'Extremely impressive': melanoma jab trial results excite doctors(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
'Extremely impressive': melanoma jab trial results excite doctors
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/03/extremely-impressive-melanoma-jab-trial-results-excite-doctors
32 comments
[deleted]
Off-topic but have we always called vaccines "jabs"? Or is it just a post-COVID thing? (I don't recall seeing it prior, and it almost feels like a dog-whistle to trigger/discourage the anti-vax types.)
I assumed it was an England maybe UK thing. That is the only geographic area I have heard the term used consistently both on the web and BBC and other UK entertainment.
If it is only a post covid England/UK thing let me know I was/am assuming it was around beforehand.
If it is only a post covid England/UK thing let me know I was/am assuming it was around beforehand.
I saw it a lot in The Economist so I assumed it was some sort of British-ism?
Don't know why you are being down voted, its common UK English for a shot.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call...
I saw it's use in the before times, though personally did not associate it for the article title (assumed it referenced a biopsy or something)
[deleted]
It's always been a standard term in the UK. There's no conspiracy.
There are many examples where the British version of a term is more felicitous than the American version.
"Jab" for "injection" is not one of them. It grates on the eyeballs, or at least my eyeballs.
It's as if we suddenly decided to call surgery "gashing".
"Jab" for "injection" is not one of them. It grates on the eyeballs, or at least my eyeballs.
It's as if we suddenly decided to call surgery "gashing".
Its a post covid thing here, but has been common in the UK for a long time. I imagine it sounded better during covid in the US than our traditional terms.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/04/why-do-we-call...
Triggering the “it’s a shot, not a vaccine” gang is like shooting fish in a barrel.
a shot you may do a few times per year and still get the disease
But only with minor symptoms.
Vaccines don’t prevent infection. Your immune system always takes a while to spin up the adaptive immune system.
What vaccines do is dramatically shorten the time needed for a strong immune response because your body built infrastructure to help fight that specific disease. This tends to dramatically alter what happens afterwards. To the point you may not notice the symptoms or have significant symptoms instead of a hospitalization etc.
Edit: To be more specific B-Memory cells live in bone marrow. So when a virus starts reproducing in your lungs or a cut etc there’s communication lag before those T-Memory cells can do anything during which the virus is reproducing. In the very short term after vaccination the body is tricked into acting like an active infection is going on which causes various symptoms, but even here it’s unlikely to prevent initial infection.
What vaccines do is dramatically shorten the time needed for a strong immune response because your body built infrastructure to help fight that specific disease. This tends to dramatically alter what happens afterwards. To the point you may not notice the symptoms or have significant symptoms instead of a hospitalization etc.
Edit: To be more specific B-Memory cells live in bone marrow. So when a virus starts reproducing in your lungs or a cut etc there’s communication lag before those T-Memory cells can do anything during which the virus is reproducing. In the very short term after vaccination the body is tricked into acting like an active infection is going on which causes various symptoms, but even here it’s unlikely to prevent initial infection.
Such claims of protection, reminds me of this Simpsons episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
It's true that the COVID-19 initial variants were very dangerous, and that the vaccines worked against these variants.
However, the virus in 2024 is different from the one in 2019, but the side-effects, you are "guaranteed" to pay them.
You really have to think twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
It's true that the COVID-19 initial variants were very dangerous, and that the vaccines worked against these variants.
However, the virus in 2024 is different from the one in 2019, but the side-effects, you are "guaranteed" to pay them.
You really have to think twice.
Except there’s a great deal of evidence vaccination is directly helpful. Just look at which states have the most deaths from COVID after mid 2021 vs their vacation rates. WV vaccination rate was 59% single 52% double vs MD at 90% S 78% D. Prior to July 2021 they had similar numbers after WV was far worse.
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
Also, it’s likely if the 2024 virus was transported back to 2018 it would be far more deadly. At this point basically everyone has had prior infection or a vaccine for a closely related strain and there’s much better treatment for the infected. Thus the odds of anyone dying drops in ways that have nothing to do with the virus itself and a great deal to do with what happened over the last 5 years.
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
Also, it’s likely if the 2024 virus was transported back to 2018 it would be far more deadly. At this point basically everyone has had prior infection or a vaccine for a closely related strain and there’s much better treatment for the infected. Thus the odds of anyone dying drops in ways that have nothing to do with the virus itself and a great deal to do with what happened over the last 5 years.
Wait until you hear about the flu vaccine.
The one that no doctor recommends you to take it unless you are over 60?
LOL.
No, really, that’s my best reply. This isn’t worth dignifying with a reasonable response because it’s laughably out of touch with reality.
That’s astoundingly incorrect. LOL.
No, really, that’s my best reply. This isn’t worth dignifying with a reasonable response because it’s laughably out of touch with reality.
That’s astoundingly incorrect. LOL.
