Word of the day: Iatrogenic Reaction
Misinformation spreads because we are lazy SOB's.
Recently I stumbled across a post on Facebook which contained the image in this article.
While I immediately knew it was total BS, I had to admit... I had no clue what an "iatrogenic reaction was". Heck, my spellcheck even thinks it is a typo. But, a quick search reveals it is in fact a word. Basically, it is a fancy term for an unexpected side effect, specifically of a drug.
Now, frankly, the font used, combined with a capital "I" makes it look like an "L" which will make you look utterly hilarious when trying to make this point to a medical professional. But, beyond that the entire thing is non-sense. And I'll circle back to the "iatrogenic" part after eviscerating the rest of it.
The first point is to basically not just come in guns blazing and say you refuse the vaccine to avoid looking belligerent. What I love about this point is that is basically a wholesale admission that you want to be belligerent but simply don't want to appear as such. Classy.
Secondly, it tells you to ask if the vaccine contains MRC-5 and assures the reader that all of them do. Which is wrong. And pointless. Or at least, it IS wrong in the context of today, which is COVID. what the people spreading this appear blissfully unaware of is that the two leading vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are actually using a totally new approach (mRNA) which uses new synthetic approaches to growing the cells. In short, MRC-5 is not used, nor is any reasonable approximation thereof.
And, if you read the article, the one late stage vaccination (AstraZeneca) which is more traditional and does use fetal cells in culturing still does not include them in the final shot. A point which is likely true of most modern vaccines BTW.
So, we're left with "iatrogenic reactions". Now, the sorcery of this term is that it only applies to drugs. But, the effects it refers to are really much more generalized. For instance, if you had an allergic reaction (or really any negative reaction at all) to, say caffeine in your coffee, it would not be considered an iatrogenic reaction. Even if it were the sole agent which caused the reaction. However, if you ingested the same caffeine via a pill it WOULD be.
Similarly, if you contracted a weaker strain of a disease in the wild and had symptoms as a result, it wouldn't be an iatrogenic reaction. However, if you were injected with the same weaker strain of a virus as an inoculation against a more lethal strain and had the exact same effects it WOULD be an iatrogenic reaction.
See the problem? The word exists to be used in a very specific context. This is not that context. You should absolutely be comparing the risks directly with the risks associated with the disease it is meant to protect your from.
Problem #2: The second you remove the drug classification you run into a brick wall. COVID-19 IS an iatrogenic reaction (minus the drug classification) to the SARS-COV-2 virus. It is HIGHLY contagious and thus your risk of contracting it is astronomically higher, and your risk of a serious infection or death are several orders of magnitude higher than any risk associated with vaccination.
Should you think carefully about what you put in your body? Yes. But, more than likely you ingest preservatives and flavor enhancing agents and all manner of carcinogens every single day without a second thought. Each one of these poses MUCH more massive threats to your health. And, choosing not to ingest these things may make you healthier. And, if it doesn't it will not directly affect anyone else. These points are at odds with vaccinations. They are safe, and getting one or not has a direct impact on the health and safety of others.
Comments
Post a Comment