|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
Professor Beetus posted:You are a loving idiot knulla posted:To boot, Moderna's filings all talk about why mRNA shouldn't be classified as gene therapy by the "clueless" FDA (your words), because it doesn't alter the DNA of the cells it interacts with. This is very important to them from the financial side because, as quoted above, gene therapies are really hard to get approved, for good reason. So, you could see how it's kind of a new, grey area. However, here's a report from the journal Science (where all the tinfoil hatters live right?) that shows there is SOME evidence that these mRNA vaccines DO actually integrate into your chromosome. Which would make them 100% gene therapies by anyone's definition: https://www.science.org/content/article/further-evidence-offered-claim-genes-pandemic-coronavirus-can-integrate-human-dna I guess everyone at the FDA who thinks/thought these were gene therapies are loving idiots too, then?
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:None of this is evidence that there's any problem with the COVID vaccines. You're just ranting vaguely about narratives and trust. Just because other things had issues doesn't mean there's any reason to think the COVID vaccine specifically has issues. And more importantly, it doesn't mean there's any reason to think that the COVID vaccine is worse than catching COVID. Yea, there are several angles for why you shouldn't trust these. As a matter of fact you're kind of right that none of this should matter to the vast majority of people, because covid is a disease of the elderly and infirm (that's not my quote, either, that's vaxxmaxxer Bill "I hung out with Epstein AFTER he was convicted" Gates himself: https://www.kusi.com/bill-gates-says-covid-is-kind-of-like-the-flu-and-that-the-vaccines-are-imperfect/). So long as you just avoided becoming a scared little girl by all the horrible words the TV men were saying, there was never even an inkling of a reason why you'd get interested in these vaccines at all, 'cause covid posed as much threat as driving to the vaccine clinic would to the young and healthy. Oh and to answer your question on do I take medicines? Absolutely! I am more vaccinated than you almost certainly. Due to my hobbies, travel, and work, I've taken a number of completely optional, traditional vaccines that the majority of people haven't. I only have taken them after careful research and with the happy knowledge that the vaccines I did take have decades of study behind them, not only the original, usually 7+ year long observational studies, but as well from decades of real-world use. In general I don't take any pharmaceuticals because I'm healthy and I haven't seen a doctor because I'm sick for ages and ages. I have no need of them, but when they are recommended to me, I do some research and evaluate my own risk/benefit for each individual case. knulla fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
knulla posted:I guess everyone at the FDA who thinks/thought these were gene therapies are loving idiots too, then? You are not even reading the links you're posting, or you have the reading comprehension of a grape, if you think the things you keep dropping in here support your arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
As of the start of this year, there have been 1414 confirmed covid deaths in US children under the age of 18. At a 2020 census population of 73.1 million, that's 1.93 deaths per 100,000. I've still yet to see a single source that can attribute a similar mortality rate to covid vaccines. To date the CDC has confirmed 9 deaths as definitely being caused by the vaccines, which would mean 0.00135 deaths per 100,000 doses, which is to say that existing as a child in a world with endemic COVID-19 is 1000 times more likely to be fatal than receiving the jab. At one point, researchers were having a difficult time estimating accurate mortality risk for the vaccine because mortality from all causes was noticeably lower in the vaccinated population: even if you stripped out confirmed covid deaths from the data (since those can be accounted for to some extent by vaccine status.) vaccinated people were less likely to die period than unvaccinated people. Statistically, the covid vaccine didn't just protect you from coronavirus but also cancer, drug overdose, and car crashes. Of course, there's a confounding factor here in that not every covid death got recorded as covid: if we assume that those "non-covid" deaths include a certain number of covid deaths that got missed, which hit the unvaccinated group disproportionately hard, then that difference could go away. But there's also a behavioral component here, as vaccine status likely correlates to higher healthcare compliance and lower risk-taking behavior. This behavioral component is evident in the fact that excess mortality spiked higher in 2020 among Republicans than it did among Democrats, and that gap got wider after vaccines were introduced. Democrats are still ~50% more likely to be vaccinated than Republicans, but since the vaccine rollouts death rates have been climbing faster among Republicans than Democrats. How do you account for that if vaccines represent a serious risk? This isn't just a matter of possible vaccine deaths being misattributed; there just literally aren't enough dead bodies for there to be a significant mortality risk from covid vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
knulla posted:Like I said, I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for a while, from the finance side, so I have way more knowledge about this stuff than random joe schmoe like you. lol go address Failed Imagineer's points then, you
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:You are not even reading the links you're posting, or you have the reading comprehension of a grape, if you think the things you keep dropping in here support your arguments. What about the study in the journal Science that shows that these therapies may actually be altering the genome of those dumb enough to take them? You seem pretty sure that those scientists are dumb as poo poo. Maybe you're right. I'm sure you hope so.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
