Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

twilight-actual t1_j70rmqc wrote

How long will it take before the antivaxx community demonizes this mRNA solution and others like it?

276

Leavingtheecstasy t1_j720vkt wrote

Counterpoint: fuck those people.

I will take a vaccine for cancer.

101

[deleted] t1_j72vxgh wrote

[deleted]

21

rotetiger t1_j73d27r wrote

I understand the same.

Here is an article stating it: "The Moderna/Merck vaccine is personalized, meaning the mRNA sequences it delivers are tailored to each patient. And it is intended to prevent recurrence of cancer rather than prevent cancer in the first place. But in other ways, the jab is similar to mRNA vaccines for COVID-19." Source: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/ModernaMerck-cancer-vaccine-shows-promise/100/web/2022/12

5

Old_Smrgol t1_j727cl7 wrote

Exactly. Melanoma's not contagious. If someone doesn't want to take a vaccine of it, hey, it's their life.

8

LordOfDorkness42 t1_j70ulbl wrote

Oh, no doubt already started.

To those anti-science, lead suckling, nimrods, mRNA might as well be the word that summons bees to come crawling from their nipple. They're freaking terrified of "that unnatural stuff."

It's so freaking stupid. Hint: your body is full of that stuff. Messenger RNA is a big part of how your body communicates on the genetic level.

76

slowslownotbad t1_j70ww0j wrote

Yes and no. I know a lot of antivaxxers (ex-military…) and they’re surprisingly cool with the mRNA cancer vaccine.

Then you tell them we need to implement mandatory EBV/CMV vaccination and they lose their minds.

−13

storm6436 t1_j711xg1 wrote

I don't know about you, but I was in the military long enough ago to remember the initial anthrax vaccines that were still being developed when they were made mandatory.

It's one thing to be reluctant about something because of ignorance and/or simply not knowing WTF you're talking about, but it's quite a bit different when someone has a track record for shifty/shady shit.

19

slowslownotbad t1_j717heg wrote

Yeah I’m Aussie, we mangled some people with experimental malaria stuff. East Timor. I get it.

Still, this ain’t that. mRNA had a huge rollout, and the stats supports vaccination. Benefit outweighs the danger.

15

tipper7959 t1_j72haqn wrote

I was skeptical of the covid vaccine when I first heard about it because I didn't understand how it came about so fast when vaccines up until then took years/decades to develop and test. As I learned more I felt more comfortable in the experts recommendations to get the vaccine and I was in line the first day it was publicly available.

It's okay to be skeptical of something at first take IMO but holding on to skepticism in the face of insurmountable evidence and expert guidance is foolish.

7

storm6436 t1_j72kvqi wrote

Except when it's not, which is the problem. Adding social pressure doesn't fix the trust issues, it makes them worse.

Half my friends and family are in the medical field, which isn't to say my position is magically correct, but that I'm not exactly ignorant of how things actually work either. To be more precise, I'm not a "but muh mercuryz!" clown or a "Fire doesn't melt steel!" loon.

I have zero problem with "Shit was hitting the fan, so we had to make something work," but I do have problems with people who will never pay the price for their decisions that also inherenty have conflicts of interest and a long history of corruption along with poor decision-making (ie. Politicians) claiming exigent circumstances to justify telling me I can't make my own choices. I spent a quarter of my life in the military, another good chunk working for the government in some form or fashion before becoming a physicist, and I grew up in a state with a reputation for corruption and government overeach. My distrust doesn't come from ignorance, it's based in decades of personal experience.

Hell, I hope mRNA tech takes off and it proves out, precisely because of the things it makes possible, but I'm also perfectly fine waiting for the kinks to get ironed out. The FDA has a pretty long track record of coming back 5-15 years later with, "So that thing we said was safe? Yeah, uh, sorry about that..."

1

golsol t1_j71m3lf wrote

For us in the military it isn't that we are necessarily anti-vaccine. We are anti injecting us with experimental shit that we have no choice over due to military regulation. I have no problem with vaccines in general but will wait for peer reviewed studies over long periods of time before I put experimental medicine of any sort in my body once I leave the military

−4

slowslownotbad t1_j71nov8 wrote

In my experience, the military people that say “it’s not safe” when it’s a vaccine, are the ones that do the most dumb shit outside of work. And inside of work.

