lmao, I've been lurking for like 2 years and enjoy the occasional episode of Gintama but do go on, Mr. Hospital IT Guy.
Either post some counter arguments to @EyelessMC or gtfo
Covid/mRNA Vaccine Info General - You Are Not "Vaccine Hesitant" For Using Critical Thinking
- Thread starter EyelessMC
- Start date
-
Sister services, email, and search will continue to be negatively effected by the attacks. I made a thread to talk about it, if you're into networking.
Either post some counter arguments to @EyelessMC or gtfo
The only common beliefs around here are that dogs can consent and that Israel has the right to exist.
You posted cringe!
You mean consent for sex with humans? Are you serious
Deadly serious.
Oh you call yourself a dog right activist, now I get it, yup.
LOL
in before deboonked and fact checked.
in before deboonked and fact checked.
Abracadabra
kiwifarms.net
Myocarditis appears to be a rare occurrence, and has been observed after getting infected with Covid, vaccinated or not. Well, no vaccine is perfect and side effects are par for the course. The CDC tends to be an extremely cautious organization, which is fine. It’s part of the job.
“Most cases appear to be mild, and follow-up of cases is ongoing.
Within CDC safety monitoring systems, rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 vaccination have not differed from expected baseline rates. However, VaST members felt that information about reports of myocarditis should be communicated to providers.”
“The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination enormously outweigh the rare, possible risk of heart-related complications, including inflammation of the heart muscle, or myocarditis. The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, a global force for longer, healthier lives, urges all adults and children ages 12 and older in the U.S. to receive a COVID vaccine as soon as they can.”
“The American Heart Association recommends all health care professionals be aware of these very rare adverse events that may be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, or symptoms of severe inflammation. Health care professionals should strongly consider inquiring about the timing of any recent COVID vaccination among patients presenting with these conditions, as needed, in order to provide appropriate treatment quickly.”
Myocarditis occurring after covid (and other common diseases):
“Before returning to play, the athletes underwent three noninvasive tests that tracked heart rhythms, took an ultrasound of their hearts and measured a protein in their blood that can be a signal of heart damage. Thirty athletes had abnormal test results and were referred for a cardiac MRI. Doctors diagnosed five cases of inflammatory heart disease (0.6% of the total), with three cases identified as myocarditis and two as pericarditis.”
“Myocarditis is a rare but known effect of viral infections, including those that cause the common cold, H1N1 influenza or mononucleosis. Left undiagnosed and untreated, it can cause heart damage and sudden cardiac arrest, which can be fatal.”
www.espn.com
“You could also, of course, calculate the absolute risk reduction. That’s simply the difference in risk for someone in the treatment group versus someone in the control group. Here’s an example: Say you have 100 people who don’t get a vaccine, and you find that 10 of them catch the disease. So the baseline risk of getting it is 10%. And suppose that 100 other people get the vaccine, and only one of these gets sick. Their risk is 1%. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) is then just 9% (10% minus 1%), because the risk was already pretty low. But the relative risk reduction (RRR) is 90%—that reduction of 9% divided by the baseline risk of 10%.
As a commentary in Lancet Microbe pointed out last month, even with trials on tens of thousands of people, the absolute risk reductions in Covid-19 vaccine trials are teensy-tiny—a reduction in the risk of getting severe Covid of just 1.2% for Moderna and a scant 0.84% for Pfizer. “One of the main reasons why absolute risk reduction is not shown is because of the numbers. If you say, ‘It’s 95% effective’—
!” says Piero Olliaro, an infectious disease researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health and one of the authors of the Lancet Microbe article. “But if your absolute risk reduction is like 0.8% or whatever it was, so what?”
The key here, though, is that absolute risk reduction does change according to how at-risk the groups of people were in the first place. This pandemic has widely varying risks across populations, and those change over time. (For example, viral variants change how infectious Covid can be, and young people’s risk of severe illness and death has changed as social policies and infection rates have fluctuated. It’s a hard problem!) I’m suggesting that this confusion, and the conflation of these two ideas, might be at the heart of some hesitance. By not being clear about the different flavors of risk and benefit for different vaccines and different people, public health experts have let doubt and dodgy personal interpretations flourish.”
www.wired.com
You can apply the same to other vaccines and get similar numbers. The reason why ARR isn’t reported is because the general public will misinterpret what ARR is. I don’t think it’s really a gotcha.
“Most cases appear to be mild, and follow-up of cases is ongoing.
Within CDC safety monitoring systems, rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 vaccination have not differed from expected baseline rates. However, VaST members felt that information about reports of myocarditis should be communicated to providers.”
“The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination enormously outweigh the rare, possible risk of heart-related complications, including inflammation of the heart muscle, or myocarditis. The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, a global force for longer, healthier lives, urges all adults and children ages 12 and older in the U.S. to receive a COVID vaccine as soon as they can.”