knulla posted:What about the study in the journal Science that shows that these therapies may actually be altering the genome of those dumb enough to take them? Your source: quote:(Janesich and Young stress that their results, both original and new, in no way imply that those vaccines integrate their sequences into our DNA.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:Your source: efb came here to post this literally the second paragraph of the article you linked contradicts the claims you're making. you're not bothering to read your articles or respond in good faith to people engaging with you so you can take another break, cheers knulla posted:However, here's a report from the journal Science (where all the tinfoil hatters live right?) that shows there is SOME evidence that these mRNA vaccines DO actually integrate into your chromosome. Which would make them 100% gene therapies by anyone's definition: https://www.science.org/content/article/further-evidence-offered-claim-genes-pandemic-coronavirus-can-integrate-human-dna second paragraph of the article posted:(Janesich and Young stress that their results, both original and new, in no way imply that those vaccines integrate their sequences into our DNA.) Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
knulla posted:Like I said, I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for a while, from the finance side, so I have way more knowledge about this stuff than random joe schmoe like you. Hey can you respond to the half dozen or so people who responded to you pointing out the ways you are incorrect? Esp interested in the discussion about the article you posted which said the exact opposite of what you thought it did Edit: oh you've now posted TWO articles that both the said the opposite of what you are arguing, nice work champ Alctel fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Alctel posted:Esp interested in the discussion about the article you posted which said the exact opposite of what you thought it did I'm afraid you're going to have to narrow it down a bit at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:I'm afraid you're going to have to narrow it down a bit at this point. Yeah I just noticed that. Apparently actually reading stuff is for scrubs, just post
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
knulla posted:Here's a cardiologist on the BBC no less saying that the mrna vaccines are a likely contributing factor to the excess cardiovascular deaths that the UK is experiencing. This cardiologist, who was again on the UK's government's TV station, says that the vaccine rollout should be immediately stopped. https://twitter.com/draseemmalhotra/status/1613837487796850688?s=46&t=cf8JDgTEj5MKqpk1xmPL9w Doctors can be kooks too. For instance, it's possible that the uptick in CV deaths is due to people missing primary care appointments in the last 3 years due to the pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
knulla posted:Like I said, I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for a while, from the finance side, so I have way more knowledge about this stuff than random joe schmoe like you. It is clear that you don't. Ravenfood posted:For instance, it's possible that the uptick in CV deaths is due to people missing primary care appointments in the last 3 years due to the pandemic. This is undoubtedly the case. E: hope that 1 day probe is a placeholder for something more substantial, because his previous week probe itt didn't seem to do the trick Failed Imagineer fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:It is clear that you don't. Not for nothing, but at my hospital non-critical surgeries were all stopped until a few months ago, which included most valve surgeries that weren't aortic. Sticking around with bad mitral regurgitation for an extra yeah probably isn't great for your health, at least on a societal level even if it is probably fine in an individual one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
knulla posted:
No I don't believe anyone is saying any of that. What we, or at least I, are saying is that so far there doesn't exist any evidence of this harm in this particular case, and this is not helped by you continuing to inadvertently post sources which contradict your claims because you seemingly are not doing your due diligence on reading through your links before posting them. Do keep in mind that there's also a profit motive in selling alternatives to FDA approved medicines, so it's not an issue of greedy Big Pharma (who always lies) versus plucky financially disinterested whistleblowers (who are never wrong). Dangerous drugs that got approved anyhow certainly exist, but claims about drugs being dangerous which later turned out to be false also exist. The Sackler family hurt and killed a lot of people when they said OxyContin wasn't addictive, but so did Andrew Wakefield and Jenna McCarthy when they told parents the MMR vaccine would give their kids autism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:This isn't just a matter of possible vaccine deaths being misattributed; there just literally aren't enough dead bodies for there to be a significant mortality risk from covid vaccines. Yeah that's the thing, so many people got vaccinated so fast it's unlike anything else. If 92% of American Democrats had gone out and got an Oxy script in one year in 2005 the dangers would have been apparent much sooner. It's just so many people: if the covid vaccine were as dangerous as antivax people say it would be impossible to hide the piles of bodies in the US and especially around the developed world where vaccination rates are so much higher. Everybody would be losing friends and family members to mysterious deaths that They won't admit are from the vaccine, and that...hasn't happened. Antivaxxers are reduced to stuff like "14 athletes around the world died of something last year, COINCIDENCE???"
