Official Covid Vaccine thread

2600 bro wrote:

Sub-9 fella wrote:

Yeah, interesting that you don't comment on the LNP paper or Prasad's video, even as Prasad is correct. You didn't even bother to watch because you know he has you guys pegged.

Shocking you "two" appeared at the very same time. When does the handle stealing begin anew, because I want to know what to post with the next time Djokovic proves you're a fool?

The LNP article was a demonstration that cationic-targeting lipids which can get LNPs into the lungs cause damage...

Note these lipids are not used in any vaccines/drugs right now - they belong to a class of molecules with "physiochemical tropism" and present a cheaper way to target specific organs with LNPs.

In the study they do standard toxicity assays on mice - and find the lung damage... something that obliviously would've been seen with the vaccines too... had it existed.

So it nothing to do with the mRNA vaccines since these lipids have never been used in a therapeutic.

So yeah I ignored it because again, you read the title, and posted it despite it having no bearing on the discussion.

As for Prasad, I don't watch long videos, they are low-density and boring and tool for people to make money, not disseminate information.

2600 bro wrote:

Sub-9 fella wrote:

Yeah, interesting that you don't comment on the LNP paper or Prasad's video, even as Prasad is correct. You didn't even bother to watch because you know he has you guys pegged.

Shocking you "two" appeared at the very same time. When does the handle stealing begin anew, because I want to know what to post with the next time Djokovic proves you're a fool?

The LNP article was a demonstration that cationic-targeting lipids which can get LNPs into the lungs cause damage...

Note these lipids are not used in any vaccines/drugs right now - they belong to a class of molecules with "physiochemical tropism" and present a cheaper way to target specific organs with LNPs.

In the study they do standard toxicity assays on mice - and find the lung damage... something that obliviously would've been seen with the vaccines too... had it existed.

So it nothing to do with the mRNA vaccines since these lipids have never been used in a therapeutic.

So yeah I ignored it because again, you read the title, and posted it despite it having no bearing on the discussion.

As for Prasad, I don't watch long videos, they are low-density and boring and tool for people to make money, not disseminate information.

Sub-9 fella wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

The LNP article was a demonstration that cationic-targeting lipids which can get LNPs into the lungs cause damage...

Note these lipids are not used in any vaccines/drugs right now - they belong to a class of molecules with "physiochemical tropism" and present a cheaper way to target specific organs with LNPs.

In the study they do standard toxicity assays on mice - and find the lung damage... something that obliviously would've been seen with the vaccines too... had it existed.

So it nothing to do with the mRNA vaccines since these lipids have never been used in a therapeutic.

So yeah I ignored it because again, you read the title, and posted it despite it having no bearing on the discussion.

As for Prasad, I don't watch long videos, they are low-density and boring and tool for people to make money, not disseminate information.

So you didn't read the discussion. We don't know what we don't know.

"Coagulation is activated by positively-charged LNPs and other nanoparticles, across diverse formulations, both in vivo and in ex vivo whole blood."

DNA/RNA carries a negative charge. Cationic lipids carry a positive charge.

Here's another paper the concerns about LNP-induced clotting are founded on.

Link:www.docdroid.net/SvRIXwF/clots-fibrino...

2600 bro wrote:

Sub-9 fella wrote:

So you didn't read the discussion. We don't know what we don't know.

"Coagulation is activated by positively-charged LNPs and other nanoparticles, across diverse formulations, both in vivo and in ex vivo whole blood."

DNA/RNA carries a negative charge. Cationic lipids carry a positive charge.

Here's another paper the concerns about LNP-induced clotting are founded on.

Link:www.docdroid.net/SvRIXwF/clots-fibrino...

1) Yeah man I am sure it is the LNPs in that paper and not the Fibrinogen, the main component in blood slotting? WTF are you saying?

2) To the original DOTAP paper - all nanoparticles were made with primary components of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines (SM-102 or ALC-0315) as controls. Only when they contained 50% (by molarity) DOTAP (strong cation) as the targeting agent, did they see lung damage!

So we do know! They used the lipids in the vaccines as the controls! I recommend reading!

twoggle wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Yup and remember that you have a 7x higher chance of getting myocarditis from unvaccinated COVID infection vs the vaccine:

Link:www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/f...

Prasad loves to doubt cast and fearmonger, but he's just wrong on the data.

This is one of the reasons why an ever-increasing number of people *do not* trust these pro-pharma studies. There were two terrible flaws that rendered this meta analysis useless:

1. Rather than doing sero-prevalence testing to include *all* persons with COVID, including the vast majority of people who had COVID without symptoms or with mild symptoms, they only included persons who were sick enough to seek medical attention. On the other hand, the population of the vaccinated included everyone, even those who were not yet sick after what was, in some cases, a short followup (e.g., 7 days).

