate than I care about the elderly. And so, using a type of vaccine that I would expect to cause complications, and that do cause complications in a not-insignificant number of young people, leads me to a position that favors the young and healthy even if that is at the hypothetical expense of the elderly.

Change the policies surrounding the vaccine, e.g. if my family can sue (and win against) Pfizer if I die from complications, then we'll talk. Don't expect me to assume all of the risk for someone else's benefit and then tell me to get fucked if I get screwed as a result. I'm more useful to both my family and to society as a whole as someone's who is alive and productive, than random grandma is who is just draining the system at this stage in her life. And if it's a choice between me and random grandma, I choose me. And if it's a choice between harming some young and healthy adults vs some elderly folks, I'd make the same decision in favor of the young and healthy folks, without whom the elderly lose anyway.

>>2746 I'm not claiming virtue. It's easy to say "we must do everything possible, including bankrupting ourselves, to save all life in all situations." The less popular position is asking if we should, and at what expense of we do.

>>2746
What the fuck, zebra, is you retarded? You're the only one virtue signaling here.

You're the one coming to this thread essentially saying that if you dont take a vaccination for any reason that you're a right-winged nazi potato brain who hates old people and wants to worship Nurgle.

I am in favor of vaccinations. I worked in the medical field for a number of years myself.

I also personally saw the benefits of vaccinations when I was in the military and everyone was getting extremely sick, where as I was as healthy as a horse.

But, I also understand why people wouldn't want to take them or would be at risk to taking them. I can also see why people would be skeptical about taking 5 million booster shots.

Vaccinations are wonderful. They're great. But they're also far from perfect. Shit goes wrong between batches, conditions change frequently, and virion can mutate rapidly.

Every drug can affect every person differently.

Boat also happens to know his shit. The dude used to work in a lab. And while I dont always agree with Boat, I will say that you implying that Boat doesn't at the very least know what he's talking about is laughable.

TL;DR: I'm gonna beat your ass and suck your dick from the back of you keep disrespecting my zebras like that.

>>2748
You seem upset

>>2747
You don't claim virtue when you signal it, that's kinda how it works

>>2248
This clown used to work in a lab??? That's horrifying

Having an honest conversation with these tripfags is impossible, they have no fucking clue where they stand and get real upset when they tip their hand and suddenly labels apply to them. Just be honest with yourselves, it's tiring to be hearing 'I'm centrist' followed by the most right wing shit I've ever heard

>>2748
>stop noticing patterns
No

>>2749
You haven't ever seen me actually upset. I guarantee that. But if makes you feel better then "Grrrrr.. you're making the WOLF in me angry.. you dont want to see my alpha side.."
>>2751
In what way is anybody being unreasonable with you? What qualifications do you have to be able to identify where it is we stand based on a single opinion? Because it sounds like you relate anyone who doesn't trust or care for vaccinations to be right-winged

You tell us that you know better where we stand than we do is a crazy reach.

I'll be honest with you, I dont identify as anything because it is all just a dogmatic way to draw lines in the sand; a way for people to label and dismiss. It's a distraction.

Do I support Trans rights? Yes.
Do I support homosexual rights? Yes.
Do I support the LGBT community? No.
Am I religious? No.
Do I hate people who are religious? Depends on their extremism.
Do I support gun control? No.
Do I believe everyone should have a gun? No.
Do I hate cops? No.
Do I trust cops? No.

We need less government. But the aspects of government I support, I believe we need to strengthen.

I'm not some fucking brain rotted anarchist who thinks that the abolishment of government would do us good.

We need a universal income, free education, Healthcare, and dental. But I'm not a communist or the likes.

Am I racist? Somewhat.
Do I let it affect how I treat others? Only if they prove me correct.

My point is, each of those takes comes from somewhere on the right or left. People should just follow what agrees with them instead of hyper focusing on labels like they're pokemon types.

>>2722
Correct , there is nothing we can do about it because it's already happened. Brits are pussies

>>2751 Centrist doesn't mean having no opinion. It also doesn't mean "both sides"ing every debate, or staying directly in the middle of every argument. It means drawing from both sides of the aisle without rigid adherence to leftwing or rightwing ideology. And if people on the left or right want to agree with me, they are welcome to do so.

Argue the points, not the labels, if your mind is up to the challenge.

>>2755
Boat is a stinky doo doo head

>>2757
Get out of here GREENSKIN

>>2759
One time snake told me he kissed a boy and he liked it

>>2753
>Do I support Trans rights? Yes.

>Do I support homosexual rights? Yes.

>Do I support the LGBT community? No.

Oh you're one of the 'cool' faggots who think that the right wing has a point

>>2753
Then calm down

>>2755
Unfortunately, the labels matter and indicate where your argument is coming from. Also you're just getting all your info from chatbots and treating it like it's been verified and not just regurgitated reddit posts. Maybe bring something worthwhile to argue against.