Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1364365367369370419

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    It actually does say what I claimed. You just need to spend more time reading it instead of typing generic reply you keep spamming here time and again. It usually starts with "You guys" blah blah blah, conspiracy blah blah blah, antivaxx, goalposts, peer reiewed, science and more blah blah blah...

    Conclusion of said study for your convenience.


    8. Conclusion

    In this paper, we have examined the evidence from the extensive research literature

    that the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein is a neurotoxin, and that the mRNA vaccines are

    capable of delivering the spike protein to the brain, likely via exosomes released from the

    spleen, increasing the risk of neurodegenerative disease. Figure 2 shows a schematic of

    the likely sequence of events leading to neurodegeneration, beginning with the injection

    in the deltoid muscle.

    Particularly concerning is the evidence that CD16+ monocytes can continuously produce spike protein for months after vaccination, possibly through reverse transcription of

    the mRNA into DNA. It has become clear that the antibodies induced through vaccination

    wane over time, necessitating frequent boosters to raise the antibody levels for sufficient

    protection from COVID-19. With each booster comes an increased risk of neurodegenerative disease sometime in the future. The good news is that, if the theoretical analyses are

    correct, the current Omicron variant has a greatly reduced prion-like capability, which

    may account for its observed decreased virulence.

    A study published in the Lancet tracked the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines over

    time. It showed that, once eight months had elapsed since the second injection of the twoinjection series, immune function was lower than that among unvaccinated individuals

    [95]. While boosters can temporarily restore higher levels of antibodies, frequent boosters

    could further erode innate immune function, for an indefinite period of time, leading to

    an increased risk to various infections as well as cancer. Furthermore, the rapid evolution

    of the virus is resulting in ever weakening antibody binding to the spike protein of the

    now dominant strain. Fortunately, the current strain of the virus appears to be less virulent than the original one. This may be a consequence of the decreased potential for prionlike misfolding.

    In light of these considerations, the risk/benefit ratio for the mRNA vaccines needs to

    be reevaluated. With every vaccine comes a flood of spike protein released into the circulation, further advancing the potential for amyloidogenic effects and increasing the risk

    to future neurodegenerative disease. A comment by Kenji Yamamoto published in BMC

    is urging the medical community to keep track of the date of the most recent vaccination

    of hospital patients, in order to be better able to assess what role the vaccine may have

    played in any manifest disease or condition. He also is strongly discouraging policy that

    promotes continued boosting of anyone other than the most at-risk patients to death from

    COVID-19 [96]. There is an urgent need for governments to reconsider a blind policy that

    assumes that repeated vaccine boosters is a valid approach to dealing with COVID-19.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you say so.


    However I don't have any confidence that antivaxxers accurately represent any papers or their contents. Experience has shown me otherwise.

    The point remains however that the paper is not actually published or peer reviewed. In the past anti-vaxxers have pointed to pre print studies when they popup with these shocking headlines. But there never seems to be any follow up on how that publishing actually goes.

    Not does it make any sense in the context of the conspiracy theory being vaguely hinted at.

    By the logic being used in this thread the authors behind it shouldn't have been allowed to write it, never mind actually put it out.

    Personally a giant gaping plot hole like that would cause me to question stuff.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,082 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Note how any piece of news, or study, or anything that can be deemed negative or interpreted negatively in any way about vaccines is posted.

    Doesn't matter that they've saved millions of lives, the only thing that matters to these individuals is attacking them.

    Was precisely the same before the pandemic with other vaccines. There was a thread in after hours and it was identical. It's equivalent to people having an agenda against seat-belts because they cause a handful of deaths every year.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's all being passed on fresh from Twitter. I doubt there's more than a few minutes between seeing the tweet and when it's reposted here.

    We've seen many times on this thread that conspiracy theorists rarely actually read these studies themselves.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Physicians, reassuringly, said it wouldn't.


    While cycle fluctuations can be upsetting, said Dr. Noah Ivers, from Women's College Hospital in Toronto, there's no evidence that COVID vaccines impact reproductive health.


    "It doesn't affect your fertility," he said. "It won't impact your cycles in the long run."

    And...

    There's also scientific consensus that COVID vaccines are a far safer alternative than actually becoming infected with COVID for people of reproductive age, including those who get pregnant.


    Large analyses of U.S. and Norwegian population-level data reporting on a combined total of more than 120,000 pregnancies have demonstrated no evidence of increased risk for early pregnancy loss following COVID vaccination.


    The shots have also proven to be highly protective against serious COVID during pregnancy — a time when individuals are at a much higher risk of severe outcomes themselves, along with complications such as premature birth or infant admission to a neonatal intensive care unit.




  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Also an interview with the lead author of that paper:

    RASCOE: OK. So is this kind of extended-cycle menstruation cycle - is that harmful? Is that something to be concerned about?


