Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It is negligent to conflate the impacts of an addictive drug with a vaccine.


sort by: page size:

I’m not aware of any evidence that vaccinations of any kind cause addiction. Please provide citations.

Fortunately, I don’t know anyone addicted to getting the vaccine daily, so the proposed choice is nonsensical.

It is not about me; and I actually think that if there is a safe and effective vaccine that vaccination should be obligatory.

This was just a Phase I (healthy subjects) and most of drugs/vaccines are successful at this stage.

Drugs are not software, you cannot ship a broken product and then fix it. Even if it is safe, but not effective, it would do more harm than no vaccination, as vaccinated people would change their behaviour.


No. There's a big difference between drugs and vaccines. The drug doesn't generally illicit an immune response, but the vaccine is designed to do exactly that.

I think he was referring generically to any bad crafted vaccine. Not the one approved by authorities. Indeed any improvised drug can be harmful.

My 2 cents : according to wikipedia : "A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease". I don't know the word for the injection fighting an addiction, but it's not vaccine.

Your reasoning also completely ignores the reality that the vaccines do not pose _any_ risk to most people.

Vaccine is not treatment. Both have a role.

Whenever you're shooting up a human with something you need to be careful about what you're shooting them up with.

That doesn't say anything about vaccines.


Ok, so why does it matter if it's a "drug" and not a "vaccine"?

And by the way, J&J and Astra Zeneca <<are>> "vaccines", even by your silly definition.

You're just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. As they say, don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.


Vaccines are not a method of treatment.

That's not what a vaccine is.

Then we cannot attribute them to the vaccine, which was the original point.

Then these shouldn't be called vaccines.

I wouldn't compare a vaccine to a no smoking rule, it's not the same.

Not if the vaccine isn't safe.

For the record, I'm not coming down on one side or the other of this argument, just pointing out what the calculus they seem to be operating under is.


Not for an emergency use drug that doesn’t maintain herd immunity for a disease that is minimally harmful to children and is under immense selective pressure to break out of the vaccine.

Maybe you’ve got a bad mental model because of the word “vaccine.” This is not a vaccine of the kind we give children, in terms of what it prevents and the extent of data and knowledge we have of its side effects.


The article isn't about that vaccine.

It’s not about expense, it’s about safety and efficacy, the shots aren’t safe.
next

Legal | privacy