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah that's the thing, so many people got vaccinated so fast it's unlike anything else. If 92% of American Democrats had gone out and got an Oxy script in one year in 2005 the dangers would have been apparent much sooner. It's just so many people: if the covid vaccine were as dangerous as antivax people say it would be impossible to hide the piles of bodies in the US and especially around the developed world where vaccination rates are so much higher. Everybody would be losing friends and family members to mysterious deaths that They won't admit are from the vaccine, and that...hasn't happened. *Watching a man take a 280lb linebacker to the chest and have a heart attack on live TV*: This is clearly the work of Pfizer (E: actually I just googled the football man who tackled him and he was a 220lb receiver, but whatever)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
knulla posted:Notably, the UK has been a touch more conservative than the USA and refused to roll out the vaccine to anyone 12 or under (https://fee.org/articles/england-refuses-to-offer-covid-shots-to-kids-under-12-while-us-cities-mandate-them-who-s-right/) UK vaccine policy is broken as all hell and includes not vaccinating persons under fifty against flu and not vaccinating against chicken pox, but even here you’ve managed to get it wrong. The UK did “roll out” the vaccine to kinds under twelve. Months later, they stopped allowing most kids turning five to get the primary series. You are still mostly wrong on who can get vaccinated today, because kids who were eligible remain eligible. Kids who are six years of age or older (and a little younger) can still get it, because they were more than five years old on the day the policy changed. In summer 2024, the cutoff will be seven years of age, and so on. The “anyone” [12 or under] you threw into that sentence manages to make you wrong in a third way, because as bad as UK policy is, they still carve out exceptions for especially medically vulnerable kids, e.g. cancer patients. UK policy is in summary very bad, bad enough that parents should be dumping the king’s tea into the harbour in protest, but it’s not quite as bad as it would be if Knulla ran it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Tldr: Once it's been exposed to the original vaccine, your immune system recognizes the bivalent vaccine as the same thing and just creates the same old antibodies. This isn’t entirely true. The response to the new antigens is muted, but the antibodies created are not just the same. They’re qualitatively different. They simply do not exist in high concentration. As the section of the NEJM article you quoted says, larger doses help and so does deleting the ancestral code from the formula, i.e. giving a monovalent shot targeted at something in the Omicron clade. Another policy that deserves series consideration is treating Omicron shots as a new primary series. If it’s sufficiently antigenically distinct, a single “booster” isn’t what we need. We need a prime + boost regimen, maybe even a third shot considering how much that helped with the original strain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
What's the rationale between even having the bivalent vaccine at this point? Does the original strain still even exist in the wild? I would have assumed that Omicron 100% displaced it a while ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
enki42 posted:What's the rationale between even having the bivalent vaccine at this point? Does the original strain still even exist in the wild? I would have assumed that Omicron 100% displaced it a while ago. Unfortunately, the omicron-targeting part didn't work much better than the original monovalent vaccine (as Main Paineframe explained earlier, this is the same article VitalSigns posted), and the subvariants it was supposed to target have also practically disappeared. So there's not much reason to believe that dropping the wildtype half would help against XBB1.5 et al and I don't think anyone is trying to get approval for a monovalent BA1/4/5 vaccine (are they? the article only says Pfizer tested it). e; this bit: quote:Why did the strategy for significantly increasing BA.4 and BA.5 neutralizing antibodies using a bivalent vaccine fail? The most likely explanation is imprinting. The immune systems of people immunized with the bivalent vaccine, all of whom had previously been vaccinated, were primed to respond to the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2. They therefore probably responded to epitopes shared by BA.4 and BA.5 and the ancestral strain, rather than to new epitopes on BA.4 and BA.5. This effect could possibly be moderated by immunizing people either with BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA alone or with a greater quantity of BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA. Evidence in support of these strategies can be found in Pfizer–BioNTech’s data regarding its BA.1-containing bivalent vaccine, which showed that BA.1-specific neutralizing-antibody responses were greater in persons who were injected with a monovalent vaccine containing 30 μg or 60 μg of BA.1 mRNA or a bivalent vaccine containing 30 μg of BA.1 mRNA and 30 μg of ancestral-strain mRNA than in those who received a bivalent vaccine containing 15 μg of each type of mRNA. If this is true, wouldn't a monovalent BA4/5 booster also imprint on anyone who got the bivalent booster? Granted, that's not very many people... sigh. Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
