Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

yeah agreed. literally the only people I've seen push this kind of nonsense are antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists. I don't understand why they need it to be true so badly; doesn't pass any of the sniff tests under even a little scrutiny.

Even if it fit all those criteria for being an alternative it's not like it's some kind of thing that couldn't be amended if they really needed/wanted to. saddens me how reactionary everyone is.

Edit: also I forgot to make the point in my replay above... it's not like having three vaccines under is preventing another vaccine from getting EUA so even under this logic framework it is nonsense. are they hinging it on the fact that it's an approved drug for some other disease?




"literally the only people I've seen push this kind of nonsense are antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists."

Literally? Everyone? LOL this is why there are so many normal people in this thread saying "at least let's have a discussion!"

Your sentiment is the reason (imo) that these discussions are so hard to have, no offense.


yes in fact literally everyone that pushes the "they are stopping the <insert treatment option> because big pharma wants to make all the money on vaccines" is an antivaxxer or a conspiracy theorist that I have seen in the wild... including my brother so this is a topic I am not taking lightly.

nowhere did I say that this treatment couldn't be effective and no where did I say that they shouldn't look into it as an alternative because I think all tools should be on the table. I am simply saying the part about the EUA thing being pushed by antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: