Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_j06qv1z wrote

[deleted]

200

Fritzo2162 t1_j070gim wrote

It's expensive to make now, but machines could be made to automate much of the process and we'd eventually have Star Trek-style medical replicators that could scan an illness and synthesize a treatment based on body conditions. We have some cool stuff coming down the pike.

73

BuckUpBingle t1_j071wkb wrote

The problem is that any amount of automization means that the producers spend less, not that the end user pays less.

19

[deleted] t1_j072m5z wrote

[deleted]

20

RGB3x3 t1_j075vbi wrote

Yeah, but we're talking about pharmaceuticals in the US. Starting at a high cost for the patient means the company can continue to charge that much while they bring their own costs down. Or even bring the consumer cost up over time.

Just look at Insulin. Costs almost nothing to make, but the patient pays hundreds

23

[deleted] t1_j077250 wrote

[deleted]

13

Fritzo2162 t1_j079bid wrote

I'm using Cost Plus and can't recommend it enough. I have $89 in prescriptions per month- it's $16 through that site. Last time I was in for a checkup I turned my doctor on to it so he can mention it to those that need help.

8

LookAtItGo123 t1_j07rij3 wrote

Heh let's see how long it goes before he suicides with bullets to the back of his head.

1

[deleted] t1_j078019 wrote

[deleted]

6

Anxious-Shapeshifter t1_j07c35z wrote

Yeah . . . That was removed from the bill.

And is unfortunately a perfect example of this person's point.

In Economics, this is what's considered an "inelastic demand" meaning that if the alternative is death, pharma can charge whatever they want, and people will pay it.

Like that movie Repo Men were they took artificial organs out of people when they couldn't afford the insane debt they took out to get them. The prices were insane because the alternative was death.

11

But_Why_Male_Models t1_j07s4x5 wrote

Have a source for that? Biden literally said insulin costs were going to be capped in a speech a month or so ago.

1

Anxious-Shapeshifter t1_j08imkl wrote

Yes the republicans fought to strip it from the bill. Its why it took months longer to pass.

Currently, its only capped if you're on Medicare. Why? Because the government pays for it if you're on Medicare. But for everyone else? They're fucked.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/07/politics/insulin-cap-democrats-reconciliation-bill/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/republicans-block-cap-on-insulin-costs-for-many-americans-from-democratic-deal.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/republicans-block-insulin-price-cap-really-gone-rcna42177

https://www.benefitspro.com/2022/08/16/35-insulin-cap-removed-from-democratic-bill-pack

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/07/us/politics/insulin-cap.html

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/07/insulin-price-cap-reconciliation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/08/08/insulin-price-cap-diabetes-senate-republicans/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/16/inflation-reduction-act-to-cap-costs-for-medicare-patients-on-insulin.html

https://fortune.com/2022/08/07/gop-strips-insulin-out-of-pocket-cap-from-bill-republicans-have-just-gone-on-the-record-in-favor-of-expensive-insulin/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-price-cap-senate-republicans-block-inflation-reduction-act/

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3547575-democratic-drug-pricing-bill-removes-insulin-cost-cap-amid-bipartisan-push/

1

But_Why_Male_Models t1_j08m8ta wrote

Scumbag republicans. At least those on Medicare will benefit.

3

Anxious-Shapeshifter t1_j08mvxo wrote

Right? They only kept it for Medicare because the government was going to be paying for it. And if it's their spending money they get involved. You'd think it would be counter intuitive for them, seeing as a large portion of their voter base are older baby boomers who likely need cheaper insulin. Buuuut I digress.

1

But_Why_Male_Models t1_j08pdyn wrote

They’ll just tell those old republican baby boomers that it’s the democrats fault and they’ll believe them. 🤮

1

Anxious-Shapeshifter t1_j08titk wrote

No joke, they would too. I have an aunt that is super republican. She's on welfare, Medicaid and lives in subsidized housing. ALWAYS votes republican. Blows my mind. How she so brainwashed to literally vote against her own better interest I'll never understand.

1

blackbeltmessiah t1_j07vcxu wrote

He doesn’t because he’s full of sht

−3

Anxious-Shapeshifter t1_j08fkfx wrote

Yes the republicans fought to strip it from the bill. Its why it took months longer to pass.

