If you could go back in time, would you still get the jab?

[Quweenie]

If you could go back in time, would you still get the Covid jab?

I don’t really care if you’re vaccinated or not, but I’m interested if people would go back and change their decision?

Yes

And to reply to the OP:

yep still fine with my decision to get primary course + booster, based on my own experience and the most up to date evidence regarding vaccine safety & efficacy

if became pregnant or was in risk group advised to have a seasonal booster, would also go ahead with that.

Wouldn't be a vaccine thread without @leafyygreens getting people deleted for information that is just that, information. Sometimes opinion (perish the thought).

I am presuming you took such offence to me describing the mRNA vaccines as 'gene editing'

It's a hard one, how exactly would you describe how the mrna vaccines work if it isn't gene editing?

The vaccines use a synthetic mRNA that directs cells to produce copies of a protein on the outside of the coronavirus - the “spike protein”. They are not conventional vaccines using weakened or dead bacteria or virus, definitely not that. They are described as gene therapy by 'people in the business'. Weird that we can't here?

For example from this article (my emphasis): www.nature.com/articles/s41435-021-00136-6

"However, these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of sceptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns. Although these two vaccines are not the first approved drugs utilising genetic materials as active ingredients, they are believed to be a milestone in modern medical history that may forever change pharmaceutical approaches."

You should get onto Nature @leafyygreens being all disinformation and killing people n all that

I am presuming you took such offence to me describing the mRNA vaccines as 'gene editing'

You've misused the term in a way that implies permanent changes to DNA.

www.britannica.com/science/gene-editing

gene editing, the ability to make highly specific changes in the DNA sequence of a living organism, essentially customizing its genetic makeup.

@hamstersarse

The reason your posts are getting deleted is because you are spreading misinformation which can harm others. It seems like a deliberate attempt to scare people into making a choice based on a view that is not backed up by robust, peer reviewed evidence. You have far too much confidence in your scientific knowledge, and you are not sufficiently well qualified to make the claims you are stating.

99.5% of global experts are saying it is safe and effective. There is a very, very small percentage of doctors making unverified claims. Their claims are not backed by the majority. Therefore - if you try and scare other people into believing what they say - it’s a bit like encouraging someone to visit a backstreet clinic for an operation - rather than making the safest choice.

I’m not a scientist, but even if gene therapy is mentioned in the article I’d imagine that it’s a very, very broad field of science. It would range from long lasting protein expression which is something very different from a vaccine which is a short burst to stimulate the immune system.

It’s just another anti vaxx myth that has been debunked over, and over again. Robert Malone was challenged on it - and refused to respond. That’s not the hallmark of a good scientist really is it?

*I am presuming you took such offence to me describing the mRNA vaccines as 'gene editing'

It's a hard one, how exactly would you describe how the mrna vaccines work if it isn't gene editing?*

Disingenuous to the extreme. Suddenly gene therapy is 'gene editing'. That's how misinformation works.

*I am presuming you took such offence to me describing the mRNA vaccines as 'gene editing'

It's a hard one, how exactly would you describe how the mrna vaccines work if it isn't gene editing?**

Disingenuous to the extreme. Suddenly gene therapy is 'gene editing'. That's how misinformation works.

@hamstersarse

Nope, not offended, just calling you out on yet more disinformation. You've spent the last years trying to scare people from being vaccinated and causing anxiety in those who have been, specifically targetting pregnant women.

It's so irresponsible - you're entitled to your own opinions - but stop trying push your anti-vaccine agenda on a parenting forum.

Firstly, it has been explained to you, over and over again, why the term gene therapy has been used by some to reference mRNA vaccines, why this is, and why they are not comparable to what medics and scientists to refer to convential gene therapy.

Secondly, this is massive swerve, because you called them gene editing, in a deliberate and very obvious attempt to scare people.

I'll give you the explanation ago, but it's not like you read it the last twenty times.... mRNA can not edit or change someone's genetic material because it goes no where near it. It is impossible for mRNA to enter the nucleus. If somehow it did, it is impossible for mRNA to be converted to cDNA (we do not possess the enzyme.

As always, you're confused and misintepreting a paper, of which you can't even get the journal right (hint: it is not Nature)

No, it's not 'gene editing'. No gene is edited or changed in any way. By injecting mRNA, we bypass the step of translating a gene for the spike protein (which as you know, humans don't possess) and use the injected mRNA to translate a spike protein (temporarily, until the mRNA is degraded).

Yes. As vulnerable I have had 5 in total - 3 'main' doses, the booster and then this year's annual booster which I had alongside my annual flu booster.

