This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
Answered you question previously in post #16610. But math games will only serve to drive people away from vaccine drugs. Anyone can see which reduction is greater 13.2–>0.2 OR 02.—>~0.0. By your logic, a reduction of 1000 deaths/100k to 1 death/100k is not as beneficial as 1 death/100k to 0.00002 deaths/100k.
Large numbers of people are finding out and sharing that the overwhelming amount of death reduction from some childhood illnesses ocurred prior to vaccine drugs. Best way to promote vaccine drugs, IMO, is to avoid over-stating benefits, avoid under-stating adverse effects and look to replace neurotoxic ingredients.
No, you didn't answer. You say a lot of 'would' and 'could' but you refuse to actually say what you think, on the balance is true. It's important to stand behind your beliefs and state with conviction. Otherwise it's clear you're just babbling.
What do you think is the most likely explanation for the decrease in measles deaths post 1964?
You act like sanitation and antibiotics are are some secret of public health. Everyone agrees these were massive advances, but rational people understand that the burden infectious diseases was still huge. I'll explain:
1) Death is not the only thing we care about, especially for small children where serious illness can cause long-term developmental issues. The rate of hospitalization for a measles case was ~1:5 pre-vaccines. At ~500k cases a year pre-vaccines that was almost 100k hospitalizations a year! Of small children!
2) Even if we care about death only (ghoulish for small children – literally discounting hospitalization, maiming, and permanent disability as no big deal), the death rate is still ~0.2%. That's 500 deaths a year of small children in the US pre-vaccination. So, one vaccine alone is responsible for 30,000 children saved and countless more able to live healthy, non-disabled lives.
Your daily reminder that Harambro says that if you are unvaxxed and get Covid, your immune system is destroyed. It ceases to exist. You have no longer have one.
This is the level of intellect we are dealing with here. 😂
A little more about Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP) from Moderna scientists:
"However, avoiding unacceptable toxicity with mRNA drugs and vaccines presents challenges. Lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns. Here, we discuss these concerns, specifically how cell tropism and tissue distribution of mRNA and lipid nanoparticles can lead to toxicity, and their possible reactogenicity." ["Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA Drug and Vaccine Toxicity", Jan. 23, 2024]
I expect Moderna employees to under-state the toxicity concerns. Somehow I doubt these statements were part of the informed consent when people were coerced into taking these dangerous drugs.
A little more about Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP) from Moderna scientists:
"However, avoiding unacceptable toxicity with mRNA drugs and vaccines presents challenges. Lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns. Here, we discuss these concerns, specifically how cell tropism and tissue distribution of mRNA and lipid nanoparticles can lead to toxicity, and their possible reactogenicity." ["Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA Drug and Vaccine Toxicity", Jan. 23, 2024]
I expect Moderna employees to under-state the toxicity concerns. Somehow I doubt these statements were part of the informed consent when people were coerced into taking these dangerous drugs.
Fascinating how antivaxxers can spin a company publicly disclosing it's work optimizing side effect profiles as some kind of conspiracy.
Anyway, here are literally 140 pages from the EMA discussing stuff like this. Disclosed in 2020. I direct you to page 45 or so if you're interested in PK details (showing the lipids involved have short enough halflifes to prevent any accumulation concerns (even with 8 doses)
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.
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.
This is incorrect:
The COVID exposure studies compared COVID exposed people to other within the same group – hospital patients, patients receiving any diagnosis code, etc – i.e. people who interacted with the healthcare system for reasons other than COVID. Is this a different sample size compared to the general population? Yes but, it's not just looking at raw rates of myocarditis without attempt to control for sampling effects as you describe.
Again, it certainly seems like the misinformation and biased interpretation seems to be coming primarily from the antivaxxers.
Prasad has some nuanced points that are overwhelmed by his bias and desire to be as contrarian as possible, but you are not interpreting them correctly at all. (Also he's a doc at UCSF, one of the largest research hospitals in the US... what makes him 'independent'? This appears to be a label that means 'says what I want to hear')
Regardless this is a direct quote from the Prasad's paper you linked:
The incidence of myocarditis found for young men after SARS-CoV-2 infection is larger than what we found for myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination.
He attempts to argue this away later by speculating about cohort biases but even he won't say the vaccine is more dangerous in the scientific record. Of course, he will gladly do so for paying subscribers on his substack... one can only speculate why.
Of note, the paper he is referring to above is using EHR data, it is not simply dividing myocarditis/ total number of vaccines as you seem to think)
I think you're expecting people will not check what you say. It is simple to go to Table 1 of the meta analysis you posted and pick the first vaccine drug study they used. Go to that study and you can see that they used the whole population of those receiving these drugs in the denominator and not just people who received medical attention (as was the case for COVID+ studies)
The COVID exposure studies compared COVID exposed people to other within the same group – hospital patients, patients receiving any diagnosis code, etc – i.e. people who interacted with the healthcare system for reasons other than COVID. Is this a different sample size compared to the general population? Yes but, it's not just looking at raw rates of myocarditis without attempt to control for sampling effects as you describe.
Again, it certainly seems like the misinformation and biased interpretation seems to be coming primarily from the antivaxxers.