Currently, its only capped if you're on Medicare. Why? Because the government pays for it if you're on Medicare. But for everyone else? They're fucked.

But here's your sources... I think this is every major news site.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/07/politics/insulin-cap-democrats-reconciliation-bill/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/07/republicans-block-cap-on-insulin-costs-for-many-americans-from-democratic-deal.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/republicans-block-insulin-price-cap-really-gone-rcna42177

https://www.benefitspro.com/2022/08/16/35-insulin-cap-removed-from-democratic-bill-pack

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/07/us/politics/insulin-cap.html

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/07/insulin-price-cap-reconciliation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/08/08/insulin-price-cap-diabetes-senate-republicans/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/16/inflation-reduction-act-to-cap-costs-for-medicare-patients-on-insulin.html

https://fortune.com/2022/08/07/gop-strips-insulin-out-of-pocket-cap-from-bill-republicans-have-just-gone-on-the-record-in-favor-of-expensive-insulin/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-price-cap-senate-republicans-block-inflation-reduction-act/

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3547575-democratic-drug-pricing-bill-removes-insulin-cost-cap-amid-bipartisan-push/

1

blackbeltmessiah t1_j07v7ow wrote

“That was removed from the bill”… lol? Im not sure the youtuber you are listening to is giving you accurate info. Assuming your goal isnt just to lie about it. 👍

1

Anxious-Shapeshifter t1_j08gfju wrote

Man, its comments like that make all of us Millennials look like uninformed dick cheese.

But I'm an optimist, so here's that "I'm Just a Bill" cartoon from Schoolhouse Rock that I HOPE you've seen in school so you learn how the democratic process in America works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

Because that's what caused the insulin cap to be removed from the bill. The House (that's the Congress btw) passed it in March, but the Senate GOP fought to have it removed before they would vote on it. So it was removed, they voted and it passed without it.

0

FawksyBoxes t1_j079dd2 wrote

If you are on medicare if I remember correctly.

4

VicarBook t1_j081gdu wrote

Yes, the $35 cap is only for those on Medicare. Republicans voted against that for everyone. Clearly some people heard $35 and said wow Congress was finally doing something that 95% of the population is for and didn't follow up to make sure that was actually the case.

2

blackbeltmessiah t1_j07uinm wrote

Right but the problem is the motivation for the producer to not look at that as more profit isnt there. Lowered production cost just means more money for the producer. This is why there are guardrails being put on insulin. Needs to be placed on a lot more if not the whole system.

0

GD_Bats t1_j0738d0 wrote

That’s an issue with how we keep insisting society be structured and run. Personally I don’t think it’s sustainable and we will either change how we do things or suffer greatly as a species.

14

BuckUpBingle t1_j086i21 wrote

The “we” in this statement of doing an ungodly amount of heavy lifting.

2

GD_Bats t1_j087aih wrote

If you are interacting enough with civilization that you have internet access, by every definition you are perpetuating that capitalist system despite all efforts to the opposite.

1

Agonlaire t1_j08n7hr wrote

People are so needlessly afraid of challenging capitalism, like they'll get an embargo or something... wait a minute.

6

Hutcho12 t1_j07e84i wrote

That’s absolutely not true. Automation has brought down costs massively for consumers. There’s so many examples I dont know where to start. The whole Industrial Revolution for example.

1

BuckUpBingle t1_j086kyl wrote

Try pointing to something in the last 50 years for a start.

0

crono141 t1_j08elb8 wrote

Flat panel TVs. My first lcd TV cost me 1700 dollars and was 36", 720p. 3 years later I bought one for 1200 that was 55 inches, 1080p. In the last year I bought a new OLED for 1500 bucks, 65" 4k, and it's picture quality is easily the best of any I've ever had.

Not only did prices go down during that time, but quality went WAY up.

1

hiddenflames5462 t1_j07aa46 wrote

And in the US it will never go down, and likely the price will get doubled like most medical treatments.

12

capaldithenewblack t1_j082kgy wrote

Bonus if it’s a truly life saving med. Then they know we’ll REALLY buy it at their quoted price.

