This is great news! I think people forget how anti-skin cancer protocols even as simple as applying suntan lotion weren't as popular as recent as 50-60 years ago. Lots of "sun children" of the 50s and 60s are now feeling the repercussions of only applying baby oil and are getting hit with lots of melanoma.
What’s funny is before the 50s and 60s everyone knew you should cover up and women wore bonnets. That too much sun was bad for you.<p>Laura Ingalls Wilder of Little House fame (I mention this a lot as I read these to my children as an adult, and they’re a fascinating look at 1880s America) has lots of places where her mother says “put on your bonnet! Don’t get too much sun!”. We act like people in the past were ignorant but people in the 50s and 60s were just a very special type of arrogant, all of Chesterton’s fences were torn down during that time period.
No I think you’re looking at this wrong.<p>They thought too much sun was bad for you because back then tanned skin was considering a mark of being poor and pale skin was a mark of being wealthy since rich people didn’t have to work outside.<p>They also had puritanical Victorian notions of modesty and covering up.<p>There was no knowledge linking sun exposure to cancer or negative health effects. People in the past indeed were ignorant on many things.
Or rather, linked to completely wrong negative health effects that were just “common knowledge” thus requiring no actual evidence like:<p><i>People with light skin should always wear a hat that fully covers the head/face in tropical/equatorial climates</i> (okay, good so far) <i>or else the powerful sun rays will penetrate the skull</i> (?) <i>causing brain damage that will make you go insane</i> (!?!?)<p>Victorians may have inadvertently protected themselves against excess mortality due to melanomas with their pith helmets, but it’s pretty hard to argue they were actually “correct” with modern hindsight considering the entire chain of reasoning was wrong.<p>(For example, you see this in Kipling’s writing where he’ll randomly include an ominous case of some guy who forgot/lost his hat and promptly had to be committed to an insane asylum, as one does).
Pretty sure a bad sunburn sucked back then as much as now, and was something one tried to avoid.
Unless you are albino (which is a large set of other problems) being in the sun all day will develop enough of a tan that you won't sunburn. There might be a problem in spring, but by summer time most people will have spent enough time outdoors that they wouldn't sunburn. I've always been the lightest person in town (a tie in Stockholm) and I can spend all day outside without any sunscreen and I won't burn on the parts of my body normally not covered (my arms), but other parts would burn in a few minutes (If I took off my hat or shirt...)
Fascinating. Now come and try that on the Arabian peninsula and see how you get on
It's bizarre that you cite being outside at 60 degrees latitude as evidence related to high UV exposure.<p>That's like a resident of Porto saying most people don't get frostbite walking around outside in winter...
I don’t think this is correct, Black people still get sunburns
Black people who spend all their time indoors or covered up will get sunburned if they go outside. If that black person gradually increases their sun exposure they can (in a few weeks) reach the point where they can be outside without sunscreen and they will not get sun burned.<p>Note that I'm making no claims on how natural sunburn resistant affects skin cancer.
The same is true for me, a white person of northern European heritage. If I have a few weeks and time to work at building up a tan, I can get to the point where I won't burn. I did this during the pandemic when I was home all day. I would go out and lie in the sun for 15 minutes, turn over, go another 15 minutes, and go back inside. Felt nice, never burned, got a tan.
Increased melanin provides some protection against burns, but it doesn’t make you immune. There’s also the aspect of UV damage without burns, which is still harmful and is not affected by melanin levels.
This is an illusory statistic because "black people" isn't a real category. People who self-identify as "black" have a wide-range of skin tones. Even a moderate bit of brown <i>completely eliminates</i> the risk of sunburn. You can have two "black" parents and be lighter skinned than the average southern Italian.<p>I say this from experience. I am a black person who is not particularly dark skinned, and have only had the slightest sunburn once in my life, after I had been working in a field for 16 hours straight in full sun under clear sky detasseling corn. When I got back to camp, the back of my neck seemed slightly sensitive, which was unusual. It was fine the next morning, and never peeled at all. I did the same for 2 weeks, and this was the only time I felt this. This was the worst sunburn (if it was one) that I've gotten in 50 years of life. I've spent plenty of time outside, and plenty of time inside being a code monkey and never going outside. I've never worn sunscreen.<p>I've never met a black person as brown as a paper bag who ever got a sunburn, at least that I know of. My dad is pretty pale, I think I would have heard about it.
