- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
You must log in or # to comment.
The !hackernews cross-post of this link got something like 17 downvotes. And this one got three. As I read the science.org article, I’m wondering if most of those downvotes don’t come from assumers equating this to anti-vaxx crap.
To be clear: the article is talking about the underlying mechanism of a rare side effect of one type of vaccine (AstraZeneca), already restricted in or dropped from multiple European countries*. It got replaced by safer vaccines, even if the 1/200k chance of triggering the side effect was not a big deal to begin with (specially given how many people COVID-19 was killing back then).
*and from Brazil since 2023. Source in Portuguese.
This is a good article reporting on actual research yielding new medical discoveries. There’s no need to downvote.
I understand why people are downvoting, but identifying and explaining these misfires in somatic hypermutation is actually really novel and interesting work.
Somatic hypermutation and its role in common autoimmune diseases is something I desperately wish would make its way into popular knowledge. I think the name makes people think the concept is way more difficult than it really is.
The condition turned out to be rare—occurring in roughly one in 200,000 people who received the vaccines—but Eichinger’s worries were borne out.
0.0005% produce antibodies showing they expirance the effect…
And and even smaller percentage of those people had complications.
This paper is immunology research, not a political message. You don’t need to drag this in here.
Oh no, how dare we pollute discourse with peer reviewed scientific publications.
That’s my question too: Why ignore the focus of the peer-reviewed research to latch onto a political talking point about how this isn’t significant because it impacts so few people?
…
Please quote the part of my comment that you believe is political.
Because I honestly have no idea what you’re complaining about…
You’re talking about the incidence rate as a way of downplaying the importance of the research, when the research is interesting specifically because they were able to identify such a highly specific mechanism that only happens in such rare circumstances.
The incidence rate isn’t a focus of the article, so why else is that what you’re lasering at if not to make a statement?
You’re talking about the incidence rate
Yes…
Except everything else is assumptions you’re making…
You really wanted to tell people not to make it political, but no one did so you just randomly accused me of it for no logical reason.
I legitimately don’t know why mods have banned you, but at least there’s something I can do. Because explaining this over and over clearly won’t help you understand anything.
There was some lack of clarity. Most people produced antibodies from this vaccine. Antibodies to COVID-19, that is. Some small portion produced antibodies to VITT(?) or whatever and only some of them experienced complications from that, which is what you were referring to. It took me a few minutes to understand what you were saying, too.
Please quote the part of my comment that you believe is political.
I talked about how rare it was.
No one in this thread has made any political comments, except all the people hunting for imaginary people making this political.
Dismissing COVID vaccines as being ineffective is, sadly, political, and it wasn’t clear if you were talking about COVID antibodies or the different antibodies that caused this rare side effect.
What are you reading that comes off as him dismissing anything?
I’ve already explained everything above. If I cared, I might benupset for getting downvotes when I never once disagreed with anything anyone else said in this thread, instead I’m just disappointed and bemused in the complete lack of reading comprehension shown. I choose to believe that rather than it being malice and trolling, because it simply isn’t clever enough.
Literally the only person who hadn’t said anything political…
Literally haven’t disagreed with a thing you said, yet here we are…