I need someone with a medical background to parse this study for me if possible. Claims include "Don't take repeated doses of mRNA vaccines. It will mess up your immune system. (Over stimulates IgG4 leading to immuno-suppression effect)". I came across this from a twitter user who isn't psycho but is definitely on the don't vaccinate excessively side of the isle. Too much jargon in the article for me to parse the claim. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.1020844/full Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
The article certainly doesn't make such bold claims, but rather than digging in fully, a crucial first question is how this twitter user came across the article and what their motives and beliefs are in overstating it this way. Please link the actual mediating source you got it from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
You're better off asking the authors directly what their results imply because 99% of the takes on that are going to be telephone commentary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The article certainly doesn't make such bold claims, but rather than digging in fully, a crucial first question is how this twitter user came across the article and what their motives and beliefs are in overstating it this way. Please link the actual mediating source you got it from. Who cares where it came from? The motives of the Twitter account holder are irrelevant to me. A claim is being made about an article that I lack the expertise to verify for myself. Suffice it to say it isn't Alex Jone's level of known disinformation. I read the abstract and tried to read the meat of it but there are just too many unknown terms for me to understand it. Charles 2 of Spain posted:You're better off asking the authors directly what their results imply because 99% of the takes on that are going to be telephone commentary. Rather difficult. I wish scientific papers include a more layman's summary sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
Why is it difficult? Just email the corresponding authors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 00:04
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:Why is it difficult? Just email the corresponding authors. I guess I will. I just never imagined they would take the time out of their day to answer questions from some rando
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I guess I will. I just never imagined they would take the time out of their day to answer questions from some rando That’s the norm for all but superstars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
I'm a scientist and I love getting emails on my research from randos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Who cares where it came from? The motives of the Twitter account holder are irrelevant to me. A claim is being made about an article that I lack the expertise to verify for myself. Suffice it to say it isn't Alex Jone's level of known disinformation. I read the abstract and tried to read the meat of it but there are just too many unknown terms for me to understand it. What makes you think that the Twitter user in question has the expertise to parse the article? If the authors had the evidence to back up such a bold and important claim, they likely would have said it directly instead of burying it in jargon. Failing that, someone with actual medical expertise almost certainly would have picked up on such a significant claim and disseminated it in laymen's terms. If someone actually had serious evidence that mRNA boosters were destroying people's immune systems, I can absolutely guarantee that you wouldn't have to hear it from some random Twitter user who posts all day about "excessive vaccination".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:I'm a scientist and I love getting emails on my research from randos. Yeah, this is how it works in academia a lot of the time. I'm a historian and I was chuffed as hell when a colleague actually read the gift copy of my book I gave him at a convention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