Ok, tell that to every doctor that I have been to (in Brazil and Germany) and basically said "don't worry about it unless you are immunocompromised".
Or unless you live with elderly who even if not immunocompromised might still get a nasty case. Or unless you work with a community. Or... but of course, as soon as we stop caring about others, many other societal things go out the window as well. I say it because what you folks keep omitting to mention is the benefits for the others in a vaccination program. It's all me me me, and unless you live in a forest (which I think not) it only signals lack of empathy/care/interest in your fellows whatever they are. Which you might be fine with, of course.
You can keep adding all the conditionals you want, the majority of under-60 people will more likely than not fall in the "no real need to take it" bucket.
This "those not taking are showing lack of empathy" carries a significant emotional blackmailing tone, and ends up making those on the fence less likely to join your side and it's frankly quite off-putting.
It makes you sound like you are just parroting sound bites that you like instead of properly evaluating the information you receive and deciding accordingly. It's the opposite of critical thinking and just as dumb as those believing that taking horse dewormer is a good alternative treatment.
This "those not taking are showing lack of empathy" carries a significant emotional blackmailing tone, and ends up making those on the fence less likely to join your side and it's frankly quite off-putting.
It makes you sound like you are just parroting sound bites that you like instead of properly evaluating the information you receive and deciding accordingly. It's the opposite of critical thinking and just as dumb as those believing that taking horse dewormer is a good alternative treatment.
You’re the one that said “The one that no doctor recommends you to take it unless you are over 60?”
Obviously each of those exceptions means doctors are recommending someone get the shot before 60.
The flue shot is also highly recommended for people at higher risk of getting infected like Teachers. A vaccine is simply less harmful than the flue even for healthy people. So unless the odds of inflection are low it’s considered a good idea.
Obviously each of those exceptions means doctors are recommending someone get the shot before 60.
The flue shot is also highly recommended for people at higher risk of getting infected like Teachers. A vaccine is simply less harmful than the flue even for healthy people. So unless the odds of inflection are low it’s considered a good idea.
The exceptions are exceptions. The general rule for recommendation is age/immunocompromised people.
Post-hoc rationalization bogs me to no end. If you feel good about taking it, fine. But why keeping this idea that anyone who declined it is automatically a brainless moron?
Post-hoc rationalization bogs me to no end. If you feel good about taking it, fine. But why keeping this idea that anyone who declined it is automatically a brainless moron?
If you don’t want to be called out for saying things that are wrong, either learn something or keep quiet.
Complaining about it just makes you look worse.
Complaining about it just makes you look worse.
The tactics of accusing the other party of something then practicing same said thing themselves is a characteristic of a certain party, which incidentally also generally frowns upon vaccines or anything with a "social" angle. Just my impression.
Yay, keep the argument based on this binary red vs blue mentality. It has has done wonders to civic debate in the last 20 years, and this "with us or against us" tribal thinking pairs perfectly with your call for more empathy, don't you think?
The CDC comprises lots of doctors, and their website says otherwise:
> Everyone 6 months and older in the United States, with rare exception, should get an influenza (flu) vaccine every season
> Everyone 6 months and older in the United States, with rare exception, should get an influenza (flu) vaccine every season
If you listen to doctors who are not so influenced by pharma reps, the majority will tell that the benefit of the vaccine is only worth its costs and risks (which are small, but still there) if you are older or immunocompromised.
Brazil has a very reputable public vaccination system, and we only vaccinate people on the schedule for people over 55 (I think)
Germany has an extensive public health insurance system, so they are not interested in paying vaccines for people who don't really benefit from it.
Brazil has a very reputable public vaccination system, and we only vaccinate people on the schedule for people over 55 (I think)
Germany has an extensive public health insurance system, so they are not interested in paying vaccines for people who don't really benefit from it.
I think it’s just a sensational clickbait type headline.
But I roll my eyes at the phrase “jab”.
It conjures images of Bill Deblasio asking about a “burger element” on TV trying to trade French fries and burgers for vaccines.
But I roll my eyes at the phrase “jab”.
It conjures images of Bill Deblasio asking about a “burger element” on TV trying to trade French fries and burgers for vaccines.
[deleted]
The world's most terrifying coin flip. Especially as melanoma kills when it spreads to other tissues -- like the brain and lungs. If you're on the wrong end of that coin flip, and the recurrence comes up in a bad spot, you're in serious trouble.
There are many cancers -- like thyroid cancer -- that are rarely fatal at their site of origin. They kill when they recur in distant tissues. Anything to reduce the odds of recurrence in such cancers can have outsized positive effects on mortality.
> The vaccine and the Keytruda brought the risk of recurrence down to 25%, Long said. However, she cautioned the results were a “signal” with a larger trial needed to evaluate the true impact better.
This is an outstanding result, and one hopes that it can also extend to other types of cancer.
There's really no reason to delay offering cancer sufferers that treatment, even if the benefit is only a "signal."