New Vaccine Can Completely Reverse Autoimmune Diseases Like Multiple Sclerosis, Type 1 Diabetes, and Crohn’s Disease
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
scitechdaily.com
Researchers from Pritzker Molecular Engineering, under the guidance of Prof. Jeffrey Hubbell, demonstrated that their compound can eliminate the autoimmune response linked to multiple sclerosis. Researchers at the University of Chicago's Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) have developed
You are viewing a single comment
Unpopular opinion: Anyone who refused the COVID vaccine should be banned from getting this.
Honestly asking, why even bring this up? What does this have to do with the topic of the post?
All you do is start an argument and divert away from the topic that was supposed to be discussed.
Just spiteful. And ironic if you really want to claim to care about public health
Wanting to have two seperate conversations about two seperate vaccines is "spiteful"? Really?
And I do care about public health, allot. For the record, I'm fully vaccinated.
Science isn't a religion. It's a process. Just because it's called a vaccine doesn't mean its safe. You can be anti-this-particular-vaccine without being anti-all-vaccines.
(Edit - I misremembered what was hinky. For posterity, I'm restructuring my comment and preserving the bad take struck out below.)
In the case of the covid vaccines, that process was intentionally minimized as to bring the vaccine to market faster.The vaccine did have benefits. It also had complications
that instead of being found out in trials were found out after release.Few of which were serious, and the ones that were serious weren't any more common than the rare serious side effects of previous vaccines.
Well they were/are safe, so I don't know what your point is.
There were side effects that were serious. The vaccines and boosters effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious side effects.
Covid effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious complications.
In the instances where the risk of serious side effect was more likely than the risk of serious complication, at least one of the boosters was more likely to be bad for the patient.
If it is more likely to cause harm, I can understand not wanting to take that version.
My point is it's ok to refuse medicine based on medical evidence.
They did not skimp on the process with the Covid vaccines. Not with the big ones like Moderna or Pfizer, anyway. They accelerated the process, but they did not skip steps. They did steps in parallel.
Agreed. I misremembered what the issue was. It's been a second.
The issue was balancing risk of serious side effect versus risk of serious complication.
By refusing COViD vaccine despite all evidence showing it safe and effective, you put others in danger. I agree on being spiteful: you endanger me and my family because you don’t trust science , then you don’t deserve the personal benefit of science treating your auto-immune disease
I didn't refuse the vaccine. Get the fuck out of here.
E: And all evidence didn't show it was safe. There were risks. In the case of the vaccine itself, iirc, the risks of serious side effect were less than the risk of serious complication from covid. The primary 2-stage vaccine is a good call.
I did refuse a particular booster because the available data on it showed for my demographic the risks outweighed the potential gains; it was more likely to harm me than help me.
Just wondering how you justify saying garbage like that when people died, have serious heart conditions, taste problems, balancing issues, etc. from catching COVID?
I don't understand your comment. To put it another way, vaccine was less bad than covid. Or Covid was worse than the vaccine. Do you still object with the simplified phrasing?
I believe the COVID vaccine trials were the largest ever done, or close. And most of the “complications” were simply the same issues of “long COVID” but scaled down significantly.
Anyway, if people were only against the COVID vaccine, then that’s better than more broad anti medical stances. And I think it would be stupid to deny someone medicine for almost any reason, least of all that.
It really is / was a difficult information landscape.
Forgive my ignorance on the subject. Instead of reading studies directly, I used the opinions of doctors quoting studies to inform my opinions. If memory serves, for the first booster, it was more likely that young men would develop serious complications from the vaccine booster than if they developed covid instead. I think they were heart complications.
So if a drug is shown to be more detrimental than helpful, why is it bad to refuse it, or ask for a different drug, or for more investigation?
I wish I didn't have to encounter people like you. You give medical science a bad name, and anti vaxers confidence.
How do I give medical science a bad name? Do I speak for the field?
You don't want to get a vaccine to help others + yourself, you shouldn't be allowed to "believe in science" when it benefits you and only you.
Such a non-sequitur answer. And for the record, I'm fully vaccinated.
Go somewhere else to talk about your favorite vaccine. Don't DERAIL this conversation about a completely different vaccine.
I was replying to a question. Please follow the context thread, or go away.
Here's what you said, context wise ...
You weren't responding to a question, you were just offering your own opinion, an opinion that was different from the topic and the context of the conversation being discussed, and hence my reply to you, calling you out for it.
You're being intellectually dishonest.
Ya, I am allowed to post my opinion. I don't think people who refuse a vaccine that can help save others should be allowed to receive a vaccine that benefits only them.
If you're upset, you're part of the problem. Not my fault. If you don't want to see my comments, which I am free to post, block me.
In fact, don't worry about it. I will block you, because your reply is insane. Literally complaining to me because I posted my opinion, and then calling me intellectually dishonest. Nutters.
No one says you're not. The only point I was making is you're posting your opinion in the wrong place and you're 'muddying the waters' of the conversation.
That point was said straightforward to you, but you chose to ignore it and try to move the goal posts onto something else.
I'm not upset at all, I was just asking a question, why are you expressing an opinion that doesn't match the conversation being had and that you know would be inflammatory and pollute the conversation.
You keep trying to warp the meaning of my initial critique of your initial opinion into something else to win an Internet argument.
You continue to be intellectually dishonest.
People are saying it causes 5g.
Can I get it, I want strong signal at all times.
6g comes out, carriers push everyone to get new 6g phones as the 5g networks get worked over. Bunch of vaxxers just walking around like "Nah, mine's fine. Why spend hundreds on a new one? 🤷" AT&T and Samsung suddenly sponsoring research to undo vaccinations and turn the frogs hetero 🤣
You’re going to need a booster every year to continue getting good reception or more g’s
[Punny jokeness] Now that I think about it, isn't there a limit to how many g's a human body can handle? We're all gonna have to train like fighter pilots or switch our cell network naming scheme 🤔
Not that i necessarily support this policy, but to the people who are acting all offended at the idea you might be cut off from future scientific advances because of you're hurting the public good ("Consequences? For my actions?!"): You could just get the vaccine.
Just make it a combination shot. Then they can hit the red button... or not!
Unpopular? O.o
People should be allowed full decision over the treatments they want to get, no matter how arbitrary, stupid, or contradictory. To suggest otherwise is a horrific dystopia
Bullshit. You don’t get a new kidney and get to keep on drinking.
Do you mean liver? That’s the organ alcohol primarily harms. Kidneys are somewhat secondary.
Yeah, because kidneys are a rare and valuable thing what drinking would prevent from working
That makes zero sense for your petty ass sense of vengeance by denying people easily manufactured treatments because they turned down a vaccine you think they should have gotten.
That most of society thinks they should have gotten. That results in other people dying if they don't get it.
GTFO of here acting like your right to a fist doesn't end where my nose begins.
The State isn't the society...
so·ci·e·ty
/səˈsīədē/
noun
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
Thank you for proving my point.
To be clear, societies exist regardless of the existence of states. The fact that states are trying to control societies and communities doesn't make any state "The Society"... Society is people.
Thank you for reminding me the block button exists
If that decision contributes to the spread of a pandemic, they can keep they cherished decisions behind bars in a quarantined prison.
Oh no, the dystopia of having to get a vaccine to prevent the spread of dangerous disease to your fellow human beings. The horror.
The dystopia of arbitrarily punishing people with inability to get things that would literally cure their diabetes because they refused a vaccine
Imagine having diabetes, but refusing to get vaccinated so you'd be eligible for a cure.
If there are plenty of vaccines to go around, sure.