Hacker News Reader

Comment by eganist | Hacker News Reader

I mean, reading the discussion/conclusion via google translate, this seems to be a study on metabolism of the vaccine? Open to being fact-checked, but this doesn't seem related.

In any case, the only statement I found on health effects in the discussion/conclusion was "No toxic findings indicating liver damage were found in the rat repeated-dose toxicity test ( M2.6.6.3 )." but I don't speak Japanese and I'm sure using Google Translate is a very ineffective way of parsing research.

View on HN

What I belive this might show (still trying to figure this out) is how the lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine are distributed in the body. Page 7 shows particularly high concentration in the ovaries for example. I think the idea of the vaccine should be that the intramuscular injection stays in the muscle and the spike proteins don't get into your blood, but this was never actually directly verified. What this study shows is that the vaccine lipid coating (and thus likely the spike proteins) get into your blood, which when binding to the ACE2 receptor can cause different kinds of damage. E.g. binding to platelets is what can cause clotting. I'm not sure about any of this yet, just started looking into it a few hours ago.

Bret Weinstein (evolutionary biologist), Robert Malone (inventor of mRNA tech), and Steve Kirsch (researching adverse reactions to covid vaccines) talked about this today on Bret's YouTube channel. It's somewhere between the middle and the end of the stream iirc.

I highly recommend watching the whole stream.

https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY

Given the sheer volume of doses delivered and the capability to detect clotting risks (az, JJ), the fact that clotting risk did not go up with biontech and moderna might throw a wrench into that hunch.

But even then, not seeing an indication of risk within two orders of magnitude of covid itself.

the fact that clotting risk did not go up with biontech and moderna might throw a wrench into that hunch.

There's no agreement on what's really happening. For example, clotting risk from the mRNA vaccines is supposedly the same as for the AstraZeneca vaccines, but governments across Europe already suspended the AZ vaccine due to clotting risks (supposedly). Therefore by implication, they would also consider the mRNA vaccines dangerous if their standards were consistent. Either the standards aren't consistent and the AZ blocks were political, or the claims that mRNA vaccines have similar clotting risks to AZ are wrong, but given the contradictory nature of many of the claims surrounding this topic - and given that you admitted you only just discovered some of the scientific discussion of the effects of mRNA vaccines - it may be worth dialing down your confidence slightly.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/blood-clots-as-prevalent-w...

I'm not convinced by "supposedly the same." Sure you can get blood clots after pfizer as well as after az but you can also get them after having a cup of tea as people get clots in general. I don't think there has been statistically significant data that pfizer etc cause extra clots, unlike az. (eg https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-vaccine-blood-clot-ris...)

The study in question is from Oxford University and claims equal rates. Indeed, it may be wrong. However that's kind of the point - this thread is full of people making claims about vaccine efficacy or safety, but for basically any claim you want you can just plug it into Bing or DuckDuckGo and immediately find scientific studies that appear to contradict it. Science can tell you almost anything and everything, it seems, so no big surprise that people find it hard to trust.

I agree with that, I'm just slightly worried because I can imagine complications being underreported due to the politicisation of the issue.

It might also move the risk/benefit of vaccinating children and people who already had COVID.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com