My brother sent me some link that said the mRNA vaccines would change your DNA. I found a manuscript saying they wouldn’t. I’d say that I could comprehend about a fourth of what they were saying, and that might be a bit generous. I sent him the manuscript and told him I wasn’t in any position to argue this one, but if he wanted to read up enough on genomics and virology and what-not to explain his position in detail, I’d listen to him.
He dropped the argument and agreed he was completely out of his element. Small wins, man.
That meme is interesting, because those “expert” credentials are among the highest levels of “vaccine hesitancy”
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-most-vaccine-hesitant-group-of-all-ph-d-s/
I wonder how that splits by field of study. I know a lot of (science/math) PhDs, and they are all very pro-vaccine. My neighbor, a PhD who works in regulating medical safety, is home schooling this year, because her kids aren’t eligible to be vaccinated.
What’s the argument against the vaccine now its FDA approved? I can only think of really not wanting to risk any unpleasant side effects while your immune system responds? Other than that vaccines (like the flu vaccine) are such massively positive cost-benefit tradeoffs. The flu shot is awesome.
Let’s not forget the two FDA officials who resigned because Biden is pushing a Booster before they even had a chance to approve it
My unfounded guess? People with PhDs in fields completely unrelated to medicine still think they’re smarter than the medical people just because they have PhDs. 
didn’t actually read your link
Yes, the messaging from the government has been horrible.
Boosters are probably a good idea. It might not be worth doing it until the global vaccine shortage eases, though. And it might not be appropriate for younger adults. And maybe it makes more sense to wait for variant-specific vaccines, which are currently undergoing human trials. And of course US regulatory agencies should have a chance to review the data before the president spouts off about it.
Yeah, I’m not sure that having a PhD in Elizabethan Poetry makes you more qualified than actual epidemiologists and virologists on the subject of vaccination.
Well they did split out “professional” doctoral degrees, so I think it’s zero MDs, DOs, or other medical professionals. Only actual PhD’s.
But that would include science PhDs.
And the professional degree one (which includes doctors) was depressingly high too… but lower than “high school” and “some college”. But that includes lawyers and EdDs and more.
https://twitter.com/KevinCate/status/1437461661724590082
Is this your brother speaking at the the Ron DeSantis press conference?
Well, i just got a call from a friend whose PhD is in physics, but who has been doing biological and medical research for the past 20 years, and has been researching covid for the past couple of years.
He called to urge me to get a third dose. “Have you ever had knee problems? Maybe your knee will flare up and you’ll want a shot of cortisone and become immune compromised. They don’t check your medical record, just which vaccines you’ve had. Do it now before they set more rules, and it becomes harder to get it.”
Well, it does insert foreign RNA into you. Your could call that “changing your RNA”, i guess.
But it doesn’t change your DNA.
I am no where near being a molecular biologist, but isn’t most RNA fairly temporary?
Yes, RNA does its thing and then generally gets recycled.
The survey that produced the questionable results for PhDs was “in Partnership with Facebook.” I have doubts.
From the paper itself (bolding mine):
Limitations and Strengths. The study employs a novel sampling method with a soft ask and low response rate, the effect of which has not yet been fully studied. Survey weights adjust for non response and coverage bias (i.e., matching the sample to gender, age, and geographic profile of the US). However, a comparison with the American Community Survey shows our sample is more educated with higher vaccine uptake than general population, indicating that vaccine hesitancy is underestimated in this sample. Importantly, these characteristics have been consistent over time. CTIS results follow similar patterns observed by others, and have been helpful for tracking trends, understanding associations and informing policies. Demographic questions were asked at the end of the survey and had high unit non-response (e.g., 12% for age), which was treated as a category in analysis. Additionally, we assume the survey was completed in good faith. However, a review of fill-in responses for self-described gender suggest a small percentage of participants used that category to make political statements (e.g., trans-phobic comments). A sensitivity analysis eliminating respondents with self-described gender produced very similar results, though the increase in hesitancy for those age ≥75 years was attenuated (data not shown).
ETA: Looking at the data, the self-described gender category was selected by ~4,000 respondents (0.8%) and the PhD category was selected by ~11,000 respondents (2.1%). I don’t know how many of the self-described gender selections were trolling, but it would be pretty easy to skew the PhD results since it is such a small bucket.
LOL, come on, man.
The second problem is deliberate trolling. While intentional mis-reporting is always a possibility when users provide self-report data, it is a particular concern for a large, online survey on a controversial topic offered through a large social media platform. It appears that the vast majority of CTIS respondents complete the survey in good faith; however, we occasionally receive emails from survey respondents gloating that they have deliberately provided false responses to the survey, usually because they believe the COVID-19 pandemic is a conspiracy or that scientists are suppressing key information.
We have also observed problematic behavior in a specific subset of respondents. While less than 1% of respondents opt to self-describe their own gender, a large percentage of respondents who do choose that option provide a description that is actually a protest against the question or the survey; for example, making trans-phobic comments or reporting their gender identification as “Attack Helicopter”. Additionally, these respondents disproportionately select specific demographic groups, such as having a PhD, being over age 75, and being Hispanic, all at rates far exceeding their overall presence in the US population, suggesting that people who want to disrupt the survey also pick on specific groups to troll.
So ready for the moral panic of the decade to move on to something else now 
I admit, he scared me some. I’m actually trying to get into a study on boosters (i expect to be screened “early next week”) so if that pans out, i will get a third dose soon.
We should have realized what Marci was doing when they posted a link to a National Review article.