That's the thing about traditions and Chesterton's fences, you don't need to know why they work for them to work.
This is silly.... most of the world didn't live in england.<p>All cultures (including mine), have a way to warn kids, or adults for not to stay too long in the sun.
From normal sunburn, to feeling light-headenes/fainting due to heat excaustion, etc.<p>In the winter was the opposite. (stay in the sun to get some sunlight and not get sick).<p>So, they knew, and had nothing to do with 'class'. Also, they knew some sun was good/beneficial, especially during the winter.
I don't think that was because of UV exposure or anything related. Look at Bedouin tribes even today. They wrap up head to toe, man and woman and child alike, not to avoid tanning but because prolonged exposure to direct infrared will fry you like an egg.<p>I grew up in the same general region as Wilder, and we sought shade not to avoid sunburn. We were all chestnut brown by the end of summer anyway. It's because the direct sunlight on an August afternoon was brutally hot, and you wanted as little of it to hit your skin as possible.
> before the 50s and 60s everyone knew you should cover up and women wore bonnets. That too much sun was bad for you.<p>I'd say partly true, mostly false. As sibling comment mentions, much of this was driven by fashion and class etc. and not from some fundamental understanding of damaging UV exposure.<p>Furthermore there was research that was trendy at the time called "heliotherapy" [0] where all sorts of diseases were believed curable by sun exposure, including smallpox, TB, etc.<p>0: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy#History" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy#History</a>
We developed creams that stopped sunburn, but were still great at getting you cancer. A lot of the ads from 70s and 80s talked about how they stopped UVB but let the tanning UVA through! So yes, they didn't burn, but the long term cancer rates exploded, along with all the skin aging.<p>So it's not that they ignored the all knowledge. I blame most of it on the rather detrimental tech advancement. Like cigarettes with filters: now safer (except you can smoke more now, and the cancer risk is still a disaster)
> We act like people in the past were ignorant but people in the 50s and 60s were just a very special type of arrogant,<p>I’d be curious to know if tetraethyllead in gasoline has anything to do with people from that time being cavalier about exposure to the sun, or if the science was just not there to make the connection between sun exposure and skin cancer.
Everybody who's not been raised in a bubble knows the sun burns<p>It's only recently that we had space for completely retarded ideas like "staying in the sun doesn't hurt you" or "sunscreen causes cancer"
> It's only recently that we had space for completely retarded ideas like "staying in the sun doesn't hurt you" or "sunscreen causes cancer"<p>but, what if staying in the sun isn't binary?<p>and, what if everyday products did cause cancer? <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/cancer-concerns-from-everyday-products" rel="nofollow">https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/cancer-concerns-from-e...</a>
+1. Also, just to call out, it doesn't need to be _warm_ for you to need sunblock. Even when it's cooler / cloudier out there you can still get skin damage. Look for UV rating rather than temperature. Conversely, it being hot doesn't imply high-UV either.
This was my experience. Years ago I travelled to New Zealand in what would be their spring time. We stayed in Wanaka but also travelled around Twizel, Tekapo etc.<p>Although it was pretty sunny with clear blue skies, the air temperature was fairly chilly (shirt, jumper and fleece cold - and I'm Scottish so used to cold weather) and I started to burn. I was warned about this, and the probability of high UV exposure at altitude by the locals and family, and was advised to apply a high factor sunblock whilst roaming around the higher elevations of New Zealand's South Island, which I did.
I didn't know about the UV index or what it meant until like three years ago. It blows my mind I went that long without understanding. It was actually wonderful to learn that I could just see if I needed sunblock based on a 0-10 scale.<p>We never wore sunscreen as kids because we didn't burn. I probably have had three sunburns in my life. Learned once I became an adult that that wasn't sound logic...
I’ve always wondered about this. I have fair skin, and I tend to burn somewhat easily in very sunny environments like the beach.<p>However, I’ve never gotten so much as a whisper of sunburn / suntan / anything on an actually cloudy day where sun wasn’t hitting me directly. Is the damage a different type that’s imperceptible? Or is this a public health comms strategy where they assume people will see a single cloud in the sky and decide it’s fine to skip sunscreen, so they talk about how you should slather yourself with sunscreen 24/7, even if the sun is obscured?
I’ve gotten visibly sunburned on cloudy/foggy days, where it was completely overcast. You may have gotten lucky.