4

flugenblar t1_j08j208 wrote

If you can treat a disease for 10 or 20 years, the price will go down. If the medicine cures the disease, the price will skyrocket because you can only sell it once to a patient.

~US medicine business

3

Piss-Ant t1_j07cph9 wrote

That’s CAPTAIN Pike to you ensign!

1

burmerd t1_j07kjq3 wrote

Yeah, I agree, and I admit I'm a little cynical. Like, my dog can get vaccinated for Lyme's disease, but people can't.

I've read that the bigger push is the kind of care that costs a lot and "manages" a disease, versus outright cures (obviously all kinds of research is still happening) so I just always keep that in the back of my mind when I read about new drugs and research.

1

Fritzo2162 t1_j07l80c wrote

There IS a vaccine for Lyme disease, but it fell victim to negative press that lead to insufficient demand, so it was discontinued. Antivaxxers won that round.

3

cld1984 t1_j072wtn wrote

It’s expensive to make but all signs lately seem to point to individualized medicine being the future. Just look at cancer. There are tons of new treatments that target cancers with specific genes.

This style of medicine will save so many lives and will only get cheaper

71

cygnoids t1_j07bm54 wrote

A lot of the focus for these therapies is how to decrease the cost for personalized medicine. Manufacturing these therapies at the scale required for efficacy is currently expensive but companies are working to reduce these costs

17

flugenblar t1_j08ik4k wrote

Maybe somebody needs to be working on developing a vaccine printer.

7

BattleForIthor t1_j0asfjp wrote

CAR T-cell therapy is what it sounds like you are referring to… and frankly, it does seem as though that is the future.

2

Shrewd_GC t1_j08tr7x wrote

Future of medicine for the rich. Many, many life saving drugs will only ever be available in America/EU/Australia/Japan simply because it's not profitable to export to poorer countries. Not to mention the supply chain right now can barely supply rich regions with high demand drugs at the moment.

1

SilverNicktail t1_j07ic2z wrote

Gotta love the cynicism people can rustle up over "we can now cure CANCER".

Expensive to make *for a vaccine*, but is it cheaper than months or years of expensive and incredibly damaging cancer treatments?

12

Gratzkul t1_j08x1fn wrote

I would sell myself into slavery for a cure to my daughters cancer.

4

burmerd t1_j0922mu wrote

I'm so sorry. I didn't anticipate a response like this, and I think maybe I shouldn't have posted anything.

2

Gratzkul t1_j092bce wrote

You shouldn’t apologize. You aren’t wrong. However, for many of us, there isn’t a price we wouldn’t pay for hope. No hard feelings, I know your comment wasn’t meant to be hurtful to anyone. Greed amongst corporations is a terrible thing.

1

Enk1ndle t1_j087kux wrote

Expensive is better than dead. It's no endgame but it's a hell of a start.

2

Neiladaymo t1_j07ziju wrote

I would just be happy to know the drug exists, because we can fight over making it accessible later.

1

MarkusRight t1_j08lnry wrote

It's crazy how far cancer research has come over the years. You see news about some breakthrough and all of a sudden everyone forgets that it ever even happened. Is this another one of those stories that's just going to be forgotten about in a month or is it really that big of a breakthrough?

63

Mattbl t1_j09c8mh wrote

I think the most painful thing about cancer treatment progress is that it gives extended hope to some of the hardest to treat cancers, but many times end in the same result after the patient has gone through months of extended treatment.

I'm all for it, in the end, but the road there creates an extended roller coaster of ups and downs for the person suffering, and their family.

20

BattleForIthor t1_j0as60b wrote

Well, it also opens avenues to new treatments for cancers we already have treatments for.

Some treatments won’t work or can’t be used on some patients. Having other treatment options gives patients, doctors, and families more tools in the war on cancer.

New treatments could also lead to improving survival rates. Improving the survival rate, even a few percentage points, could mean more holidays with loved ones who otherwise may not have been able to. That my friends is real victory!

