...prepare yourself for massive downvotes. I'm in the same boat - how can I possibly be 'anti vax' if I've gotten pretty much all the PREVIOUS ones (based on the older tech), and I'm just skeptical of the utility/necessity of this new tech that appears to have non-trivial risks of debilitating or fatal side effects?
There are no credible reports of mrna vaccines having undesirable side effects any more serious than other vaccines. All vaccines are a trade off between side effects and effects, that’s why there are a huge number of hurdles before any vaccine is released and lots of studies of efficacy and side effects after.
That’s what I thought too, until a friend sent me the paper “Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination” published a few weeks ago:
From what I can understand, it seems mRNA vaccines can cause a non-inflammatory response to actual infection that prolongs the disease. I’m supportive of vaccination, but that doesn’t mean side effects can’t happen especially with new technology.
Oh, there's more. Remember all those refutations of claims that it changes your DNA? Pretty much all of them went something like "That's stupid, DNA is converted into RNA, not the other way around!" - meanwhile the people who were concerned about it knew about reverse transcriptase enzyme, and months later a study was published showing it can happen in human liver cells: https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
> PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells in a lab, not in a live human. That would be the next step. But in the meantime the "genomic DNA" part does sound like it made a permanent change to those cells.
Two authors of the Lund University study, Associate Professor Yang de Marinis and Professor Magnus Rasmussen, have also released a Q&A in response to the attention their work has generated on social media.
“The results have in many cases been misinterpreted,” they said.
“This study does not investigate whether the Pfizer vaccine alters our genome,” de Marinis confirmed.
Prof Rasmussen also stated: “There is no reason for anyone to change their decision to take the vaccine based on this study.”
The study was conducted in a laboratory on cells in a petri dish, which is not the same as a study on human subjects because “cell lines differ from cells in living organisms,” Rasmussen wrote.
Dr Parry also said the Huh7 cell line is very different from healthy human cells.
“Huh-7 is an immortal, tumorigenic cell line,” he said. “This is barely an appropriate system to make any claims of in healthy persons.”
That's because the phrase anti-vax is not meant to be an accurate descriptor; instead, it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you without thinking. You can see many examples of this here in this thread.
Be comfortable in your control over your own body and don't engage with those who would destroy you because you don't submit to their collective will.
Employers (mostly in Blue strongholds) were EXTREMELY EAGER to fire people - even remote employees - who did not want to submit paperwork showing they took the vaccine. If you refused, they marked you 'refusenik' and you were let go anyway.
> it's meant to be a label applied to you to cause others to attack you without thinking
I would like to think the average attitude here is closer to one of intellectual curiosity than blind labeling.
The trouble is that "anti-vax" sentiment is impossible to distinguish from "vaccine hesitancy" when the only reasons put forward seem to be vague mistrust in the tech / government.
Rarely do these conversations lead to real discussions about actual quantified risks, which makes it easy to dismiss hesitancy as garden variety anti-vax sentiment - the kind that is based on verifiable lies and has been around for decades.
I'd argue that instead of predicting inevitable binary thinking and dismissals, it'd be more useful to focus on the actual substantial claims to back up the position. Anything less moves the conversation nowhere.
At the time I wrote this comment, there are literally two occurrences of the term “anti-vax” in this thread and they belong to you and the grandparent.