7

PaulMacNAlba t1_j716107 wrote

While pushing conspiracy theories that a cure for cancer existed since the 70s but has been silenced by them

40

ABobby077 t1_j72dpld wrote

They clearly have been warped by the flouride in the water over time

​

/s

11

dawcza t1_j71df1l wrote

I suppose there is a difference in ones acceptance of eg. risk or unknown if the alternative is certain death as opposed to flu.

5

ChasteAnimation t1_j7455xa wrote

The flu? Wasn't the antivax push primarily over COVID 19? You know, the deadliest pandemic in US history...

2

RevolutionaryMood452 t1_j71fve7 wrote

The German Anti Vax Community already started to bash the Vaccine because of mRNA, but they lost their mind anyways

5

ABobby077 t1_j72dwep wrote

Then they should just get the Johnson and Johnson which doesn't use the mRNA

1

tipper7959 t1_j72g1lc wrote

That seems like a problem that will fix itself over time though right? If the rational people go get the vaccine and don't get cancer and the antivaxxers die at a greater rate... Eventually that evidence will be irrefutable and the norm will just be go get your fucking shots. Or the antivax idea will succumb to attrition over a long enough timeframe. Either way I'm gonna get a cancer vaccine.

5

ChasteAnimation t1_j746b5a wrote

I don't think conspiratorial neurosis just goes away on its own.

The more you ignore it, the more you silence it, the stronger the sentiment grows.

1

unpeople t1_j7bkjvt wrote

>I don't think conspiratorial neurosis just goes away on its own.

It goes away if the person with conspiratorial neurosis dies of cancer because they refused to get the cancer vaccine, though.

1

essaitchthrowaway3 t1_j71abuc wrote

I hate how this is exactly the first thing I thought of as well.

Instead of being excited for this news and hopeful for the future, these anti vaxx morons are the first thing that popped into my head.

4

pukingpixels t1_j72mbcr wrote

The difference here being that unlike the COVID vaccine or vaccines for other transmittable diseases refusing a cancer vaccine will only affect them as far as health is concerned. So let them refuse it. Natural selection.

3

Happy-Fun-Ball t1_j77rxl5 wrote

Yep, no one needs to push it to keep others around them healthy.

But they shouldn't burden others with healthcare costs for something easily preventable.

2

pukingpixels t1_j78fc5e wrote

As far as I’m concerned if you refuse the vaccine and need treatment you can pay for it out of pocket. I wouldn’t be surprised if insurance companies in countries with privatized healthcare will refuse to cover any costs associated with the treatment for someone who refused the vaccine as well.

2

MaddyKet t1_j7aty7m wrote

Yeah they can’t spread cancer by refusing the vaccine.

2

unbelievablefidelity t1_j70zhue wrote

I predict a large percentage would very quietly/sheepishly (lol🐑🐑🐑!! /s) accept the cancer vaccine if it were to help them not die.

2

ChasteAnimation t1_j7462cw wrote

Probably, but a large percentage is also going to vehemently oppose the vaccine based on intuition alone... Just like with covid.

2

unbelievablefidelity t1_j749tdr wrote

Agreed! I just wonder with the Covid vaccine being a form of preventative action/community duty…mixed with the anti-vax rhetoric of “it’s just the flu!” vs being diagnosed with something potentially fatal and having something tailored to potentially fix it…there a bit more immediate personal urgency.

But like you said, many will still refuse it, based solely on the mRNA tag alone.

Anywho. I’m stoked on the potential of this tailored vaccine!

1

ChasteAnimation t1_j74bfm9 wrote

>there a bit more immediate personal urgency.

You might be right. At the very least, they probably believe that cancer is dangerous. Which is... Something lol.

2

walkerisduder t1_j73svpw wrote

I didn’t take the vaccine, but primarily because I wasn’t high risk. I think there’s quite a lot of difference between trying to fight cancer than taking a vaccine for Covid and I’d imagine folks in that position would likely opt in.

1

ChasteAnimation t1_j745clv wrote

Yeah, one major difference being that the COVID vaccine's effectiveness was contingent on herd immunity...

1

letsstopthebleeding t1_j74ddm7 wrote

It could make people go the other way actually. If successful on Cancer plus conspiracy theories aging out overtime maybe the pengilum will swing back. If it was me I would have the face of this drug be an independent scientIst. Leaving no possible monitary, company affiliation, spouse connection for imaginations to run wild. Not that I have it all my damn self.