6

BattleForIthor t1_j0artbv wrote

That’s the speed at which medical research is progressing now. It’s not to be lamented, but rather celebrated. Each step forward is a step closer to a cure and that excites the fuck out of me.

#FuckCancer

2

Cyber_Dan t1_j070und wrote

You know only the wealthiest will get access to it.

37

Vegan_Harvest t1_j072e2v wrote

For a while maybe, but once the patent expires there will be a cheaper option. And that's not counting bootleg vaccines from overseas.

Then again maybe some cute kid will go viral dying from lack of the drug and that'll force them to pretend to care?

34

SaladeVerte t1_j079ae7 wrote

And every people living in a country with healthcare

12

FeFiFoShizzle t1_j07smqj wrote

Bro in most of the first world everyone has access to healthcare

10

capaldithenewblack t1_j082z72 wrote

Except the really expensive stuff. Some would rather die than burden their family with debt. :(

0

FeFiFoShizzle t1_j0857u1 wrote

No the "really expensive stuff" is still covered by my government where I live. It's just cosmetics and dentistry that isn't and dentistry has been a talking point for the next thing to cover for a long time.

Where do you live that excludes expensive stuff?

5

capaldithenewblack t1_j086fpb wrote

USA. Insulin for one.

6

FeFiFoShizzle t1_j086ybt wrote

Ya so I'm literally saying that countries that aren't yours cover cancer treatment, as in I'm calling your healthcare system a piece of shit.

Other first world countries generally cover cancer treatment, but not yours. Is my point.

7

capaldithenewblack t1_j08ivt0 wrote

Um, I think I was calling it that first? I would be thrilled with real universal healthcare. What’s your problem?

5

FeFiFoShizzle t1_j08sf63 wrote

Just re read the convo my dude lol

−5

Two-Bit-Brain t1_j09mkc1 wrote

Judging by their responses you are both having your own individual conversations lmao

4

GLnoG t1_j08p549 wrote

Some third world countries do cover cancer treatment as well, especially for children. Had a couple relatives survive because of this.

4

SilverNicktail t1_j07ij70 wrote

Just like all the other vaccines? Oh, wait. Nope.

Did you mean just like all the other chemotherapy? Oh, wait. Nope.

2

Decent_Expression179 t1_j074suy wrote

Why are they calling it a vaccine? It doesn't prevent cancer. Once you get cancer they analyse the genetic signature of it, and create an Mrna shot which instructs your body to produce copies of this ?'toxin' which causes your immune system to build killer cells to eliminate it.

22

gmotelet t1_j0781jw wrote

From the CDC website

"Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases"

This is exactly what it is doing. It doesn't matter that the disease is already there.

89

FastFingersDude t1_j08j7pn wrote

I hear their point. In general we talk about vaccines being taken before contracting a virus.

This seems more like a personalized treatment after contracting the virus. Most people would not refer to this as a vaccine.

−5

GLnoG t1_j08pj07 wrote

Well the definitions from the CDC that user provided clearly says that it is a vaccine, so idk why most people wouldn't refer to it as a vaccine.

5

fireisveryfun t1_j0921mq wrote

Redditors will argue semantics with the foremost experts on a topic. Someone could invent a warp drive tomorrow, host an AMA and theyll be flooded with "well acksually".

3

dylee27 t1_j08rsfc wrote

I think that just means the general public has a misconception of what the term vaccine covers. We should let experts correct our misconceptions, not the other way around.

4

FastFingersDude t1_j0a0x2v wrote

I’m not arguing that. I agree we should clear misconceptions.

My argument is, that I understand why OP posted their doubt. I consider myself pretty informed, and this is the first time ever I read of vaccines used as ‘treatment’ (“by stimulating the bodies immune response against diseases.”)

Would love to have more public clarity on this, especially as mRNA vaccines become more commonplace.

2

Irrepressible_Monkey t1_j0h7lzh wrote

It's less common for the vaccine to come after the disease but it can happen. The best example I know is that the rabies vaccine is still effective for a certain amount of time after someone has been exposed to the virus.

2

FastFingersDude t1_j0hjb5u wrote

Interesting. Helpful reply.