    EDELMAN: So normally, no. But what happened at the beginning of the vaccine rollout is we just didn't have any information at all, and people were having this experience. And then we didn't have any information to give them. So they - you know, we were getting a lot of the public reporting pushback that, you know, their providers were saying this couldn't be possible, this isn't happening. And they were reporting that it did happen. And so it's information that we didn't have before around vaccines, and so we're pleased to be able to have that information now, so that people can know what to expect.


    ...


    RASCOE: And I know that this study did not look at necessarily, like, why this happened, but can you talk about - or do you - is there any sense or any guess that you might have for why this happened? And I bring this up only because, around vaccines, there's been a lot of talk about people being concerned about it affecting fertility, et cetera.


    EDELMAN: That's a great question. You know, because menstrual cycles really mean a lot to individuals. They mean that people are metabolically normal, healthy and then they also give us a look into future for fertility. And so I want to reassure people that, really, we are not seeing a signal that's harmful. But we're seeing something that people want to know about. They want to know what to expect, what to experience.




  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    So they - you know, we were getting a lot of the public reporting pushback that, you know, their providers were saying this couldn't be possible, this isn't happening. And they were reporting that it did happen. 

    "We were "told" this was impossible."

    And so I want to reassure people that, really, we are not seeing a signal that's harmful.

    "Ah so it turns out it was possible after all. You were wrong about that?"

    "We're not infallible, this is all very new, information changes and we learn from that"

    "So if we were "told" it was not possible that vaccines could affect cycles, could it be possible that you're wrong about this not being harmful?"

    "No it's not possible we're wrong about this. Stop whining about what you were "told" and trust the experts."



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm sorry. I don't understand what point your trying to make by imagining a conversation and making up quotes that this person did not say.


    The point I'm making was that the person who wrote the study is pretty emphatic about much much she supports the notion that the vaccines affect fertility.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Yes, she is pretty emphatic.

    But not quite as emphatic as the experts who said it was not possible that vaccines were affecting menstrual cycles.

    You cannot get much more emphatic than "It is impossible."

    Yet they were wrong.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ok. But that's not what was being argued though. Weird tangent to butt in with...

    But since she could we wrong we can then conclude that she also could be wrong about the link between the vaccines and slight changes in periods, so we can dismiss the study entirely.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    Yes Luke O'Neill the expert and Pat Kenny the other expert had a discussion in the early days of the shots stating there was no mechanism that the injection could affect menstrual cycle or fertility. I think the general consensus now is that it does affect the menstrual cycle and its only a matter of time before the consensus moves or confirms it affects fertility..probably with the caveat that its only temporary and transitory.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Becoming quite the pattern. Dismissing concerns as impossibilities and anybody who says otherwise is a deranged anti vaxx lunatic, only to discover later that those who had concerns were correct, but hey it's no big deal.

    At least in the case of menstrual cycles most accept that people did raise concerns about odd cycles in the early days of vaccine roll out. With a lot of other things we're just told "That never happened, you're just remembering stuff wrong. Probably because you're a thick anti vaxxer."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    Or is quite the trend here. The holier than thou attitude of some posters who believe they are more intelligent than the mRNA sceptics and believe that anyone who queries anything on their beloved GMO drugs get their information from 'twitter'.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,082 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    From your posts you show no concern for the millions who have died to this virus.

    Yet you are completely and utterly hysterical about a tiny handful who have been injured or died due to the vaccines. Vaccines that have saved countless lives.

    It's bald-faced concern-trolling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    This is a thread about conspiracy theories and covid vaccines. Not a sympathy thread.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,703 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Concern-trolling?! I had to look that up, and this is the definition I found:

    the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.

    snowcats response is a fair point, well made.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,438 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    There is no balance.

    You show zero concern for pregnant women (a) infected by covid but jump on any study that you think shows the (b) slightest risk to them from vaccines.

    Being concerned about the group for both reasons is balanced. Being concerned only from B is not in my opinion.

    So it is entirely reasonable to point out that you only express concern for this group from vaccines - and not what might happen to them without it. If the people promoting the vaccines do so from a genuine concern of (a) there is no conspiracy.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,082 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Perhaps or perhaps your posts are coming across as "holier than thou". You represent 5 in every 100 Irish adults. The people posting alongside you believe that space travel is fake and that the NWO puts demonic symbolism on baby clothes. The researchers, scientists, regulators and developers of these vaccines, whose families, friends, colleagues will be taking them don't seem to share your views about them, but you appear to think you know better.

    Crazy thought, maybe you aren't a skeptic, maybe you've already made your mind up. A bit like when Alex Jones claims he is "just asking questions" about Sandy Hook.

    Food for thought.