I think the point is just about temperature. I've experienced this out on lakes in the northern US for example. It's sunny but not like a tropical beach, and maybe even a little chilly. But you'll definitely get burnt without sunscreen
Geography has a lot to do with it as well. Proximity to the equator, altitude, etc.
[dead]
My parents were nudists. So I spent a bunch of 60s % 70s getting sunburn. I bet that even baby oil would have cut some of that down.
I knew HN was geriatric, but damn
melanoma , unlike the others, has a much weaker link to sun exposure. its why melanoma often appear in areas with no sun exposure
Misleading comment.<p>From <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35463" rel="nofollow">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35463</a><p>> Cutaneous melanoma (CM) accounted for around 331,700 cancer cases globally in 2022<p>> An estimated 267,353 (95% uncertainty intervals [UI]: 242,818, 278,638) CM cases were UVR attributable globally in 2022<p>UVR = Ultraviolet radiation<p>Cutaneous melanoma (CM) is the vast majority of melanoma cases in the US at least:<p>> The percentages of melanomas that were cutaneous, ocular, mucosal, and unknown primaries were 91.2%, 5.2%, 1.3%, and 2.2%, from <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9781962/" rel="nofollow">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9781962/</a><p>tl;dr ~80% of Cutaneous melanoma cases are attributable to UV exposure.
Please be careful and charitable in reading others' words, especially as they relate to scientific topics.<p>OP did not say that melanoma has no sun exposure risk but that it is lower than the risks associated with other cutaneous cancers (e.g., SCC and BCC) and it would seem that's true based on the very short search I performed.<p><a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742376/" rel="nofollow">https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5742376/</a>
Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC. It's still a misleading comment, in my opinion.
> Yes, but OP said that in response to a comment attributing melanoma to sun exposure, in a conversation where nobody had brought up SCC or BCC.<p>In a thread about a trial for a melanoma drug, which has nothing to do with the discussion of sunscreen. Sunscreen was brought up because it is a culture-war topic, the fact that melanomas are not as associated with sun exposure was brought up as the standard opposite-side reply to a culture-war topic.<p>Clearly your unrelated accusation was brought up to silence the other side and accuse them of dishonesty. Your follow-up is to accuse them of some conversational violation (mentioning something that wasn't brought up) which doesn't exist.<p>It's fine to see debate, but this is not debate. At most, consistent daily sunscreen use is associated with a 30-50% reduction in melanoma, and some of the ingredients in US sunscreens are themselves associated with cancer.<p>What would be helpful is a link to a study showing a general reduction in melanomas during a general increase in the use of sunscreen. I'd be able to point that out to friends who questioned me about the efficacy of using it.<p>edit: that one sentence reply is already trying to snowball into a pile on. Now to mention this fact has become "bizarre." Can't wait until it becomes "unhinged."
><i>Clearly your unrelated accusation was brought up to silence the other side and accuse them of dishonesty. Your follow-up is to accuse them of some conversational violation (mentioning something that wasn't brought up) which doesn't exist.</i><p>the comment you are replying to is HedonicEscal8r's first comment in this comment chain.<p>><i>that one sentence reply is already trying to snowball into a pile on</i><p>no... it is correcting your comment that is accusing HedonicEscal8r of having multiple comments in this chain. HedonicEscal8r was not the one to make the comment that you describe as an "unrelated accusation" to "silence the other side".<p>common courtesy would be to say "oops, i didn't read the usernames, my bad" instead of accusing someone else entirely of "trying to snowball into a pile on" for calling you out on the mistake.
The criticism and correction were polite, helpful, and appropriate.<p>The original comment is misleading. Your reply is bizarre, and seems to deliberately misread the original comment, the reply, and the context.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Substantially better link:<p><a href="https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-moderna-announce-phase-3-interpath-001-trial-of-intismeran-autogene-plus-keytruda-met-endpoints-of-recurrence-free-survival-rfs-and-distant-metastasis-free-survival-dmfs-in-patient/" rel="nofollow">https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-moderna-announce-phase-...</a><p>Still no actual Phase 3 data presented.
Yes, however the trial succeeded. But by "how much", is not yet released. This trial was not against placebo, but the already existing, and effective Keytruda treatment.
This content is geo/IP fenced
My father is currently dying of malignant melanoma with brain metastasis...<p>I wish this treatment was available a few years ago.
Immune therapy didn't help? Darn.