2

Irrepressible_Monkey t1_j0lpeyj wrote

Thanks. I'd agree it'd be very bad for people to get the general idea they can have a vaccine after infection, though, when it's too late usually. A lot of people hospitalised with COVID asked for it, for example.

Something else that wasn't widely pointed out is having a vaccine too soon after a COVID infection can cause a very strong reaction, which can then cause people to avoid getting more vaccinations.

We do indeed need more public clarity, as you say.

2

bofh000 t1_j07kj58 wrote

Many vaccines don’t PREVENT you from being infected by their target virus, they just teach your nudo to respond to it so that the disease severity is negligible.

6

eburton555 t1_j07s1lx wrote

Vaccines don’t have to function preventively by definition.

1

BaconRaven t1_j09akd9 wrote

I just hope it being called a vaccine causes certain vaccine doubters to skip the treatment

1

Blue_Sway t1_j07j519 wrote

Three vaccine also doesn't prevent covid. It's probably closer related the the type of medicine and the way it's given.

0

sxc7884 t1_j07nzrc wrote

While an amazing breakthrough I just cant shake the question “Are the same people who refused to take the Covid Vaccine made my Moderna going to take a life saving cancer vaccine made by them”

18

SkyNightZ t1_j08u60g wrote

Shhhh, do you hear that?

If you listen closely you can hear the "Cancer is a government hoax" groups finding their footing in the depths of facebook.

17

ryankelso t1_j07a4r5 wrote

It's Will Smiths revenge. The Cancer vaccine is what turned everyone into zombies in I AM LEGEND

14

Xeqqy t1_j076ceg wrote

Better not call it a vaccine unless you want half of America to protest against it.

3

StupidPointless t1_j07wwut wrote

That half of the country is more than welcome to die from cancer if they choose to

8

AutoModerator t1_j061reg wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

achoo1210 t1_j08io1w wrote

Exciting news! Terrible headline. “Pivotal” generally means Phase 3 in reference to clinical trials.

1

[deleted] t1_j09v4xr wrote

Let's see how strong the anti-vaxxers game is when they get cancer....

1

GoodmanSimon t1_j07w4bj wrote

I can't wait for the Facebook scientific reviews to tell me how good my WiFi will be...

0

botmfeeder t1_j08lpvh wrote

So everyone gets to take the jab? We lining up soon?

−2

creamer143 t1_j075wxv wrote

>Tailormade to match each patient's cancer

Hmm, where have I heard similar claims about specialized cancer treatment before . . . oh, right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Potti

https://www.science.org/content/article/potti-found-guilty-research-misconduct

−9

SilverNicktail t1_j07j6wv wrote

That's your entire basis for dismissing something? "An individual treatment was bad once, so all individual treatments are always bad"?

6

CharacterOtherwise77 t1_j0794pa wrote

While Pfizer was busy winning the vaccine market, Moderna was doing real work.

−13

SilverNicktail t1_j07jcuy wrote

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Like, at all.

Are you referring to the COVID vaccines? Moderna and Pfizer both made mRNA vaccines.

6

rooftopfilth t1_j07m2x1 wrote

Yeah, what is this? Are we declaring allegiances in the great pharmaceutical war?

Did they pick you, honey?

3

bofh000 t1_j07k8xv wrote

Yeah, they won the vaccine market with their mRNA vaccine.

3

Blue_Sway t1_j07j9cv wrote

Moderna fucked theirs up and just moved on I guess

1

Ancient_Stretch_803 t1_j074zs2 wrote

Really good! But we need to address causes of cancer. Big one dairy.

−20

Bender3455 t1_j07744g wrote

Oversimplified answer: cells replicate as we age. If an imperfect cell is able to replicate, it becomes cancer. So basically, if we figure out how to stop aging, then we can stop the cause of cancer.

8

BuildFreak9 t1_j075rqh wrote

Dairy causes cancer? Since when?

4

StuartGotz t1_j0f7d8t wrote

He ran through all of the possible permutations in his head like Dr. Strange. He has foreseen the infinitude of the multiverse and knows this to be true.

1

Saladcitypig t1_j06rrbw wrote

And this is how Bill Gates keeps making money. Let's all not hold our breath to see if these vaccines will be free IP.