Whenever you compare a population of healthy+not yet sick+sick (vaccinated) to only those seeking medical attention (COVID+), you automatically and drastically skew the results. For example, if 5 in 10 million cases of COVID+ resulted in myocarditis, that might be a low rate. But if you then create a study that only looks at the sick individuals, you might have a rate of 5 cases of myocarditis in 200,000 cases of COVID+ seeking medical attention. That is how you make the rate of myocarditis with COVID+ appear much higher.

2. They combined all age groups rather than looking at the age groups most at risk.

Prasad looked at the most at risk age groups as well as the risk of more than just a single injection of vaccine drugs. See chart below. The pink bar on the right is the over-estimation of the rate of myocarditis due to COVID when primarily looking at persons seeking medical attention.

Image:substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_a...

This information was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation:

Link:onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11...

It should be noted that in 2021 Prasad mentioned that the only way to accurately compare myocarditis rates in those injected with vaccine drugs to those who had COVID was to do sero-prevalence tests to include the entire population who had COVID and then focus on the at-risk age groups. Prasad also separated out various vaccine drug brands as well as how many shots were given.

I always return to relying on independent researchers as the best source of information. Look at the analysis of a wide variety of independent researchers is the best way to go, IMO.

twoggle wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Yup and remember that you have a 7x higher chance of getting myocarditis from unvaccinated COVID infection vs the vaccine:

Link:www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/f...

Prasad loves to doubt cast and fearmonger, but he's just wrong on the data.

This is one of the reasons why an ever-increasing number of people *do not* trust these pro-pharma studies. There were two terrible flaws that rendered this meta analysis useless:

1. Rather than doing sero-prevalence testing to include *all* persons with COVID, including the vast majority of people who had COVID without symptoms or with mild symptoms, they only included persons who were sick enough to seek medical attention. On the other hand, the population of the vaccinated included everyone, even those who were not yet sick after what was, in some cases, a short followup (e.g., 7 days).

Whenever you compare a population of healthy+not yet sick+sick (vaccinated) to only those seeking medical attention (COVID+), you automatically and drastically skew the results. For example, if 5 in 10 million cases of COVID+ resulted in myocarditis, that might be a low rate. But if you then create a study that only looks at the sick individuals, you might have a rate of 5 cases of myocarditis in 200,000 cases of COVID+ seeking medical attention. That is how you make the rate of myocarditis with COVID+ appear much higher.

2. They combined all age groups rather than looking at the age groups most at risk.

Prasad looked at the most at risk age groups as well as the risk of more than just a single injection of vaccine drugs. See chart below. The pink bar on the right is the over-estimation of the rate of myocarditis due to COVID when primarily looking at persons seeking medical attention.

Image:substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_a...

This information was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation:

Link:onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11...

It should be noted that in 2021 Prasad mentioned that the only way to accurately compare myocarditis rates in those injected with vaccine drugs to those who had COVID was to do sero-prevalence tests to include the entire population who had COVID and then focus on the at-risk age groups. Prasad also separated out various vaccine drug brands as well as how many shots were given.

I always return to relying on independent researchers as the best source of information. Look at the analysis of a wide variety of independent researchers is the best way to go, IMO.

twoggle wrote:

This is one of the reasons why an ever-increasing number of people *do not* trust these pro-pharma studies. There were two terrible flaws that rendered this meta analysis useless:

1. Rather than doing sero-prevalence testing to include *all* persons with COVID, including the vast majority of people who had COVID without symptoms or with mild symptoms, they only included persons who were sick enough to seek medical attention. On the other hand, the population of the vaccinated included everyone, even those who were not yet sick after what was, in some cases, a short followup (e.g., 7 days).

Whenever you compare a population of healthy+not yet sick+sick (vaccinated) to only those seeking medical attention (COVID+), you automatically and drastically skew the results. For example, if 5 in 10 million cases of COVID+ resulted in myocarditis, that might be a low rate. But if you then create a study that only looks at the sick individuals, you might have a rate of 5 cases of myocarditis in 200,000 cases of COVID+ seeking medical attention. That is how you make the rate of myocarditis with COVID+ appear much higher.

2. They combined all age groups rather than looking at the age groups most at risk.

Prasad looked at the most at risk age groups as well as the risk of more than just a single injection of vaccine drugs. See chart below. The pink bar on the right is the over-estimation of the rate of myocarditis due to COVID when primarily looking at persons seeking medical attention.

Image:substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_a...

This information was published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation:

Link:onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11...

It should be noted that in 2021 Prasad mentioned that the only way to accurately compare myocarditis rates in those injected with vaccine drugs to those who had COVID was to do sero-prevalence tests to include the entire population who had COVID and then focus on the at-risk age groups. Prasad also separated out various vaccine drug brands as well as how many shots were given.

I always return to relying on independent researchers as the best source of information. Look at the analysis of a wide variety of independent researchers is the best way to go, IMO.