Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

lore.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 649 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#311

Post by the_af »

macksd wrote: post #15

Absolutely agree with everything Linus says here. But I'm almost equally concerned that there's an awful lot of people on the pro-science bandwagon who don't actually support science, but simply don't tolerate dissent or questioning, and that's unscientific and potentially harmful too. I scanned most of the Pfizer trial and was wondering why we expected the immunity after the vaccine to last longer than natural immun…

> And the more they engage with anti-vaxxers the more ammunition anti-vaxxers will think they have and the more they'll dig into their beliefs. It's not good.

Isn't there some analogy with the immune system to be made here?

Anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and the like function like an aggressor. They make bizarre, tiresome, persistent claims, and arguing with them earnestly is like going down a rabbit hole. Like some sibling comment said, anti-science people often dishonestly start their conversations by "asking questions" and wanting you to be "open minded", but spending time and energy on this is usually futile.

After a while, you (the "immune response" in this analogy) start taking the easy way out, no longer answering earnestly, just taking cheap shots at the flat-earther/anti-vaxxer, and just want them to shut up, stop spreading misinformation, and go away.

In the way of all this, the truth and the scientific method get simplified, dumbed down or outright destroyed, much like an out of control immune response may turn against your own body and harm it.

(I'm sure my analogy is flawed, but I kinda like it!)

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#312

Post by Blikkentrekker »

walrus01 wrote: post #222
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the thousand unfalsifiable “troll” accusations. There is no way to differentiate a troll from either a fool, an extremist, or simply one who happens to not share the opinion of the reader.

This presumes that anyone on the Internet owes a troll their time and effort to discern between a fool, an extremist, a shitposter, a troll or a misguided but earnest individual who shares a genuinely held but scientifically false opinion.

It does not such thing.

In fact, by saying there is no way to differentiate, it implies the distinction is not that relevant.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#313

Post by threeseed »

markkanof wrote: post #261
threeseed wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin and HCQ were shut down because people were promoting as an alternative to a vaccine. It's not. It is a supplement to the vaccine for people who are already hospitalised.

None of this is correct. Both of these drugs were part of the conversation long before a vaccine was available, and at least withe Ivermectin the proposed usage is as a prophylactic or as soon as you see any symptoms. Not once you are so sick that you need to go to the hospital. To be clear, I'm not giving any medical advice, just clearing up some incorrect statements.

People were promoting two things: (a) that the economy should be fully re-opened because Ivermetctin/HCQ would solve the problem of hospitalisations and (b) that vaccine development was as such unnecessary.

Both were completely wrong. Ivermetctin/HCQ has being actively used around the world for over a year and it has not "solved" the issue of deaths due to COVID.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#314

Post by DoctorOW »

macksd wrote: post #15

Absolutely agree with everything Linus says here. But I'm almost equally concerned that there's an awful lot of people on the pro-science bandwagon who don't actually support science, but simply don't tolerate dissent or questioning, and that's unscientific and potentially harmful too. I scanned most of the Pfizer trial and was wondering why we expected the immunity after the vaccine to last longer than natural immun…

The average pro-science person on Facebook primarily is approached by an anti-science person looking for public confrontation. I didn't see your post, but I'd imagine looking around you could find many questions similar to yours being asked in bad faith. While I agree your question _isn't_ bad faith, the surface level hallmarks are there. Question about the expedited testing process, context includes a reason to worry about safety if there isn't a scientific answer, then concluded by anecdotes of stumped medical professionals as if to give credibility to the concerns. I'm aware that a close read of this post shows you have a genuine question, but I can also see why it blends in well in a sea of "But we don't know the vaccine is safe" posts.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#315

Post by 542458 »

swader999 wrote: post #271
skjoldr wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a passport represents a centralized storage of medical data, and that's always a bad idea.

And Hippa concerns, this status will likely be resold as well.

There’s no such thing as HIPPA. It’s HIPAA. And it’s nowhere near as broad in terms of privacy as most people believe - it’s extremely targeted in that regard.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#316

Post by fastball »

[deleted] wrote: post #306
MikeKusold wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not "obviously safe". The mRNA vaccines just had an article today that exposed a link to heart inflammation. The AstraZeneca vaccine also has some side effects that didn't show up in their abbreviated trials. I understand why someone would be hesitant to get a vaccine that only has Emergency Use Authorization. That said, I personally believe that the benefits outweigh the potential side-effects. If I weren't…

[deleted]

Eh, my problem is that it's a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation. Yes, of course it's the best case scenario for an individual if 1. we eradicate COVID 2. they don't need to get vaccinated.

The problem is if we allow that sort of mentality to propagate unchallenged, then everyone wants to be one of the select few who take on zero personal risk but see all the benefit of an immunized herd. And then you don't end up with an immunized herd and society loses, tragedy-of-the-commons style.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#317

Post by carbocation »

swader999 wrote: post #281
carbocation wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for sharing the link. I do note that this is an observational study of 255 people. It contradicts a randomized trial with 1,561 people in the HCQ-arm alone vs 3,155 receiving usual care (RECOVERY).