−83

pab_guy t1_j06uc3y wrote

No, it isn't. Whatever source you have for this info is garbage and you should improve your media diet.

41

datsnkymofo t1_j070rc8 wrote

Should probably loosen the strings on your tinfoil hat. I think you're losing some blood flow to your head.

22

Saladcitypig t1_j09opwk wrote

What is tinfoil hat about Bill Gates buying into vaccine tech and withholding IP? How is that even remotely conspiratorial?

1

Xellaha t1_j062nz4 wrote

At this point who in their right mind would trust this?

−226

Unlikely-Storm-4745 t1_j06bpgy wrote

Our bodies produces constantly cancer cells, the reason why we don't get constantly cancer is that our immune system detect those cancer cells and kills them. So the main reason why you get cancer is that your immune system failed, so it makes the most sense is to improve your immune system to detect cancer. I knew about the mRNA vaccine before COVID, and the reason why I was excited about this is not for an universal flu vaccine but it is the blueprint for an universal cancer cure.

97

AutumnSunshiiine t1_j06jnkd wrote

An awful lot of people who have been diagnosed with cancer would trust it. I would. Consider yourself lucky you’ve obviously not had a cancer diagnosis.

63

[deleted] t1_j075r8d wrote

[deleted]

7

nzstrawman t1_j07mxwi wrote

prior to witnessing so many idiots over the Covid vaccine, I would have said everyone would think it's a no brainer

Now I"m thinking of all those "pure bloods" dying of cancer instead of Covid!

2

Promethiaus t1_j07q0d2 wrote

Covid is not comparable to cancer

1

nzstrawman t1_j07qorc wrote

this vaccine is very comparable to exactly what the Covidiots were complaining about with their conspiracy theories and mRNA vaccine

2

Promethiaus t1_j08dzuy wrote

Right but if I’ve got cancer I’m getting the vaccine, if I got Covid the vaccine wouldn’t immediately do anything for me. This is more of a treatment, unlike Covid vaccine was a preventative. That’s what I’m talking about

−1

PaulEDangerously t1_j06hi8d wrote

Not you so don't get it then. Allow others to make that decision for themselves.

41

Prior_Woodpecker635 t1_j071t95 wrote

Truly, that is the only way with ANY MRNA vaccine. Personalized healthcare must be the standard

−3

PaulEDangerously t1_j075qnm wrote

If your condition is personal then yes, if it is not and can effect others then no.

8

Prior_Woodpecker635 t1_j2aii8i wrote

Agreed, we have vaccines that do that and have saved millions from suffering needlessly. COVID MRNA does not meet that mark and the data is very clear. Respectfully, I don’t want to assume that’s your talking point, but it does pan a little with the misinformation about this vaccine that still persists ie- about protecting others. On paper and in waking life with friends and family it does not produce the effects touted by the experts in gov. Does not stop transmission in most… does not stop most from getting it. May stop a certain % sure, but it is no where near a silver bullet for Carte Blanche mandates. For reference you can look at vaccination rates in Uttar Pradesh/ Israel/ Uganda and find their statistics do tell a story of Covid response and their effects on those populations with regard to transmission.

Our government (assuming your American)fumbled this emergency.. full stop. I’m concerned that a portion of our society has been captured by bad information. From “its just a flu”.. to “the vaccine should be mandated” ..even for school aged children. They are both wrong and there isn’t a shred of data for either that withstood actual scientific scrutiny and the evidence of our eyes and ears… without special interests or politicization entered in. It’s been two years of lip service on a shaky concept and that’s a hard pill to swallow. I’ve come around myself after being in the Vaccinate campaign camp. The premise was BS and I bought it. I admit it.

People at large need to be able to change their minds when the best information is available and direct. The unadulterated info and Occam’s razor seem to jive here. The term misinformation has been appropriated by one sect of society as a crutch for outdated thinking.

Damned be the Reddit Karma. If you haven’t heard this perspective, then consider it a duty from someone who cares about you.. albeit over the Internet.