“The American Heart Association recommends all health care professionals be aware of these very rare adverse events that may be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, or symptoms of severe inflammation. Health care professionals should strongly consider inquiring about the timing of any recent COVID vaccination among patients presenting with these conditions, as needed, in order to provide appropriate treatment quickly.”
Myocarditis occurring after covid (and other common diseases):
“Before returning to play, the athletes underwent three noninvasive tests that tracked heart rhythms, took an ultrasound of their hearts and measured a protein in their blood that can be a signal of heart damage. Thirty athletes had abnormal test results and were referred for a cardiac MRI. Doctors diagnosed five cases of inflammatory heart disease (0.6% of the total), with three cases identified as myocarditis and two as pericarditis.”
“Myocarditis is a rare but known effect of viral infections, including those that cause the common cold, H1N1 influenza or mononucleosis. Left undiagnosed and untreated, it can cause heart damage and sudden cardiac arrest, which can be fatal.”
Study: Heart illness rare for COVID-infected pros
A recent study has revealed that out of 789 professional athletes infected with COVID-19, only five of them had inflammatory heart disease.
www.espn.com
These numbers are well-known to the medical community, and one of the authors of the study actually addressed this:
“You could also, of course, calculate the absolute risk reduction. That’s simply the difference in risk for someone in the treatment group versus someone in the control group. Here’s an example: Say you have 100 people who don’t get a vaccine, and you find that 10 of them catch the disease. So the baseline risk of getting it is 10%. And suppose that 100 other people get the vaccine, and only one of these gets sick. Their risk is 1%. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) is then just 9% (10% minus 1%), because the risk was already pretty low. But the relative risk reduction (RRR) is 90%—that reduction of 9% divided by the baseline risk of 10%.
As a commentary in Lancet Microbe pointed out last month, even with trials on tens of thousands of people, the absolute risk reductions in Covid-19 vaccine trials are teensy-tiny—a reduction in the risk of getting severe Covid of just 1.2% for Moderna and a scant 0.84% for Pfizer. “One of the main reasons why absolute risk reduction is not shown is because of the numbers. If you say, ‘It’s 95% effective’—
!” says Piero Olliaro, an infectious disease researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health and one of the authors of the Lancet Microbe article. “But if your absolute risk reduction is like 0.8% or whatever it was, so what?”The key here, though, is that absolute risk reduction does change according to how at-risk the groups of people were in the first place. This pandemic has widely varying risks across populations, and those change over time. (For example, viral variants change how infectious Covid can be, and young people’s risk of severe illness and death has changed as social policies and infection rates have fluctuated. It’s a hard problem!) I’m suggesting that this confusion, and the conflation of these two ideas, might be at the heart of some hesitance. By not being clear about the different flavors of risk and benefit for different vaccines and different people, public health experts have let doubt and dodgy personal interpretations flourish.”
The Statistical Secrets of Covid-19 Vaccines
They’re really very good, and they’re the only way out of the pandemic. But a tour through the numbers could bring the vaccine-hesitant into the tent.
You can apply the same to other vaccines and get similar numbers. The reason why ARR isn’t reported is because the general public will misinterpret what ARR is. I don’t think it’s really a gotcha.
Sure ya are. I already did destroy his retarded schizoposting in the other thread and he totally dismissed me as a "troll" and then went on with his schizo posting.
The study he links to literally says the thing he is sperging about is not an issue at all. After I said this, he tardraged and just called me a troll.
Also, the whole Myocarditis thing is not as common from the vaccine as it is from covid and is also not a big deal, as @Abracadabra pointed out. He will also ignore this and call him a troll because OP is mentally ill with schizophrenia and is off his meds.
Now go back to /pol/ or whatever shitty site you came from
I was surprised too, but I'm not going to complain about a good thing. Really tired of being forced to cater to people's paranoia over this shit. I'm just hoping they keep the vaccine optional and let people make the decision for themselves.
Why would anybody take the mRNA Vaccine? There isnt much solid sciene behind it(we still know shit about RNA and how the body uses it outside of the basic stuff. we dont know if that mRNA is cut into some small RNA). Stuff is super scary. they also worked on this for years in other fields and didnt got much to market.
They also rushed it to market.
The Conventional Vaccine on the other hand is pretty safe, it just has the normal problems every injection has. Its also better, you can get it at your doctors office and there is no big risk of it going bad because the cooling needed is much easyer to do.
They also rushed it to market.
The Conventional Vaccine on the other hand is pretty safe, it just has the normal problems every injection has. Its also better, you can get it at your doctors office and there is no big risk of it going bad because the cooling needed is much easyer to do.
Where I live it seems the the mRNA one is more widely available, so I'd imagine the average person who doesn't know there's a difference just gets it without knowing. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was also the traditional vaccine, and it had the recall over the 5 women or so who had issues, though its back out there. I think availability and a lack of knowledge that there's a difference is the reason people get the mRNA.
they had issues because they are liars... It comes from a specific contraception pill and was not only known before, its also not specific to this one vaccine, alot of medication has the same side effects when combined with those pills.