When they are studied as a prophylactic or at early stage, they really prove out. I think that trial you referenced was in late stage severe cases, almost feels like they gamed that design to fail.

The study you have cited was entirely confined to 255 patients, all of whom required mechanical ventilation, 70% of whom died by day 90. That's severe COVID, not "prophylaxis."

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#318

Post by swader999 »

threeseed wrote: post #173
swader999 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are all over the web. But clearly if you take them all in, you come away from it with the impression that he really pushed gain of function research and hid the fact once this took off last spring. Most of what he said in hind sight and with these emails seems to be more about politics and less about science and educating the masses. The messaging on masks should have been that only n95 or better are worth the t…

> The messaging on masks should have been that only n95 or better are worth the time Which is simply rubbish. Masks of all kinds will prevent transmission albeit with varying levels of efficacy. And most importantly they impact human behaviour in ways which prevent transmission. Not to mention that N95 masks are more expensive which would have reduced its use by people who are poorer and are far more likely to spread…

Ones of all design do help with droplet suppression. They do sweet f all for airborne unless properly fit and of the right rating. Covid for all practical purposes behaves like it is airborne. If you haven't realized this by now, I don't know what to say to convince you.

Maybe these will help:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#319

Post by nikolay »

trutannus wrote: post #133
pciexpgpu wrote: post #18

This is good. Now states are combating such hesitancy by drawing lottery for vaccinated folks. Like, having this magic, absolutely mind boggling potion that prevents serious illness and death *isn't* already the lottery win of our lifetime?? People in India and elsewhere are dying because of lack of vaccines and here we have educated, first world countries struggle to get their citizens vaccinated. Unfortunately sham…

> Like, having this magic, absolutely mind boggling potion that prevents serious illness and death isn't already the lottery win of our lifetime A lot of it boils down to people not trusting what they're seeing. Frankly, governments have done the world a disservice by speaking before they really had all the information at the start of the pandemic. In Canada at least an insane amount of what was said turned out to be…

Governments lied to people on health topics so many times already, so why should people trust them - from cigarettes, through lead gasoline, to saturated fats. We all get the theory of mRNA vaccines, but we tend to oversimplify the most complex system in the universe - the human body. There is evidence that these spike proteins don't just get presented on the surface of the cells but circulate in the bloodstream, cross the brain-blood barrier, and cause myocarditis. So, they are not exactly what we thought about them a year ago. Also, here on HN, several times was hypothesized that a retrovirus could indeed turn the RNA into DNA; although the chance is slim to none when you vaccinate billions, it will happen.

Note: I'm fully-vaccinated with Pfizer, but got severe palpitations for days after the first and second shots (which are symptoms of myocarditis), my wife had the same plus a pretty rapid heartbeat for 3 days, and I also got some never seen before skin issues (extreme dryness of certain areas of the skin.

Fully-vaccinated people still an spread the viruses, just not as well as unvaccinated, and people who went thru the course of the disease probably should not get vaccinated as they get a better protection (immune to more than the spike protein), and should spare the doses for the billions still unvaccinated. The drive to vaccinated people who had COVID-19 was an economical and political, not scientific. Removing the face mask mandate early is also non-scientific, but political and economical. So, why should we blindly trust authorities? The vaccine manufacturers have no liability, their practically have emergency use authorizations, not approvals either.

Using certified masks (like in some European countries), getting adequate Vitamin D3 (along with vitamin K), and zinc with zinc ionophores should have been #1 priority, but this basica and benign prophylaxis has been totally underplayed, which also contributes to the lack of trust in the government.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#320

Post by alevskaya »

moralestapia wrote: post #41
lalaland1125 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did he say that you would consider to be wrong or unverified?

Well, there's a lot of evidence for mRNA transfer between species in other kingdoms; read on about reverse transcriptase [1] that is literally how some viruses spread when they enter the human body. Whether that mechanism still goes on when some of the components are missing, well, we presume it won't happen but there's not enough and definite evidence for that. And for those who love appealing to authority, I do hav…

In all of your comments here you're being pretty ridiculous - you've read some books and articles, but are painting stories here in such a credulous fashion that makes me think you haven't actually done much work with cells and viruses. I was a genetic engineer for 20 years and engineered plenty of viruses for therapeutics, including plenty of retroviruses.

The existence of reverse transcriptases in nature does not imply that there's a plausible path to an mRNA vaccine reverse transcription event, even the presence of a known reverse transcriptase in say, an HIV infected cell - they'll have radically different priming systems, etc.

We have plenty enough evidence for core molecular cell biology processes to call out some ideas as radically improbable.

Post reply on HN