That is devastating. How are you doing?
I'm so sorry to hear that, but thank you for sharing your story to highlight the importance of this!
Some say that mRNA therapies are getting better and better on a wider range of tumor types, anybody from the industry can confirm ?
Will this targeted approach be beneficial to other cancer types? Is there any data or theory about this class of drugs as a more general therapy?
Yes, mRNA vaccines are promising for many but not all cancer types, and there are many ongoing clinical trials. There's also a lot we yet don't know about how to design them.<p>Here's a great blog post on this, "How to build a cancer vaccine, and whether they will work this time": <a href="https://www.owlposting.com/p/how-to-build-a-cancer-vaccine-and" rel="nofollow">https://www.owlposting.com/p/how-to-build-a-cancer-vaccine-a...</a><p>Here's the blog post I wrote on personalized mRNA vaccines: <a href="https://hedonicescalator.substack.com/p/did-paul-conyngham-really-use-ai" rel="nofollow">https://hedonicescalator.substack.com/p/did-paul-conyngham-r...</a>
One of the leading problems is that we don't know how to pick the right neoantigens (mutant cancer proteins) which can trigger the optimal immune response.<p>Moderna used a simple heuristic, "how likely is this antigen to show up on the cell surface?" which makes sense, since an antigen has to show up on the cell surface for the immune system to see it. But there's so much missing from this model, and we just don't have enough data. Failures in clinical trials of mRNA vaccines may well be caused by this problem. (Yes, this is a good problem for AI, if we can get enough data).
Individualized immune cancer therapy has been touted as the next big thing for half a century. It's nothing new, and with few exceptions, such as skin cancer, has failed to yield much. scientists, for decades, have tired to harness the immune system to attackcancer and it almost never works.
> and with few exceptions<p>Those few exceptions have been monumental in how they've changed cancer treatment. Skin cancer has been particularly well treated with immunotherapy, but other cancers have also benefited from the exact same research and drugs (as it turns out, the specific mutations the immunotherapies like Keytruda target express in other cancers). The reason skin cancer gets so much attention is because it's one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated cancers. (Colon is more common, I believe, but it often doesn't get detected. Get your colonoscopies folks).<p>It has moved fast enough that I've heard from multiple oncologists that the all 5 year survivability numbers are dated because the treatments are newer than the studies.<p>We've come a LONG way in a very short period in terms of cancer treatment. It still sucks, but not as much as it once did.
> <i>Individualized immune cancer therapy has been touted as the next big thing for half a century. It's nothing new, and with few exceptions, such as skin cancer, has failed to yield much. scientists, for decades, have tired to harness the immune system to attackcancer and it almost never works.</i><p>"Almost never" is doing a lot of work. You may be aware that most drugs fail over the course of development and human trials?<p>Anyway, checkpoint inhibitor therapy is a massive boon to oncology and was only brought into widespread use over the past 15 years.
Personalized mRNA vaccines are in fact, extremely new, and only made possible by recent advances across multiple fields. This comment reveals a total lack of basic understanding on this topic.
Huge, uplifting, news, hope the study will bear further fruit. Considering that 90% of all clinical trials fail, it's good to read about a truly promising one for once.
I listened to a great podcast on this just a month ago - too bad that I thought all of this would obviously be priced in already… <a href="https://virological.podigee.io/51-21-cancer-vaccines-how-the-immune-system-learns-to-recognize-tumors" rel="nofollow">https://virological.podigee.io/51-21-cancer-vaccines-how-the...</a>
I think the "expected value" was priced in, but regardless of the result, this trial would move the stock price towards that direction.<p>Biotech is one of the very very very few areas of the stockmarket where specialist knowledge generates alpha.<p>Trolling through random biotechs, learning about their tech, and investing in the most promising applications of that tech in the most impactful areas is something that happens somewhat on publicly traded markets. With tech, most of that happens pre-IPO.
Even if you were to optimally price in all available information you still have uncertainty of what will actually happen. i.e. A 1 dollar coin flip has an expected value of 50c before it’s thrown and it will collapse either to zero or to one after the uncertainty is resolved.
I don't believe the efficient market hypothesis. However even if you do, new information has arrived and that will affect the price.
Hard to price in the political factors now involved in Moderna's success or lack of success.