1

crypt_keeping t1_j760uie wrote

Same idiots run to the hospital for chemotherapy when they’re dying

1

Venaliator t1_j766bpw wrote

i am not getting it. never.

you go get it 😂

1

twilight-actual t1_j7762uj wrote

If you were on your deathbed with only days to live, you wouldn't get it?

Sure about that?

2

NinjaQuatro t1_j72cyuz wrote

The new rallying cry will be vaccines give you cancer

0

zbenesch t1_j72ipkh wrote

You mean further than it already is? Because covid vaccine bad, chip, magnetic skin, mind control (whatever that is, I dared not to dwelve deep).

0

MysticRanger508 t1_j72o3kx wrote

Who knows those idiots probably won’t even know aboit it! They don’t like to do real research! They say the mRNA vax genetically modifies you, yet it is not true genetic modification. I am genetically modified and it was done by my cells being removed from my body via aphresis and sent to a specialized lab of whic there are 1-2 in the country, and each was individually genetically altered before being put back in my body. This melted my terminal stage IV cancer in four major organs away in a week. You don’t see them crying about CarT cell therapy though which is real genetic modification. They don’t even knkw about it and likely won’t know or care what the cancer conmunity is doing. They just like to find things that suit their need for complaint! They probably wouldn’t want to lokk bad for trying to take treatment away from cancer patients if they did hear of it, so it wouldn’t serve their interest to cry about it. They’ll probably ignore this life saving texhnology and continue to freak about the covid vax.

0

ChasteAnimation t1_j746l9e wrote

Human genetic modification is going to become so commonplace in the future. There are just so many amazing applications for it.

2

MysticRanger508 t1_j747mm8 wrote

I completely agree! It’s definetly in our future! Maybe once more and more diseases are cured on account of it, then people will be more accepting. I have come across many people online who do not even realieze humans are getting genetically modified now.

1

flux_capacitor3 t1_j72x0ui wrote

I printed out a sheet and posted it at my work. It was from the CDC and explained how mRNA vaccines don’t change your DNA. Your DNA is in the nucleus of cells and the vaccine doesn’t go in there. I had to do this because of all the moronic conversations i overheard at my work.

0

ChasteAnimation t1_j746q1u wrote

I've heard people talk about how the vaccines magnetize your body....

1

Zalanox t1_j72ywq9 wrote

They already did! Remember Covid?

0

srg0pdrs4 t1_j732svv wrote

I strongly support them not taking any vaccines.

0

Duranu t1_j73644p wrote

I've seen "I am Legend", Cancer vaccine bad, /s

0

Competitive_Ad_5515 t1_j739j0l wrote

Where have you been? mRNA tech has already become a boogeyman that they have been crowing about since the first COVID vaccines

0

ShemhazaiX t1_j73fxgw wrote

Depends. I think (well, hope) that it'd be a smaller contingent of people against this than Covid vaccines. I think there was a rational fear among many that the Covid vaccines hadn't been tested long term (thalidomide is still a living memory for many), and combined with feeling like they were being forced to take it, many people became quite anxious and susceptible to people pushing conspiratorial narratives. A cancer "vaccine" is never going to be mandatory and there's no rush for people to take it since this isn't a preventative. Makes it a harder sell for people pushing the dumb idea that it's a mind control tracking chip that'll turn your kids gay or whatever bullshit they were spewing.

0

ReturnOfSeq t1_j73sgcb wrote

Dying en masse from covid and cancer is owning the libs so hard

0

[deleted] t1_j72u76w wrote

[removed]

−1

ChasteAnimation t1_j745tpy wrote

>Or maybe people will look at each treatment separately & consider the benefits, risks & circumstances

Why would they do that? they didn't weigh the options with COVID.... They just took up the anti-establishment, conspiratorial bandwagon and followed suit as blindly as anyone else.

Only instead of following the recommendations of the world's leading experts, they followed fringe researchers and conmen populists.

2

[deleted] t1_j749aer wrote

[removed]

1

ChasteAnimation t1_j74axwa wrote

>What are you talking about? 80% of the USAs population took the vaccine, 70% of the entire world population took the vaccine.

We're talking about antivaxers, don't drag the rest of humanity along in an attempt to appear more rational than you are.