0

PaulEDangerously t1_j2ak8hf wrote

The talking point of “it didn’t stop it” you’re right it didn’t but it diminished the severity and transmission. There’s just too much here for me to spend my day off explaining to you so hopefully whoever reads your response and mine will go to a .org or .gov website with reputable sources like CDC or papers procured by well respected hospitals. Luckily you aren’t the one making healthcare decisions for others. Goodbye.

1

Uncle_Charnia t1_j0658ys wrote

There are genes in our DNA that we don't use, for various reasons. When the mutations that cause cancer switch the genes on, then the cancer cells display fragments of the proteins that those genes code for. This gives the body's immune system something to attack. They draw some blood, isolate a few cancer cells, and look for targets. If there are any targets, they can craft a vaccine that makes the body attack them better.

40

ins0ma_ t1_j06nm2s wrote

Interesting statement. On the face of it, someone in their right mind would be someone who follows the advice of the appropriate experts when it comes to medical science. This would mean favoring the use of vaccines, particularly mRNA ones, which have had such a spectacularly brilliant rollout due to Covid, and very little observable downside.

Why would you NOT trust this?

33

[deleted] t1_j06r4ee wrote

[removed]

−34

ins0ma_ t1_j06ryhh wrote

It seems that almost everything you've written here is dangerous misinformation.

Can you supply any references to scientific literature which support your extraordinary claims?

25

vredvall t1_j06vw2s wrote

It is not misinformation. It is official Swedish numbers from https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/ and https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/sv/coronavirus/coronavaccin/rapporterade-misstankta-biverkningar-coronavaccin

But you’re not going to read it. Because you’ve taken the vaccine and you’re committed to your group and it’s leaders.

−22

ins0ma_ t1_j06wily wrote

>https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-19/

Thats great! Your own link contradicts your statements.

From your link:

"Vaccination protects you and others
The COVID-19 vaccination offers strong protection against serious illness. There is a slight risk that you can still get COVID-19 even if you have been vaccinated, although if you do, your symptoms will most likely be mild. Since the risk of becoming ill is low, it is also less likely that you will infect others. Experience from other countries has shown that the spread of infection decreases as more and more people are vaccinated. For this reason, vaccination is key to helping stop the pandemic...."

It continues. Did you even bother to read your own source material?

22

rocketeerH t1_j06yc7q wrote

Obviously you’re not going to change that guys “mind,” but thank you for trying. Epic way to show him he’s wrong using his own link

14

SilverNicktail t1_j07iv3w wrote

Hahaha this literally always happens. These people never, ever actually attempt to read or comprehend their sources. They just spot one thing somewhere official sounding, that they think agrees with them on a surface level, and then shout "AHA!"

3

Top_Masterpiece_8992 t1_j06y1gq wrote

So I looked at your references and while I cannot say that I did an exhaustive review of the data, I can point out that having side effects from a vaccine does NOT mean you are vaccine injured. Many symptoms you get are not from diseases but from your immune response to abate them, so it make sense that if a vaccine mimics a disease that you would have symptoms.

Also, as I'm not Swedish it is hard to read the tables. Everything else is translated except for those so ib don't know exactly what conclusion they bring. So I cannot contest you on that front.

7

vredvall t1_j071jg2 wrote

Yeah well I’m not lying about the numbers and I don’t expect you to learn a new language.

My initial comment was about the vaccines being “spectacular”. I find that comment insane.

My claim about injuries was anecdotal. Stroke like symptoms, severe migraines, miscarriage a sudden death and women having menstrual problems. I’d say those would be considered injuries. My point there was underreporting.

−8

Top_Masterpiece_8992 t1_j07e3az wrote

I agree that sudden death would be definitely an injury. However, COVID-19 infection can actually lead to disruption in menstrual cycles and headaches so I would infer the vaccine would have similar issues.

For the other stuff, yeah if it's underreported that would be a definite problem.

2

inblue01 t1_j06srbp wrote

I was certainly not convinced by the general vaccination strategy, and I agree that the roll-out of these vaccines was probably precipitated, but the death rate of COVID without vaccines was 10 times higher during most of the pandemic than with it. Now in 2022, almost everyone has some sort of immunity against the disease, including unvaccinated people, which explains why there was not a big difference recently.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination Swiss data here, but it looks very similar in the US for example.