It was priced in, the share price prior to the news being released was taking into account a probability measurement of the trial succeeding or failing. You can’t price in both options of a binary outcome simultaneously, so part of the equity price was functionally equivalent to a call option on the outcome of the drug trial that only resolved after the trial results are announced.<p>It’s similar to the situation where a company puts out a public offer to buy another company at say, $50 a share on a day that the acquisition target is trading at $40/share.<p>If the stock of the target company is trading at $46/share, the market is pricing in the probability of the acquisition not happening. If the market knew the acquisition would happen with 100% certainty, the price of the target company shares would be equal to the buyout share price offer. You can assume the risk of the acquisition not happening by purchasing shares at $46, and if it does end up going through, you earn $4 a share from assuming that risk.
My father has gastric melonama and pretty much last few days left — does someone with knowledge know if this vaccine can be of any help? Or any registry available?
Ever since I first heard of them a decade ago, it seemed that mRNA therapeutic vaccines were going to be the next wave of massive improvements in care. It's taken a bit longer than I had expected, and it's not that mRNA is the <i>only</i> way to make these sorts of vaccines, it's just so much better than the alternatives.<p>I'm very very excited to see what comes next.
This appears to be a potentially huge win for health. The market has Moderna up 153% at time of writing, which is some sort of validation I suppose.<p>Related stories:<p><a href="https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/merck-and-modernas-personalized-cancer-vaccine-slows-recurrence-ph-3-trial" rel="nofollow">https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/merck-and-modernas-per...</a><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/merck-moderna-say-melanoma-skin-cancer-vaccine-meets-goals-large-trial-2026-08-19/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/merck-moderna-say-m...</a><p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/moderna-merck-vaccine-succeeds-in-preventing-melanoma-from-returning-540e9e18" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/moderna-merck-vaccine-succ...</a>
oh nice. If it goes up another 100% I may not lose money on this stock anymore.
And if it doubles after that, I may even beat a passive S&P 500 investment.
I mean, this appears to be validation of mRNA in general, right?
Saving a couple million people in the pandemic wasn’t validation enough?
I mean, the question is almost always about whether it's economical or not, right? Whether you can find diseases it's efficacious to treat with this mechanism, and prove it (trials are expensive).
not really a huge win. It's going to cost taxpayers significancy and may not improve survival much or total life expectancy . The stock is way overextended, assuming it even works well enough to be a commercial success. History has shown this is seldom the case. I would short it if wasn't so expensive and risky to do so. They would not even specify how much it improved the 5 year survival rate.
> not really a huge win. It's going to cost taxpayers significancy and may not improve survival much or total life expectancy . The stock is way overextended. It's a long way from anything that can be used on patients, assuming it even works well enough to be a commercial success. History has shown this is seldom the case. I would short it if wasn't so expensive and risky to do so.<p>Buddy, this is a phase 3 trial. This is about as close as you can get to "anything that can be used on patients" without already being approved.<p>It is clear that you don't have experience in this area.
According to Gemini, Moderna uses machine learning to speed up sequence selection and mRNA optimization. After all, this is not a mass-produced vaccine, but a personalized one.
I for one would like to see the data rather than a press release. Is this even serious? A press release with no link to outside twitter?<p>I feel like everything companies, and presidents, say now is directly geared to triggering AI trades.<p>The only thing they are looking at with this drug is people living one more month over existing drugs.<p>THIS IS NOTHING.<p>"The median PFS (progression-free survival) for KEYTRUDA was 5.5 months (2-week group) and 4.1 months (3-week group) compared to 2.8 months for ipilimumab (HR 0.58, P<0.00001 for the KEYTRUDA groups vs. ipilimumab,"<p><a href="https://www.merck.com/news/keytruda-pembrolizumab-mercks-anti-pd-1-therapy-demonstrates-superior-survival-progression-free-survival-and-overall-response-rate-compared-to-ipilimumab-an-anti-ctla-4-therapy/" rel="nofollow">https://www.merck.com/news/keytruda-pembrolizumab-mercks-ant...</a><p>The median PFS (progression-free survival) for KEYTRUDA was 5.5 months (2-week group) and 4.1 months (3-week group) compared to 2.8 months for ipilimumab (HR 0.58, P<0.00001 for the KEYTRUDA groups vs. ipilimumab, 95% CI, 0.46-0.72 for 2-week group and 0.47-0.72 for 3-week group, respectively). The estimated 6-month PFS rates for the KEYTRUDA and ipilimumab arms were 47.3 percent, 46.4 percent and 26.5 percent, respectively. One-year OS for KEYTRUDA was 74.1 percent (2-week group) and 68.4 percent (3-week group) compared to 58.2 percent for ipilimumab (HR 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47-0.83, P=0.00052] for the 2-week group and HR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52-0.90, P=0.00358] for the 3-week group). At the time of analysis, median overall survival was not reached in any treatment group.