I expect to have it added to the annual booster going forward with the flu one. And I will have it when offered.

I have had covid twice. Once was pre vaccine and I ended up in hospital with a complication leading to a life long health issue, needing lifelong daily medication. I also was diagnosed with long covid which lasted for several months. Second time was post vaccine. I was not as ill, though did have the anti viral fusion treatment on day 5 too.

I asked dh and 20y dd, neither are vulnerable. Both say yes they'd still have their vaccines and boosters, as well as annual ones offered due to me being vulnerable.

Other than a sore arm and a bit of a headache/achy the next day none of us had bad reactions to our vaccines. the reactions from the flu vaccines were worse, something all three of us also have annually.

Never had an, no regret. My mum, sister and uncle all regret it and aren't having anymore. Uncle has heart issues, convinced it was the vaccine as it happened after 2nd booster and doctor said likely was vaccine reaction!!! and is now on meds. Sister immune system in a bad way since. I'm pro vax but was never happy with the MRNA COVID one, not enough long term data was done it. I'm all for choice on this. You weigh up your pros and cons but each choice should be respected.

Yes, I would go back, in fact I've been back recently. DS had chosen not to be vaccinated. The first time he was poorly for a week with what felt to me like very high temperature (I'm glad I didn't have a thermometer as I would have probably been quite worried) and the second time he had a sore throat and felt rough for a couple of days, but soon bounced back. His choice not to get vaccinated meant he missed out on travel opportunities, but he doesn't seem bothered about that.

I think we both made the right decisions for ourselves.

Nope. I have had heart issues which started shortly after my second shot. Only had the first two AZ, refused any boosters. Wish I hadn't succumbed to pressure.

No i wouldn't.

The boosters don't seem to make a blind bit of difference to spread or severity of what is supposed to be a milder for of the original delta variant.

So i don't see the point plus anecdotally, there has been heart issues with the vaccine, one or two people i know, previously of good health have been extremely ill after the vaccine booster.

Weird how these threads attract the 3 out of 1000000 who had a rare side effect….

But not so rare that the NHS site hasn't a separate paragraph on myocarditis after vaccine - 2 people in a small village?

Though we did also have 2 winners of the Euromillions jackpot ...not.

That in itself isn't why i wont have another one, they don't work against what we are all told is a mild version of the original.

I remain very pleased not to have been vaccinated. I realise only about 9% of UK adults chose not to be and thankfully it was in a sense a "free" choice but it would have been better for the nation overall, particularly given the burden of debt a generation will now have to pay for the lockdowns, furlough etc it was the wrong decision to bother with this type of vaccine.

However I respect the right of others to support the covid vaccinations, as most people do. Thankfully we live in a country where we can express contrary views.

I don't think it was always a free choice, but it's good that it was for you.

It did fracture some families in a similar way to Brexit voting.

My friend and her Brother will probably not have the relationship they once did because she resisted the pressure to be vaccinated and he was angry with her and accused her of harming other people (mainly his clinically vulnerable wife).
There was a lot of gaslighting from the press that it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated and people were encouraged to look sideways at unvaccinated friends and family members as less virtuous or thick "conspiracy theorists".

Even now you can't mention how the vaccine doesn't really work like you would expect a vaccine to work without the party line being shoved down your throat that the illness would have been worse without it.

@Xenia
@itwasntmetho

I agree that it was in some ways a “free” choice and that’s how it should be.

What I don’t agree with is the spread of misinformation. That is wrong and harmful.

So I think get people understandably get angry when fringe science, unverified claims and often - utter nonsense - is promoted as it can encourage others to make an unsafe choice. In the same way say if a person was encouraged to visit an unvetted backstreet clinic for an operation, rather than follow NHS guidelines.

For no other reason than it’s a requirement to enter Spain - yes.

From a health point of view, no.

I don't think it was a free choice. It was "forced" by many industries, even if not explicitly so. I would have lost lots of money if I had to keep closing because I didn't have the vaccine, whereas I didn't need to if I had it.
I was very ill from both, and lost money by closing in the end anyway. I've also had lasting side effects.
I did what I had to at the time but I'm not sure I'd do the same again. It was never dealt about covid for me, just about the "rules".

You’re really reaching comparing opposing views recommending someone has unregulated surgery.
i don’t know anyone who has had or recommended anyone else should have procedures at a backstreet clinic. I know a few people who are vaccinated. They have been treated very badly.

comparing opposing views to *recommencing unregulated surgery

I know a few people who are vaccinated. They have been treated very badly.

Most people I know are vaccinated they've been treated fine.

As have the other millions who've had it.