    Not seeing many conspiracies really, you have one?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    Yes but pregnant women did not participate in the vaccine trials. Effects on menstruation and fertility were not a part of vaccine trials. We are now beginning to get results for these cohorts and we still do not fully understand the effects on men and women after the mass vaxx campaign with these completely new mRNA drugs. Hopefully we will not see any long term negative effects.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭snowcat


    You seem to think anyone who questions anything on the Covid Vaccine is one of those 'anti vaxxers' or flat earthers or agree with Alex Jones . Its comical really as I am very pro vax but certainly am not a fan of GMO drugs or mRNA tech. I had huge hope for the Covid vaccine rollout but it has been a resounding failure in my personal opinion.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    But the links youve posted all say the opposite to that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,438 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    But all the evidence shows mRNA vaccines as more effective than the traditional ones. I dont think you have provided any evidence contesting that.

    If you think the mRNA ones are failures then I dont know on what basis you could consider traditional ones a success.

    So perhaps instead of being so critical of mRNA vaccines you should consider resetting you view of how difficult a challenge covid represented for all vaccines.

    And likewise I dont think you have provided any evidence showing that women would be better off pregnant and unvaccinated getting covid versus getting vaccinated before hand.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Doc07


    This isn’t a study. There is no original research or data here. It absolutely 100% does not show that immunity is lower in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated. It is a review with deliberate misinterpretation of mostly irrelevant articles and the ramblings of a diehard anti-vaxxer Peter McCollough

    May I politely suggest you have been caught up in the anti-vax capture phenomenon




  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    His last link directly stated that pregnant women are more at risk from covid than from even the slight, harmless changes that the study is discussing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,082 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    The risk of developing myocarditis — or inflammation of the heart muscle — is seven times higher with a COVID-19 infection than with the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a recent study by Penn State College of Medicine scientists.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Watch now as scientific studies suddenly become useless again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011



    This is not about comparing myocarditis risk from covid vs risk from vaccine. Issue here is that there is a risk of getting it from the vaccine. According to study you posted the risk of getting myocarditis when infected is actually higher if you are vaccinated.

    Next, the researchers separately compared the rates of myocarditis in those who received the vaccines to those in unvaccinated individuals. According to the findings, the rates of myocarditis in people who were vaccinated against COVID-19 were only twofold higher than in unvaccinated people.

    Still twofold higher and coupled with simple fact that vaccines will not prevent you from catching covid any discussion about risk of developing myocarditis from infection vs vaccine is pointless.



  • Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This is a simple misreading on your part:

    The full quote:

    The Penn State team conducted the largest study to date on the risk of developing myocarditis as a result of having the coronavirus vs. experiencing inflammation following COVID-19 vaccination. The researchers compared patients with COVID-19 — vaccinated and unvaccinated — to those without the virus. They found the risk of myocarditis was 15 times higher in COVID-19 patients, regardless of vaccination status, compared to individuals who did not contract the virus.


    Next, the researchers separately compared the rates of myocarditis in those who received the vaccines to those in unvaccinated individuals. According to the findings, the rates of myocarditis in people who were vaccinated against COVID-19 were only twofold higher than in unvaccinated people.


    Based on all the findings, the researchers concluded that the risk of myocarditis due to COVID-19 was seven times higher than the risk related to the vaccines.

    It does not say that an infected person is more likely to have myocarditis if they've been vaccinated.

    They state that a person is equally as likely to get myocarditis from infection if they are vaccinated or not.

    It's been shown repeatedly that vaccines reduce your chances of infection as well as reducing your chances of illness.


    Here is the conclusion of the paper:

    Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the risk of myocarditis is more than seven fold higher in persons who were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 than in those who received the vaccine. These findings support the continued use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons per CDC and WHO recommendations.

    If your interpretation is correct, then it makes no sense for them to make this statement in their conclusion.

    You won't explain this contradiction of course.


    You have repeatedly told us that covid and it's effects are not worth any concern. So if a 15 times higher chance of myocarditis is not worth any concern, it makes no sense to claim that a 2 times higher chance of myocarditis is of any concern.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Nice try however as I said it make no sense comparing apples vs oranges. This study is absolutely irrelevant due to simple fact that vaccines do not stop you from getting infected.

    1. infected vs vaccine - where risk is higher when infected compared to risk from getting vaccine
    2. uninfected vaccinated vs unvaccinated - where risk is higher for vaccinated (twofold according to that study and a part I cited)

    while my point of even higher chance of myocarditis when infected while vaccinated still stand since vaccines does not prevent you from getting infected.

    What I cited is not out of context but part of context and no amount of mental gymnastics you try will change what they found.


    As for your last paragraph = complete nonsense as usual. Math is all there it pays to read slowly till you understand what you read.



Advertisement