That doesn't surprise me at all. With the small amount of people with that side effect. It can easily be caused by something else or specific circumstances. It seemed really weird to me that they did a recall over that when there's other concerns that seem way more likely. Long term side effects seems like a way more realistic problem than something that affected 5 women.
They recalled it because we are in clown world. they also didnt wanted to talk about how this vaccine is unethical for young people.
Long term effects will not happen more than with any other conventional vaccine. we have been doing this stuff for decades.
Abracadabra
kiwifarms.net
mRNA technology has been studied for a while now. Here’s a pre-pandemic study of mRNA vaccines:
Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development
In the early nineties, pioneering steps were taken in the use of mRNA as a therapeutic tool for vaccination. In the following decades, an improved und…
The history of mRNA is actually pretty interesting:
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: How could anything developed this quickly be safe?
COVID-19 vaccines were not developed overnight. Here are the astounding stories behind mRNA vaccines.
www.uab.edu
The history of mRNA applications | The DNA Universe BLOG
How was mRNA found and what were the early applications long before COVID-19? Learn about mRNA vaccines, regenerative medicine and stem cells.
the-dna-universe.com
Typographic error here:
“In 2015, Katalin Kariko and her colleague Drew Weissmann found the solution to prevent activation of the immune response against the injected mRNA.”
should be “In 2005...”
RNA has been studied since 1890:
If you do want to be extra careful, you can consider the non-mRNA vaccines. The science behind those is the same as the one behind most vaccines.
It astonishes me that people genuinely believe this validates their argument rather than underscores how fucking terrifying this whole affair is and how deep and systemic the deceptions go.
Yes, the problem isnt the medical application, the problem is that we have no clue what happens to RNA. small RNA is a part of Biology with new discoveries every week.
The other Problems is that we only get the medical experts talking very positivly over the mRNA Vaccine. Thats not their field of Expertise, they are talking out there ass about biology.
Its a good argument, if that way of manipulating the human body was a problem, we would have known for a long time.
Abracadabra
kiwifarms.net
Just to be clear: you are talking about small RNA or microRNA/miRNA? Because from what I’ve read, small RNA/miRNA is distinct from mRNA (messenger RNA). As far as I know, small RNA/miRNA isn’t being used in the vaccines. But do correct me if I’m wrong.
Or are you worried about the effect of the vaccines on the small RNA in our bodies?
“MicroRNAs (miRNA) are small RNAs that naturally occur in humans and regulate how much protein is made from mRNA. Each microRNA can target hundreds of different mRNAs and so they can control multiple genetic regulatory networks. Unlike other small RNAs, microRNAs can also work to increase the amount of protein made from mRNA. This means that microRNA medicines can be used to treat diseases like cancer that have too much of some proteins but too little of others.”
It seems as if the worst that can happen is that microRNA renders mRNA ineffective. I do believe Kariko et al’s work in mRNA addressed this challenge?
“Here, we demonstrate that cellular microRNAs (miRNAs) with cell type- and disease-specific expression profiles can be recruited to degrade a synthetic, modified mRNA by a small interfering RNA (siRNA)-like cleavage mechanism. This strategy can be utilized to suppress protein expression from the mRNA in unintended recipient cells. The conserved principles of miRNA–mRNA regulation allow this technology to be applied across species.”
EyelessMC
kiwifarms.net
Good find, especially if it's published in the Lancet and not some blog somewhere. The main point of contention here in this paper is the bias in reporting the vaccine's effectiveness via RRR--"relative risk reduction"--without balancing that out with consideration for ARR--"absolute risk reduction". It's not saying the vaccines are useless but rather the emphasis on RRR exclusively is leading to bias in reporting and misinformation about the vaccines. It doesn't take rigorous look into the "attack rates" with and without vaccine and overall population. This part here is really important:
So kind of like how the medical industry started using the PCR test to prove Covid cases and illnesses--not what the test was made for--the medical research is emphasizing only RRR, leading to the the kind of presumptions we have from government about everyone needing to get vaccinated. It's promoting severe imbalance on reporting the efficacy and, it seem, even the necessity of vaccinations.
These two paragraphs give the whole bag away, even before the mention of Phase 3 trials being "uncoordinated" and not satisfying "public safety concerns". Why are they uncoordinated? What's the big problem with emphasizing RRR over ARR? Right here:
Even those among us who don't know the science at all, like people who just work in IT jobs for example, have to recognize that by testing the reports of the Covid vaccines' effectiveness the authors of this publication have found utterly broken reporting and--worse still--science. THIS is why the Phase 3 trials are incoordinated, because there's too much variation in how they are conducted and how results are met. There's no general uniformity to their protocols and their reporting.
This means that a lot of what the public, let alone most doctors, are learning about the vaccines is coming from a total mess of haphazard data gathering and reporting.
And that mess is what is directly informing the governments of the world on how to proceed regarding the pandemic and vaccination. Wonderful.
- Highlight
- #40
I can’t imagine why anyone would ever dismiss you as a troll.
Similar threads
Groundbreaking study from John Hopkins finds sleep is good