Prasad has some nuanced points that are overwhelmed by his bias and desire to be as contrarian as possible, but you are not interpreting them correctly at all. (Also he's a doc at UCSF, one of the largest research hospitals in the US... what makes him 'independent'? This appears to be a label that means 'says what I want to hear')
Regardless this is a direct quote from the Prasad's paper you linked:
He attempts to argue this away later by speculating about cohort biases but even he won't say the vaccine is more dangerous in the scientific record. Of course, he will gladly do so for paying subscribers on his substack... one can only speculate why.
Of note, the paper he is referring to above is using EHR data, it is not simply dividing myocarditis/ total number of vaccines as you seem to think)
I think you're expecting people will not check what you say. It is simple to go to Table 1 of the meta analysis you posted and pick the first vaccine drug study they used. Go to that study and you can see that they used the whole population of those receiving these drugs in the denominator and not just people who received medical attention (as was the case for COVID+ studies)
Harambro only sees what he wants to see. If it doesn’t confirm his bias, he ignores the data.
From 3 months ago: 7 million Americans have taken the latest booster.
How many Americans are there? 326 million or so it seems.
So barely 2% of Americans are boosting.
Most have woken up.
Maybe even Harambee?
No. Harambro has too much invested in the Covid vax now. He’s likely known as the “vax guy” by his co-workers. Always talking about the vax, bringing it up in every conversation regardless of the topic.
He’ll continue to get boosted multiple times each year whether he thinks he needs it or not. He feels that if he stops getting the shots, he’ll lose his identity.
A little more about Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP) from Moderna scientists:
"However, avoiding unacceptable toxicity with mRNA drugs and vaccines presents challenges. Lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns. Here, we discuss these concerns, specifically how cell tropism and tissue distribution of mRNA and lipid nanoparticles can lead to toxicity, and their possible reactogenicity." ["Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA Drug and Vaccine Toxicity", Jan. 23, 2024]
I expect Moderna employees to under-state the toxicity concerns. Somehow I doubt these statements were part of the informed consent when people were coerced into taking these dangerous drugs.
The lipids being reactogenic is a feature! It means we do not have use to other adjuvants (the original anti-vax bogeymen).
The optimization of mRNA delivery vectors took decades! They were originally too toxic (anyone thats done a lipid transfection in lab knows) and reactogenic... lots of work was done to tone those down, but they work great now. You can deliver microgram amounts of modified mRNA to low numbers of cells in vitro and the cells barely care.
Of course it was never the specific biochemistry that was the issue - it was just grasping at straws to cast doubt.
A little more about Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP) from Moderna scientists:
"However, avoiding unacceptable toxicity with mRNA drugs and vaccines presents challenges. Lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs all present toxicity concerns. Here, we discuss these concerns, specifically how cell tropism and tissue distribution of mRNA and lipid nanoparticles can lead to toxicity, and their possible reactogenicity." ["Strategies to reduce the risks of mRNA Drug and Vaccine Toxicity", Jan. 23, 2024]
I expect Moderna employees to under-state the toxicity concerns. Somehow I doubt these statements were part of the informed consent when people were coerced into taking these dangerous drugs.
It’s gonna be another long night for Harambro. 😂 He better put on a pot of coffee.
Moderna scientists finally admitting to multiple toxicity concerns years after govt officials approved the drugs to be injected. They're understating the toxicity problem as a "concern" so they can get ahead of the issue and come up with a "safer" drug. I wonder if they're disclosing these concerns to parents for the clinical trials on infants. Somehow I doubt it.
Moderna scientists finally admitting to multiple toxicity concerns years after govt officials approved the drugs to be injected. They're understating the toxicity problem as a "concern" so they can get ahead of the issue and come up with a "safer" drug. I wonder if they're disclosing these concerns to parents for the clinical trials on infants. Somehow I doubt it.
What toxicity concerns are they "admitting"
Lipofection toxicity has existed since lipid transfection was invented in 1987!
Toxicity hand-wringing is hilarious, especially in the context of method that has been iteratively optimized to minimize toxicity and provide just enough reactogenicity.
The COVID exposure studies compared COVID exposed people to other within the same group – hospital patients, patients receiving any diagnosis code, etc – i.e. people who interacted with the healthcare system for reasons other than COVID. Is this a different sample size compared to the general population? Yes but, it's not just looking at raw rates of myocarditis without attempt to control for sampling effects as you describe.
Again, it certainly seems like the misinformation and biased interpretation seems to be coming primarily from the antivaxxers.
Prasad has some nuanced points that are overwhelmed by his bias and desire to be as contrarian as possible, but you are not interpreting them correctly at all. (Also he's a doc at UCSF, one of the largest research hospitals in the US... what makes him 'independent'? This appears to be a label that means 'says what I want to hear')
Regardless this is a direct quote from the Prasad's paper you linked:
He attempts to argue this away later by speculating about cohort biases but even he won't say the vaccine is more dangerous in the scientific record. Of course, he will gladly do so for paying subscribers on his substack... one can only speculate why.
