1987 was last week.mRNA was invented/discovered in 1987.
Next up?
The tangled history of mRNA vaccines
"Hundreds of scientists had worked on mRNA vaccines for decades
before the coronavirus pandemic brought a breakthrough."
~ Nature.com
Neither is correct. mRNA is in every cell of every living being (it is in every single organic thing you eat). It was "invented" with the first lifeform. It was discovered in the 1960s. Now, nothing much was really done with mRNA until the 1980s though.mRNA was invented/discovered in 1987.
Next up?
But, I'm not trying to get to anyone.
Oops. That was intended to say that I'm not trying to trick or otherwise attack olds. I truly want to hear people's opinions.Shens...?
You knew exactly what I meant.
Can't they just get the J&J vaccine. IDK if it works on the current variants but IIRC, that's NOT an mRNA vaxPeople with a miniature computer/digital camera in their hand will talk about how mRNA vaccines are "too new" and/or "developed too quickly".
Neither is correct. mRNA is in every cell of every living being (it is in every single organic thing you eat). It was "invented" with the first lifeform. It was discovered in the 1960s. Now, nothing much was really done with mRNA until the 1980s though.
But, I'm not trying to get to anyone. I'm really curious as to why people are still opposed to the vaccines and how their beliefs change over time (or are set in stone).
One legitimate reason for hesitancy is the belief that if one does draw the rare hand and has to deal with it, the "authorities" will not bother to provide care and run the proper battery of tests. Rather, they, as if operating unconsciously in a hive mind, will fudge and gaslight the patient so that the cause of their newfound maladies is anything but the vaccine.I personally am vaccinated and have gotten the booster(team Pfizer) and so has my wife as well as our two teenage daughters. We had COVID in November/December of 2020 but still got vaccinated. However we made that decision because we are older and have co-morbidities. Our daughters wanted to get vaccinated so when eligible we got them vaccinated. They were both old enough to make that decision.
As far as vaccine hesitancy. IMHO there is a certain level of gas-lighting in my opinion for the vaccines from the government. There is some nuances going on that doesn't fit in the one size fits all the US government is trying to do for vaccine policy.
For example does it make sense for a 60-year old to get vaccinated and get boosted, absolutely. We now there is a significant reduction in the chance of hospitalization and mortality.
However for a health 25-year old who had a confirmed case of COVID and cleared the virus. What is the reduction in the chance of hospitalization and death for them by getting two shots of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine? Maybe they don't need both shots. Maybe just one shot is good enough. I know there is claims that we don't know how long natural immunity from a infection lasts but we don't know how long vaccine induced immunity lasts either.
We know that with either vaccine induced immunity or immunity through a infection, it doesn't provide sterilizing immunity that some other vaccines or natural infection provides. There is plenty of examples of people having breakthrough cases after vaccination or a previous infection. I am very much pro-vaccine but against the vaccine mandates. My opinion would be different if we had a vaccine that produced sterilizing immunity against infection (Like the Measles vaccine or Polio Vaccine) but we are dealing with a Coronavirus that has significant animal reserves. Which means we are never going to eliminate it in the wild.
Oops. That was intended to say that I'm not trying to trick or otherwise attack olds. I truly want to hear people's opinions.
So when you go to the doctor, you choose one that hasn't changed treatments they offer since 1960?mRNA. Too new.
One legitimate reason for hesitancy is the belief that if one does draw the rare hand and has to deal with it, the "authorities" will not bother to provide care and run the proper battery of tests. Rather, they, as if operating unconsciously in a hive mind, will fudge and gaslight the patient so that the cause of their newfound maladies is anything but the vaccine.
Our center for health organization has said they actually misinformed about why we should be vaccinated in the start of the pandemic, and later changed their recommendations.
With the extension of the period from 4-8 weeks between dose 1 and dose 2 for younger men, it seems the "science" has somewhat recognized the myo- and pericarditis risk. The studies seem to indicate that the probabilities of issues might fall into the chances of drawing a poker hand like a straight flush, royal flush, or a four-of-a-kind. However, with the systemic under-reporting due to medical practitioners misdiagnosing and some people not knowing or completely unable to report to VAERS(the dead cannot report), that is a substantial concession.The COVID-19 vaccines are still under the CICP (Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program) for manufacturers liability. With the CICP program an injured consumer from the vaccine has very limited recourse in getting compensated. There is no due progress, not provided legal counsel and a person can't be compensate for pain and suffering. We know with the vaccines the risk is not zero despite all the testing that has been done and some people unfortunately have been injured from the COVID-19 vaccines. Very unfortunately the J&J vaccine has been directly linked to some deaths. The COVID-19 vaccines should be moved from the CICP to the NVICP (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) so the people that are injured can get proper compensation for those injuries. With the push to make these vaccines mandatory we need to have a way to hold Big Pharma accountable for those that are injured. I believe that Companies need to be accountable for their products and compensation needs to be given to those injured from their products.
The second and more likely pathway is that a Claimant presents such specific, medical evidence that it convinces the agency that the Claimant’s health condition “is the direct result of the administration or use of a” covered vaccine. At minimum, a Claimant will probably have to have treating doctors provide specific, written opinions that the vaccine itself directly caused a diagnosed injury and resulting loss of work, and explain why. And that in itself will not satisfy the agency. Its own published guidance warns: “Such proof must be based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.” This standard of proof is much higher than the evidence of causation we must prove in court, which is typically preponderance of the evidence, or greater than 50% likelihood. Basically, the agency hires medical practitioners whose main qualification is to be highly skeptical of any claim that a vaccine results in injury, and unless your evidence is based upon well-established and undeniable consensus in the medical community, they can say no.