20-30% is a significant amount. The apprehension to get the vaccine was significantly more pronounced at the height of the pandemic as well.

It's also worth noting that those figures you're referring to also include partial vaccination.

>And for what? So that {x} pharma companies made record profits for a 'vaccine' that didn't provide immunity or stop transmission.

What?

Wait... Are you going to do that thing where you say that the vaccine doesn't give you 100% immunity and that means big pharma is lying to you? Boring...

The vaccine has been shown to be extremely effective at preventing and mitigating the infection.

It's not 100%, no. I have no idea why anyone would think it is 100%, as that's not the case for literally any medical treatment in the history of all medical science.

2

[deleted] t1_j74dw8e wrote

[removed]

1

ChasteAnimation t1_j74hv2r wrote

Well you'll have to forgive me. Every time I argue with someone who is "skeptic" they point me to a ridiculous documentary, or some schizoid manifesto.

I haven't personally delved into the corruption and conspiracy surrounding pharma companies. I'm sure there is corruption, and I'm sure people have suffered for the sake of profits, but I'm hesitant to buy into a grand conspiracy (not sure if that's what you're suggesting).

1

[deleted] t1_j72s46m wrote

Tell that to my dead friend who died right after taking the covid vaccine

−7

Phoenix5869 OP t1_j6zze8f wrote

From the article

Patients taking Keytruda for advanced melanoma were less likely to die, or have the skin cancer reoccur, if they also had the jab, mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and MSD said.
The findings, in 157 patients, have not yet been scrutinised by independent experts or regulators.
More trials will be needed to check how effective the treatment might be.
Moderna's chief medical officer Paul Burton said: "This is a significant finding. It's the first randomised-trial testing of an mRNA therapeutic in cancer patients.
"It's shown a 44% relative reduction in the risk of dying of cancer or having your cancer progress. That's an important finding and I think it has the potential to be a new paradigm in the treatment of cancer patients."

Tailormade to match each patient's cancer, the vaccine is very expensive to make - although, the company has not named a price.
Prof Alan Melcher from The Institute of Cancer Research said: "There's no question, this is very exciting. These results show the feasibility of making and delivering personalised vaccines to treat cancer, and that the vaccine can add benefit to current treatments.
"These results establish the principle that this complex technology is doable."
Consultant colorectal surgeon at the University of Birmingham Mr Andrew Beggs said: "Although early data, it is very encouraging that this is a likely effective treatment option in the future.
"This advance is likely to have important implications for metastatic cancer patients in the future and opens a new therapeutic avenue for these patients."
Dr Sam Godfrey from Cancer Research UK, said: "There is unlikely to be a single cure for cancer and we must focus on ways to tailor treatment for patients. These results are grounds for optimism that the science which helped get us out of the pandemic could add another powerful treatment option for cancer in the future."

36

feb2023project t1_j71fib2 wrote

44%'s not bad for something with negligible(?) side-effects, compared to chemo.

17

bippitybobbitybooby t1_j70bnor wrote

Who will be able to afford the customized treatment?

29

Thumperfootbig t1_j70gw95 wrote

Just like everything else, it starts out ridiculously expensive and then comes down over time as the capacity is built out and it becomes more common. Give it some time... and it will be within everyone's reach.

76

Phoenix5869 OP t1_j70bwol wrote

My thoughts aswell, but if it's available that's better than not having it

19

archangel7088 t1_j70f8gx wrote

I dunno. To me, I can't think of a worse feeling than knowing there is a cure for my mother's disease, but because we aren't rich, she will be forced to die from it rather than being saved. That's torturous.

23

OriginalCompetitive t1_j70odqp wrote

So you’d rather no one has it?

−5

S1075 t1_j70ux9j wrote

I'm pretty sure that's not what they meant.

5

coppersly7 t1_j71dfwr wrote

Isn't that basically the same thing as limiting it to the super wealthy?

1

CaptainCastaleos t1_j72h9s3 wrote

No, because if the technology exists it usually becomes available to the less wealthy over time as newer technology replaces it.

It's not ideal or fair, but if I had the choice between getting a cure 10 years later or not getting a cure at all, I'd opt for the later.

2

bigdnrv t1_j71bxw6 wrote

People who don't live in the US.

32 out of 33 developed countries have National Healthcare. The US is the only one that doesn't.