1. That's not what progression-free survival means.<p>2. I don't think AI was mentioned once in this press release.<p>3. This drug was approved for trial in 2014, so if it had something to do with deep learning, that would actually be a massive announcement.<p>4. The paragraph immediately following the one you clipped talks about Overall Response Rate (ORR) and throughout the release they discuss Overall Survival (OS).<p>5. This is not "NOTHING" in statistical terms, but even more so to people with melanoma.
Interjecting with a fact. Moderna described the neoantigen immunogenicity prediction algorithm they used to design the vaccines as “a deterministic machine learning (ML) algorithm,” so it may be a small neural network or more traditional algorithm, probably not deep learning.
Sorry--I was unclear. I was specifically responding to the OP's "CEOs these days want to join the AI hype wave" claim. My point was that the "hype wave" OP is referencing is really about deep learning, not what we think of as traditional statistical learning. Even the dedicated medical AI startups of that era, like BenevolentAI, were still doing traditional ML in 2014. So if Moderna really was trying to join the "AI hype train" and announce a deep learning result with this treatment, they'd be announcing that they successfully trained a deep neural network for drug discovery 12 years ago.
No it isn’t. They did a test with great specificity and got undeniable P values. Now they can refine the action and start saving people. This is a huge, huge win.
you're also looking at a different, older study. Keytruda is a little strange in that it has a very long tail in survivorship, works best in certain cases, and median PFS isn't a really great metric.
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
Why?
People were assured that COVID vaccine mRNA would disappear within days and the spike protein would short-lived. Yet Yale-led researchers later detected circulating S1 and full-length spike as late as 709 days after vaccination.<p>They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage.<p>That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found. If a technology makes your cells produce a biologically active protein, regulators should establish where it goes, how long it can persist, and what prolonged exposure does before mass deployment.<p><a href="https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccination-syndrome-indicate-future-research-directions" rel="nofollow">https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccina...</a>
<a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v1" rel="nofollow">https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v...</a>
> People were assured that COVID vaccine mRNA would disappear within days and the spike protein would short-lived<p>which is still the case, even in the Yale study.<p>> That is a massive gap between what the public was told and what later evidence found.<p>there is an even larger gap between basic epidemiology and what the public understands.<p>Hard science is difficult to communicate on a good day, on a global pandemic with quacks getting tons of airtime and multiple labs finding conflicting results (due to speed to publish and bad experimental parameters) I would say that was communicated by health experts was surprisingly valid and accurate.
+1 the public health apparatuses' <i>actual statements</i> were impressively correct even if you <i>don't</i> account for the underlying uncertainty at the time.<p>Where public health officials "failed" was not having a megaphone loud enough to drown out the game of telephone that most people (as these comment threads consistently show) were actually hearing information through.<p>Simplest example: People will say that public health officials told them "masks don't work." But no! Only <i>one</i> person did, and that was USSG Jerome Adams (who wasn't credible nor a major player to begin with). What public health officials said was "we do not know <i>if</i> masks work," which is a more nuanced but completely accurate statement.
> : People will say that public health officials told them "masks don't work." But no! Only one person did<p>I think Fauci might have had a statement early.<p>But tbh every other scientist said the opposite, every doctor said the opposite.<p>If I am not wrong he later admitted that he said it to gain time for the goverment to adquire enough for basic needs like hospitals.<p>And that is the kind of error that erodes public trust and it was bad advice shared because the american public cannot be trusted to prioritise medical professionals being stocked and because the american gov was unprepared.<p>But one bad statement, in march of 2020, done for the wrong reasons due to an unprepared goverment voted in by selfish people who cannot be trusted to help others does not deny that the UK had great advice the entire time, so did China, and Spain and Italy and most of the other initial hotbeds. They said "we dont have enough n95 for everyone, please social distance until they are availeble" instead of "masks are not needed".<p>Despite that, he was the face of a pandemic plan in a goverment alergic to facts and led by a dude who recommended injecting bleach so in that situation, he did as much as you can and is still paying for it.
