sgfyd

So because one bad thing exists we're not allowed to be worried about another bad thing?

Allergic reactions to adjuvants is an entirely different matter (than autoimmune reactions) and may actually not apply to these vaccines. This just goes to show, don't get your medical advice from HN.

> as the mRNA is not reverse transcribed into DNA and reintegrated into the genome

Why not? Just because it doesn't match up, or is there a deeper reason?

> specifically wondering about the chance for an MRNA vaccine triggering or deepening autoimmune disease.

I think the medical guidance has been pretty clear that you should not get the vaccine in this case. There are a lot of people who care more about their own safety than yours who may try to change your mind. Don't listen to them; don't get your medical advice on the internet. Find an expert.

I know it's not the answer you're hoping for, but some people have medical issues which make taking any kind of vaccine too dangerous.

> Nevertheless, that incomprehensibly huge number is still an exact figure whose magnitude, according to Aaronson, represents “a statement about our current knowledge” of number theory.

This is, of course, contradicted later in the article in which they point out that `BB(800)` (or so) has been proved independent of ZFC; there's no really good reason to believe `BB(27)` is not likewise independent. There may still be a truth of the matter about the value of `BB(800)` or `BB(27)` (as the case may be), since ZFC hardly encompasses all truth, but calling such a number an "exact figure" is a bit like claiming to know the birth date of Julius Caesar down to the millisecond: Implausible to start with, and the closer you look the more you wonder, "what does the question even mean? Relative to what standard?" (In the one case, "of time"; in the other, "of mathematical truth".)

Don't worry, the decision will be made for her by governments and/or venues banning the unvaccinated from public places. All will be well again!