18

CaptainCastaleos t1_j72guj8 wrote

National Healthcare systems often don't cover highly specialized treatment and research medicine. It's not even that they won't pay for it; they often just straight up don't offer it.

8

mog_knight t1_j73e5ve wrote

Shhh don't bring logic and reasoning into a blanket statement thread!! /s

0

ChasteAnimation t1_j747odu wrote

When the treatment enters something like a consumer level market, though... Many, many Americans will simply be priced out due to being underinsured.

0

1015267 t1_j73h1kz wrote

All depends on the math. If this is cheaper then longterm care. Anyone with insurance

2

leaflet13 t1_j74e5ze wrote

antivax discussion aside, this is how I am legend started so get your uv lamps people

3

newbies13 t1_j793aql wrote

I'm super curious to see how anti vaxxers react to the exact same technology as COVID vaccines, but for friggen cancer.

2

Phoenix5869 OP t1_j799acs wrote

This is one of the few good things to come from covid. the accelerated support mRNA technology received means we will have vaccines for cancer, HIV, alzheimers, etc at some point, hopefully in the near future

3

newbies13 t1_j79i1mn wrote

Yep this and CRISPR are going to make science fiction medical advances common place. Hope I live long enough to see it get out of the trial phase.

1

FuturologyBot t1_j7045i5 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Phoenix5869:

From the article

Patients taking Keytruda for advanced melanoma were less likely to die, or have the skin cancer reoccur, if they also had the jab, mRNA-4157/V940, Moderna and MSD said.
The findings, in 157 patients, have not yet been scrutinised by independent experts or regulators.
More trials will be needed to check how effective the treatment might be.
Moderna's chief medical officer Paul Burton said: "This is a significant finding. It's the first randomised-trial testing of an mRNA therapeutic in cancer patients.
"It's shown a 44% relative reduction in the risk of dying of cancer or having your cancer progress. That's an important finding and I think it has the potential to be a new paradigm in the treatment of cancer patients."

Tailormade to match each patient's cancer, the vaccine is very expensive to make - although, the company has not named a price.
Prof Alan Melcher from The Institute of Cancer Research said: "There's no question, this is very exciting. These results show the feasibility of making and delivering personalised vaccines to treat cancer, and that the vaccine can add benefit to current treatments.
"These results establish the principle that this complex technology is doable."
Consultant colorectal surgeon at the University of Birmingham Mr Andrew Beggs said: "Although early data, it is very encouraging that this is a likely effective treatment option in the future.
"This advance is likely to have important implications for metastatic cancer patients in the future and opens a new therapeutic avenue for these patients."
Dr Sam Godfrey from Cancer Research UK, said: "There is unlikely to be a single cure for cancer and we must focus on ways to tailor treatment for patients. These results are grounds for optimism that the science which helped get us out of the pandemic could add another powerful treatment option for cancer in the future."

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10s80gd/cancer_mrna_vaccine_completes_pivotal_trial/j6zze8f/

1

Terrible_Actuator_77 t1_j72y3fv wrote

_very expensive_

How long before only the 1% can afford life extension and disease immunity?

Like dying of cancer will be a poor person problem (i.e. you're worth less than $10mm)

1

[deleted] t1_j78pcw5 wrote

Okay cool, so I can expect to stop hearing about people dying of cancer then, right?

1

Strappedkaos t1_j73ksav wrote

Proven corporations and US Govy has pushed heavy into areas that cause rapid cancer in America, those Same people come out with experimental "treatment" for the problem they created...

No one bats an eye...

−7

ChasteAnimation t1_j747wsl wrote

Call me naïve, but the whole global conspiracy thing seems really juvenile. It couldn't possibly be that simple....

4

Strappedkaos t1_j74bbxp wrote

Check out something like the movie dark waters, been going on for over a century.

−3

path_name t1_j73vphu wrote

this is the strangest part of the equation to me

0

Hugh-Jassul t1_j70xuz8 wrote

It should be a law…if you wouldn’t take the vaccine for Rona….then you don’t get this one

−17

Smooth-Mulberry4715 t1_j718pn9 wrote

That’s a very unkind sentiment. I wouldn’t tempt the fates like that.

13

ChasteAnimation t1_j748n0c wrote

Calm down, we're deep into a reddit comment section.

Honestly I agree. If you intentionally avoided the mRNA vaccine because you wanted to virtue signal or were simply too stupid, then maybe you should be held to your bullshit.

mRNA was too wacky, dangerous, and mind controlling during the pandemic, why should we tolerate a sudden, selfish change of heart?

