I wonder if these findings may partially explain the often derided theory that childhood vaccines can cause autism. The article directly mentions that an autism misdiagnosis can result from psychiatric symptoms resulting from an autoimmune response after certain infections.
The early research in support of this conclusion (despite the fact no subsequent research has born it out) was pure charlatanism, bad science and the theory is rightly derided because those who continue to propagate it do so out of naked self interest and financial gain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc
No, you don't understand, "vaccines" are just biological agents now. They're no longer merely "weakened" forms of what we're trying to protect against. Don't you see? Vaccines can't cause this sort of injury, because they're not the disease!
Definition of the word "vaccine":
Nov, 2020: "Definition of vaccine: a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease"
c.f. current definition: "Vaccine: b): a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)"
It means we invented mRNA vaccines, which were never organisms of any kind. But they're clearly vaccines. Whatever dictionary you picked updated its definition accordingly. Strictly speaking, according to your "Nov, 2020" definition, smallpox is a cowpox vaccine. I think that's silly. I'd prefer a definition like:
> vaccine (n): a substance that supplies antigenic information to the immune system to protect against a disease, while causing less harm than the disease that the vaccine immunises against.
I submit that my problem with this is that mRNA therapeutics aren't vaccines, they're mRNA therapeutics. The word "Vaccine" comes from "cow" because of cowpox.
Changing the definition so pfizer et al can rake in $50 billion is what i take issue with. If they had said "This isn't a vaccine it's genetic modification" or whatever, no one would have signed up for it. It was a concentrated effort to change language. Control words, control thoughts - George Carlin was commenting on this in the 1990s!
I am not the only one that takes issue with all of this crap.
It wouldn't have been true to say it's genetic modification. Many viruses do perform genetic modification, and it's theoretically possible to develop mRNA therapeutics that perform genetic modification (by having the cell construct the protein machinery required to do so) but mRNA vaccines don't do that. Doing that is hard, and unnecessary.
It's like the difference between an image and a computer program. Sure, you can sometimes construct a WebP image that executes arbitrary code, if you have enough information about the execution environment, but that doesn't make all (or even most) images programs, and it doesn't mean we should delete all the diagrams from our textbooks. Or the difference between a spoon and a razor blade. Metal can be shaped into sharp blades, but that doesn't mean we should swear off putting cutlery in our mouths.
More to the point, I don't see the argument for not calling mRNA vaccines vaccines. Did you think that live attenuated viruses don't have RNA in them?