Masks might work but you have to take them off at some point to change them. Or blow your nose, from all of those dead skin cells.
[flagged]
I am totally flabbergasted that the most basic tenet here is being ignored: THIS WAS NEVER PROVEN TO BE SAFE! It also doesn't allow for any sort of effects the average Joe might not think of, such as possible medium and longer term longitudinal psychological or neurological effects that could ONLY be associated via longitudinal study. But at the same time people are acknowledging faecal transmission can help with certain diseases (that is, ignoring things such as the FACT
that the gut biome also is involved in things like serotonin and dopamine uptake).<p>I think you are all simply ripping this apart because your egos won't accept you could be wrong. How disappointing from a group of people I would expect a more scientific and thoughtful approach from. What are the basic tenets of pharmaceutical toxicology and safety? Or epidemiological research? Who cares.
Take it from someone who has read all of said emails: no, they don't prove that.
[flagged]
> They also left the public in the dark about the risk of vaccine-associated myocarditis, especially in young males, many of whom experienced permanent heart tissue damage.<p>Not true. This was correctly disclosed in the trial results as a super super super tail risk.<p>Once they realized that the (minuscule) risk could be even further mitigated by simply spacing out the booster schedule, they adjusted that (Feb 2022).<p>Nobody was "left in the dark"
again. over how long.
What's more, they found that myocarditis risk was higher in the unvaccinated population after infection. This information didn't get to the so-called "skeptics," who willfully ignored data that didn't fit their conspiracy theory.<p><a href="https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines" rel="nofollow">https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...</a>
I also get a kick out of people only looking for side effects they think of as side effects, since they are what people think of as side effects for completely different types of technologies.
>In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).<p>From your own study you linked. The first comment I ever posted on HN was regarding a similar study where there was no control group whatsoever for unvaccinated people.<p>I can’t get over the sunk cost reaction to this vaccine. No one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it. Period.<p>And this is just regarding your study.<p>Remember how the AstraZeneca vaccine (it was called the “Oxford vaccine” before that bad PR) was taken off the market instantly after reports of blood clots.<p>One can go on endlessly.
Let's assume that it's correct that "no one who was not immunocompromised should have ever taken it." (It's not, but let's assume that it is)<p>Was this knowably true in Q1 2021?<p>Can you please share the specific, contemporaneously available information that made this knowably true?<p>If you can't, then it's not "sunk cost" infecting someone else's thinking, it's hindsight bias infecting yours.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
> For all the hate I have for the COVID vaccine<p>Can you clarify that? It saved 100K+ lives even by incredibly conservative estimates, and allowed life to returned to normal at least a year earlier than otherwise.
> allowed life to returned to normal at least a year earlier than otherwise.<p>Life still has not returned to normal. Supply chains have been destroyed. The global economy has been destroyed. After they gave up on the Covid Lockdowns, they immediately switched over to the Ukraine War. And then they switched to the Iran War and the Strait of Hormuz. And now they are pushing the AI data centers, because apparently they don't care about Climate Change anymore.
[flagged]
You got RFK because half the population thought they were unique snowflakes who could not abide by the same simple rules as everyone else. The price he'll extract is significant impacts on health, wealth and well-being.
Except that your children are still vectors for getting others sick. Vaccines are there not just for you but your community.
Vaccines that have a large impact on transmission and infection are there not just for you but for your community.<p>The covid shots were good against hospitalization and death in older folks, but they were not great at preventing infection or transmission (despite what you may have gleaned from the speakers blaring ads in every public setting for all that time).<p>You can fall back to the "flooding the hospitals" argument, that works a little better here.
You're misinterpreting data here. You are conflating the fact that the clinical trials didn't measure infection/transmission (which is very hard to do in a clinical trial) with the distinct claim that they didn't reduce transmission <i>in reality.</i><p>The vaccines were extremely effective at reducing transmission during the first waves of COVID, where such an intervention was most valuable. And due to viral growth dynamics, even small reductions in transmission yield big net outcomes.<p>50% - 70% reduction in transmission: <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597" rel="nofollow">https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597</a><p>Later waves made the vaccine much less effective at reducing transmission, but still highly effective at reducing hospital utilization which is (despite your snarky aside), extremely valuable. Fatality rates <i>doubled</i> when ERs hit full capacity.