This came up in the CSPAM thread, and I'm mentioning that only to provide context that what I'm about to write comes from a discussion of lay people, not an expert view. But it seems that IgG4 is not an 'immune suppressor', it's a totally normal form of antibody that has still neutralizes the target (in this case, covid's spike protein), but doesn't trigger the immune system's broad inflammatory response the way IgG2 and IgG3 antibodies do. The place where we normally see a shift from IgG2 and IgG3 to IgG4 is in allergy treatments, amd that shift is associated with a better tolerance of the allergen (ie a weaker allergic reaction). But in the case here, there is still an immune response that clears the illness, it's just an immune response with a different antibody makeup in more-vaccinated subjects than less-vaccinated subjects. So what is possibly happening here is that in response to regular exposure to covid's spike protein, the immune system is shifting to a less inflammatory immune response. The reason for this is that widespread inflammation is self-damaging, and the body wants to find a balancing act between 'murder covid as thoroughly as possible whenever it encounters it' and 'not triggering widespread inflammation if it's not necessary to clear infection'. And again, all the subjects in this study (those who were producing IgG2/IgG3 and those who showed the shift to IgG4) cleared their covid infections. There is no evidence that regular vaccinations stop you being able to fight off covid. There is a disease called 'IgG4 disease', but that has nothing to do with this study. IgG4 disease happens when you produce IgG4 antibodies that target your own cells (it's an autoimmune disease). The study's authors have been extremely clear that they saw no evidence of this in their study - the IgG4 antibodies they saw targetted covid's spike protein, which is a normal immune response. The only thing this study suggests is that vaccinated people might be having a broadly different - but still effective - immune response to covid infections than unvaccinated people, and that scientists should be aware of that in case it does become a factor in outcomes in some other studies going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Since new variants appear quickly and fade away quickly, Dr. Offit thinks that variant-specific vaccines are probably not worth the trouble. He points to studies suggesting that the Omicron boosters don't offer much more protection than a base COVID booster does, and he suggests that in the time it takes to develop a new variant-specific vaccine and get everyone vaccinated, the specific variants in the targeted booster will already have been supplanted by other variants. As long as the existing base-COVID vaccines remain effective, he thinks that we should save our efforts and resources for when a variant appears that the immunity from existing vaccines isn't effective against. VitalSigns posted:As you say the article itself is also not a great summary (and the headline is atrocious), but it has a link to the paper in the New England Journal of Medicine which is pretty interesting eXXon posted:Unfortunately, the omicron-targeting part didn't work much better than the original monovalent vaccine (as Main Paineframe explained earlier, this is the same article VitalSigns posted) With regards to his latest opinion piece in the NEJM please keep in mind that both of the studies he cited used pseudovirus assays as opposed to live virus, whereas other studies using live virus actually found a much higher neutralizing antibody response. Eric Topol has posted a much more balanced take here: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1613294891370713089
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Who cares where it came from? The motives of the Twitter account holder are irrelevant to me. A claim is being made about an article that I lack the expertise to verify for myself. Suffice it to say it isn't Alex Jone's level of known disinformation. I read the abstract and tried to read the meat of it but there are just too many unknown terms for me to understand it. It matters enough that you’re sharing that claim with us and telling us to interrogate it on your behalf. It’s framed how you, and through you, we, understand the whole thing. Why are you choosing to avoid giving us the context?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Thank you for the layman's TLDR without trying to initiate culture war skirmish #1567869746876874687. Discendo Vox posted:It matters enough that you’re sharing that claim with us and telling us to interrogate it on your behalf. It’s framed how you, and through you, we, understand the whole thing. Why are you choosing to avoid giving us the context? See above. Take your crusading somewhere else thanks. edit: VVV Thanks! MikeC fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jan 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
One of the paper’s authors has commentary here. https://twitter.com/kischober/status/1606002981513662478 e: Oh O.K. there’s a new paper now. 🙃 I’m leaving the link because it’s good background on the topic, which broke into the Twittosphere in December. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jan 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Different paper I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:broke into the Twittosphere
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
The source for the claim about repeated doses of vaccines damaging the immune system seems to be this tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/nerdtechgasm/status/1614202853387829249
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
nerdtechgasm
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 01:33
|
|