Pushing for general boosters now though? Massive joke.

5

vredvall t1_j06wu21 wrote

Well the vaccines seemed to have an effect initially with the first variant. But even during delta you could make the case that nobody below 55 had any benefit taking the vaccine if not severely compromised by another illness. If the vaccines were as safe as people claim then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But they’re not

−12

inblue01 t1_j06z2of wrote

>you could make the case that nobody below 55 had any benefit taking the vaccine if not severely compromised by another illness

Somewhat agree, thus why I was truly irritated by the general vaccination strategy. Yet, I still think that most people generally benefit from vaccination. For example, a very common argument by anti-vaccine people is the risk of pericarditis after vaccination, which is indeed a reality. What they fail to realize is that there is also a risk of pericarditis from COVID, and that risk is much higher than from the vaccine.

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(22)00453-6/fulltext

Let's also not forget the sometimes severe (and also unreported) potential consequences of long COVID.

1

Star_x_Child t1_j07798g wrote

Not disagreeing with you, but I just want to add something to this, because I think it's relevant. There is a risk of pericarditis caused by viruses in general. I'll add my own anecdote, as an example, but there were plenty of people with pericarditis before Covid. In late 2020 (before vaccination rollout) I had post viral pericarditis (as in, pericarditis that came as an autoimmune response to a viral illness), and there was no evidence that I had had Covid prior to that. I'd been tested for Covid a bunch both before and during my initial pericarditis bout, but there were no signs it was from any of that. However, there were signs that I had gotten it as an autoimmune response to a cold-like illness. I had had the common cold about a month prior, and 3 different cardiologists, an infectious diseases Dr, and multiple internal medicine doctors all came to the conclusion (after about 3 in house Covid tests) that it was actually the cold that caused this.

I say this because I think people have some misconception that pericarditis is a new disease entirely. It isn't. Pericardial issues have been going on for a while and they can basically result from any illness, viral, parasitic, or fungal, that causes inflammation. It's not common, but it happens.

Getting vaccinated didn't trigger my pericarditis to recur, but every time I got sick with a cold or flu it would result in a recurrence the last 2 years. That doesn't mean the vaccines can't trigger it, but I think it's worth noting that the human body is capable of responding to just about anything perceived as a foreign attack in complex and unexpected ways.

2

inblue01 t1_j07ast7 wrote

Oh absolutely. I was hospitalized in 2005 after acute chest and left arm pain following 10+ days of a horrendous tonsilitis : myopericarditis. Scary stuff.

1

Star_x_Child t1_j07gtc1 wrote

Oh, that sucks! Sorry you went through that, even 17 years ago. DX

I remember quietly wondering if I was having a heart attack for several days a few times off and on. I went to the ER, they said my EKG was fine, Covid negative, went home and after a week it settled. Fast forward a few months, the same issue recurred, I came back to the same ER about it, they saw my EKG and told me I likely had pericarditis, but what's worse, is the doctor on call said he looked at my past EKG and said it matched; they'd missed my pericarditis diagnosis months prior. It sucked. And the meds just sent me back to the hospital again and again. XD

Did you end up on colchicine, too?

1

Decepticum t1_j06pem8 wrote

I had cancer and put full trust in the team of surgeons, oncologists and nurses during my journey. It is the reason why I am still alive.

Truly hope you will be spared of this experience.

30

Decepticum t1_j06p58a wrote

If people would only put a fraction of the distrust they have in research into other sectors like food, tobacco, alcohol, energy, etc.... It would definitely be more fitting.

20

Prior_Woodpecker635 t1_j071zbi wrote

Very very well said… as I put my leftovers in styrofoam in the microwave. Jkjk

2

pattyG80 t1_j06zvix wrote

Both my parents died horribly from cancer. I can trust you will have wished for a vaccine when you or a loved one is dying from it

11

kebaabe t1_j06wt80 wrote

Everybody save for a couple of retards on the internet.

9

andagoat t1_j0715gu wrote

I'm confident my cousin's family who just watched her die of cancer at barely over 30 years old wished that there had been anything else they could have tried.

7