Of note, the paper he is referring to above is using EHR data, it is not simply dividing myocarditis/ total number of vaccines as you seem to think)
I think you're expecting people will not check what you say. It is simple to go to Table 1 of the meta analysis you posted and pick the first vaccine drug study they used. Go to that study and you can see that they used the whole population of those receiving these drugs in the denominator and not just people who received medical attention (as was the case for COVID+ studies)
Untrue. I look at Burke and the CDC one and one more. Prasad agrees with me on the key paper, to boot (which you ignored, like all the other questions posed to you).
It’s easy to argue when you simply avoid any question that weakens your position.
I think you're expecting people will not check what you say. It is simple to go to Table 1 of the meta analysis you posted and pick the first vaccine drug study they used. Go to that study and you can see that they used the whole population of those receiving these drugs in the denominator and not just people who received medical attention (as was the case for COVID+ studies)
It’s easy to argue when you simply avoid any question that weakens your position.
Moderna scientists finally admitting to multiple toxicity concerns years after govt officials approved the drugs to be injected. They're understating the toxicity problem as a "concern" so they can get ahead of the issue and come up with a "safer" drug. I wonder if they're disclosing these concerns to parents for the clinical trials on infants. Somehow I doubt it.
Ah I see. “Toxicity” is a drug discovery / pharmacology term for side effects, basically. Every drug has toxicity at high enough doses. A key (perhaps THE key) in drug discovery is limiting toxicity at efficacious doses. This is not toxicity like skull and cross bones green goop being secretly admitted… although it’s mildly charming that you think it is.
Anyway, here’s a consent form I found for a booster study:
I think you're expecting people will not check what you say. It is simple to go to Table 1 of the meta analysis you posted and pick the first vaccine drug study they used. Go to that study and you can see that they used the whole population of those receiving these drugs in the denominator and not just people who received medical attention (as was the case for COVID+ studies)
Untrue. I look at Burke and the CDC one and one more. Prasad agrees with me on the key paper, to boot (which you ignored, like all the other questions posed to you).
It’s easy to argue when you simply avoid any question that weakens your position.
Geez! You're just hoping people don't check these studies. Burke isn't even a cited study. I went through each study in table 1 using mRNA vaccine drugs. Each of them used the entire population of vaccinated in the study as the denominator in the rate calculation, not just sick people. However, when looking at COVID+ cases, they only used people seeking medical attention in the denominator. Below is each of the studies looking at mRNA vaccine drugs:
Mevorach - used entire vaccinated population as denominator (not just sick people) Witberg et al., - used entire vaccinated population as denominator (not just sick people) Barda et al., used entire vaccinated population as denominator (not just sick people) Walter et al., used entire vaccinated population of study as denominator (not just sick people) El Sahly et al., used entire vaccinated population of study as denominator (not just sick people) Ali et al., used entire vaccinnated population of study as denominator (not just sick people) Diaz et al, used entire population of vaccinated who were part of a health care system (not just sick people) Simone et al., used entire population of vaccinated who were part of Kaiser Permanente (not just sick people) Husby et al., used entire population of vaccinated as denominator (not just sick people) Patone et al., used entire population of vaccinated as denominator (not just sick people
Moderna scientists finally admitting to multiple toxicity concerns years after govt officials approved the drugs to be injected. They're understating the toxicity problem as a "concern" so they can get ahead of the issue and come up with a "safer" drug. I wonder if they're disclosing these concerns to parents for the clinical trials on infants. Somehow I doubt it.
Ah I see. “Toxicity” is a drug discovery / pharmacology term for side effects, basically. Every drug has toxicity at high enough doses. A key (perhaps THE key) in drug discovery is limiting toxicity at efficacious doses. This is not toxicity like skull and cross bones green goop being secretly admitted… although it’s mildly charming that you think it is.
Anyway, here’s a consent form I found for a booster study:
That's not the disclosure for Moderna using infants as guinea pigs:
Watch this evil video made by Moderna to help convince parents to offer up their baby as a sacrament to the gods of science.
I was reading about a new trial Moderna is doing for a “cancer vaccine” so I went to their site to look at its details. Instead the first trial I came… pic.twitter.com/4C2wEq2zv9
Ah I see. “Toxicity” is a drug discovery / pharmacology term for side effects, basically. Every drug has toxicity at high enough doses. A key (perhaps THE key) in drug discovery is limiting toxicity at efficacious doses. This is not toxicity like skull and cross bones green goop being secretly admitted… although it’s mildly charming that you think it is.
Anyway, here’s a consent form I found for a booster study:
Ah I see. “Toxicity” is a drug discovery / pharmacology term for side effects, basically. Every drug has toxicity at high enough doses. A key (perhaps THE key) in drug discovery is limiting toxicity at efficacious doses. This is not toxicity like skull and cross bones green goop being secretly admitted… although it’s mildly charming that you think it is.
Anyway, here’s a consent form I found for a booster study:
Anything with IRB approval (so any clinical trial) will have a similar disclosure. Your pearl clutching video doesn’t prove otherwise. It’s clear you’ve never actually read an informed consent form, but hey let’s not let facts get in the way of fear mongering.