0

Smooth-Mulberry4715 t1_j79fx5x wrote

“Tolerate”??? Who are you to decide someone else’s heath care? I’m new to Reddit, came for the cancer support where we say everyone has to decide their own journey, and here you people are thinking you should be able to “down vote” people to die because you don’t agree with their healthcare choices. I mean, seriously. Who thinks like this? What kind of mean spirited people are you? How ugly.

I’ll stick with my cancer friends, screw this garbage.

1

ChasteAnimation t1_j79rt9g wrote

>Who are you to decide someone else’s heath care?

Some guy on Reddit.

>you should be able to “down vote” people to die

If only

>Who thinks like this? What kind of mean spirited people are you? How ugly.

Lol, you should really lighten up. I thought people with cancer were supposed to be chill. What gives?

1

Smooth-Mulberry4715 t1_j7aphzd wrote

Gaslighting cancer patients - aren’t you edgy?

1

ChasteAnimation t1_j7b6kl9 wrote

"Gaslighting". And just when I thought you couldn't possibly be more dramatic...

You sure you got cancer at all? Maybe it's just a cold.

Are you feeling gaslit?

1

Smooth-Mulberry4715 t1_j7b786n wrote

Stage 3C ovarian cancer, diagnosed right before Christmas. You think you’re being cute but you’re really awful. Reporting and blocking.

1

Hugh-Jassul t1_j70xugx wrote

It should be a law…if you wouldn’t take the vaccine for Rona….then you don’t get this one

−18

Hugh-Jassul t1_j70xx7a wrote

It should be a law…if you wouldn’t take the vaccine for Rona….then you don’t get this one

−25

mangoriot t1_j70ynx8 wrote

Biontech has failed more than 10 years to pass safety standards for such a medicin. Now after fast track approving the corona vax they can push this one, too. The pharma lobby wins, people die.

−58

QristopherQuixote t1_j728gws wrote

How many lives were saved by the vaccine? Have you looked?

20

[deleted] t1_j72i0cp wrote

[deleted]

−5

nosmelc t1_j72sd5g wrote

It's not hard to get statistics on how many people were saved by the vaccine. You just look at what percentage of people who die from the disease who didn't get the vaccine compared to the percentage of people who die from the disease who did get the vaccine and apply the difference to the people who got the disease with the vaccine.

5

CaptainCastaleos t1_j72t6e1 wrote

In a completely controlled environment, sure it would be that easy. Unfortunately, we don't live in such an environment.

There are other variables to account for, such as lifestyle differences between people who do or don't get vaccinated. What proves that the same people that would opt to get vaccinated don't have better hygiene habits, contributing to a lower mortality rate?

This isn't me trying to say that vaccines don't work. Far from it. It's me saying that looking at efficacy takes more critical thinking than just googling a number.

−4

nosmelc t1_j72ti38 wrote

We don't need a controlled environment to get reliable statistics like that. You're talking about hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.

4

QristopherQuixote t1_j76nuad wrote

Where did you do your graduate work to develop the background necessary to evaluate the work of hundreds if not thousands of PhDs with whom you disagree? I did mine at a big ten university. My first science job was sequencing a bacteriophage now used in gene therapy. However, I am sure your “critical thinking” will allow you to overcome any gaps in your education and experience.

1

QristopherQuixote t1_j72r6wy wrote

Everything around epidemiology is an estimate, and outcomes have to be measured at the population level due to variance between individuals, which is why anecdotes never qualify as data. You can certainly compare populations who have been vaxxed vs those how have not to build mortality and morbidity models. The issues is the completeness of the variables around each member of both groups, which is the core data collection issue of any population level medical study around humans.

This is easier to do and more reliable than you are indicating when done at the population level. Yes, I have done vaccine efficacy research in the past when I doing systems work in vaccine registries. I have built statistical models and still do. My last gig before my current job was building algorithms around pathogen detection.

0

[deleted] t1_j72rmew wrote

[deleted]

−2

ChasteAnimation t1_j749gvw wrote

>Never said you didn't. I simply said that asking people to look up a hard number on lives saved isn't realistic.

Oh please dude. Your bias is obvious. You seriously skipped over that brain dead comment to start a line of pedantry...

3