I can't speak for other people but I was upset to enter a medical era where bureaucrats were forcing medical decisions on me. I was forced to get it or lose my job despite 1) working remotely, 2) having already had Covid and 3) being healthy and not at risk of Covid death but being the largest risk for myocarditis.
> I was upset to enter a medical era<p>Did we enter a new era or where you not paying attention or affecting you before?<p>Reminds me of the old adage of:<p>Q: "Why is no one speaking about this?"<p>R: "Is no one talking about this, or are you just 20 and its the first time you are hearing about it?"
> I was upset to enter a medical era where bureaucrats were forcing medical decisions on me<p>We've been in that era your whole life.
Because, it is always all about you...
Is that when you entered that era? Or did you enter it when you were a newborn in the hospital, or a kid entering school?
Americans are so silly. Resentful of being told to do anything for their own good or the good of others because of “individual liberty”, yet so willing to lick the boot of the police state and corrupt crony capitalists. Good news for you is that Elon went in and set the bureaucrats straight, so enjoy your diarrhea and glass in your food.
[flagged]
What are the reasons for the hate of the COVID vaccine?
On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Mostly that it was forced unneccessarily on everyone, even those who did not benefit from it, if I had to guess.
Probably one of the most polarizing issues of the last 5 years.
"Polarizing" is a word that kind of applies, especially if one is trying to be polite, but really it's one of the most politically disinformed issues in a long long time.<p>A bunch of grifters pushed fear, uncertainty, and doubt for personal gain, at the expense of the health of the nation. I try not to blame people who got tricked, but at some point we need to treat people like adults who are responsible for their own actions, and hold them accountable for the harm they perpetuate by believing BS and acting on it.<p>A democracy cannot function when its members are low-functioning, and when bad information dominates. Those who spread disinformation, relish the conspiracy and disinformation because it makes them feel special emotionally, and wallow in the mess of it, are hurting us all.
> A democracy cannot function when its members are low-functioning, and when bad information dominates.<p>A discussion as old as time. Plato considered voting a skill, and if you were shit at it, then you shouldnt be voting
You're not wrong, at least in the USA - but it really shouldn't be. The polarisation was ginned up for various bad reasons, including political gain. It's deadly culture war nonsense.
I don't recall it being as polarizing outside of the US, where there was a larger group of anti-vaxxers to begin with. But that might be my "outside US" bubble.
I don't know how things were in the US, but it was polarizing in Europe too.<p>People were holding protests. I know two friends who refused to get the vaccine and downloaded forged documents to be admitted into bars and clubs.<p>Very anecdotal, but after we went out together they both contracted Covid and had a high fever, while I luckily remained healthy.
Oh it was, actually still is - our right wing party is still talking about this stuff regularly...
And, critically, a malignant narcissist in the highest office.
Probably disinformation.
There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body.<p>However, that discussion was largely side-tracked by the massive amount of disinformation (eg, "Plandemic") that circulated online. There are people who to this day swear that COVID-19 was just like the flu and simultaneously claim that the vaccine spike proteins have killed around 20M people. Not just crackpots, but people with reach, like Brett Weinstein on Joe Rogan's podcast.
> There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body.<p>But we have already protocols and frameworks on public health.<p>Also plenty of other medical choices are taken with way less input of experts (see abortion discussions for example)<p>Not sure, the midst of a global crisis, with almost universal scientific approval is the time to have a long discussion on bodily autonomy on countries like america where 50% of people cant read at a 6th grade level.
> There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body.<p>There is a legitimate discussion (dating back at least to Typhoid Mary (1) ) on excluding people from public spaces when they refuse to take basic public health measures. Taking a vaccine for a spreading deadly pandemic is one of those measures.<p>Doing something so violently anti-social is not simply a "bodily autonomy" issue, and framing it only as such is deeply misguided in a way that seems particular to some USA norms.<p>1) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon</a><p>> In 1907, she was forcibly quarantined at the Riverside Hospital
[flagged]
/me shakes head in disbelief and closes the tab
There are a zillion news sources for this: OP what would possess you to pick the (largely dead) right wing Musk-owned Twitter ("X" )?
In other news, your barber thinks you need a haircut.
Until there is a proven net overall health benefit to this therapy, I wouldn't waste much ink on it. Also, can someone please tell me how one controls the dose for an mRNA therapy ?
Yeah while a positive step, I do not understand a 90% stock increase.