Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
There is also no proof that the mRNA vaccines are safe for pregnancy. Look at what the CDC website has to say about the topic: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-...
They have studies that fertility is not effected in the short term, but that is it. Nothing about how the pregnancies actually progressed.
Basically their evidence they have for the vaccines safety for pregnancy is lack of evidence of harm (which is not even true as there are studies that indicate the mRNA might be harmful in this regard). This is completely backwards. They should be on the hook for proving safety, not the other way around.
I personally cannot trust the safety data of the mRNA vaccines. I anecdotally know a handful of people that have suffered harm after vaccination. This on it's own means nothing, but the part that bothers me is that all their doctors don't want to entertain the idea that their problems were caused by the vaccine, because the vaccine is "safe and effective". None of their issues were even entered into VAERS. This is completely backwards.
They intentionally nuked the control groups. How do you properly do a trial without a control group?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?articleTo...
How many people do you knew personally under 30 and dead because of covid? According to official statistic in my country, it is 0,0048% dead people under 30 with positive PCR (not necessary dying only because of covid). 48 dead people under age 30 in 2 years of pandemic. So this wiki text is irrelevant and McCullough has data for his statement.
Take a look at the kinds of claims the paper makes at first. Then stop for a second. Now imagine how someone doing real science might try to prove such a claim. Now scan the paper looking for any thing even remotely reminiscent of evidence for the claim and you won't find it.
Also consider this nugget: "The increasing evidence that the vaccines do little to control disease spread"
According to this, there were 11,000 Covid-19 vaccine papers published in 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03686-xA
On balance where do you suspect the evidence falls?
I imagine someone "doing real science" wouldn't destroy their own control groups, would they?
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/9691430...
Criticism: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/does-mccullough-s-pap...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19
[2] - https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vac...
I'm not taking either side here because I don't know enough to feel confident doing so, but I do have an issue with statements like this.
The paper should stand or fall on its own merits, if we only accept content from specific "tiers" we open the door to scientific corruption.
However, the world has 7 billion people on it and, ya know, herding cats and all that. That's a pipe dream.
But perhaps we can strive to temper initial reactions and make sure we post the followups once said studies are done.
Until then, _IF_ we need to the thoroughly disdainful thing of judging a book by its cover because reading it takes some time, its a fair comment to state: Boy that cover sucks.
[1] - https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005
> Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), an internationally renowned journal, that publishes original research articles and reviews on toxic effects, in animals and humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment with particular emphasis on food, drugs, and chemicals, including agricultural and industrial safety, and consumer product safety. Areas such as safety evaluation of novel foods and ingredients, biotechnologically-derived products, and nanomaterials are included in the scope of the journal. FCT also encourages submission of papers on inter-relationships between nutrition and toxicology and on in vitro techniques, particularly those fostering the 3 Rs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxi...
You can do one better - search their records for all of the prior safety work they've done on vaccines:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=vaccine&pub=Food%20a...
Given that they have absolutely no history of assessing overall vaccine safety or toxicology, how prepared do you think they are to appropriately assess this one? Do you think the reviewers who work with this journal have the expertise to properly weight the claims in the submitted paper?
Vaccine safety research is published in vaccine journals, or medical journals, or infectious disease journals, or immunology journals, or rheumatology journals because those journals all have experts that can actually critically review the submissions. When people publish 'controversial' research for a field of study, in a journal outside the scope of that field, they're promoting nonsense ~100% of the time.
I think the fact the paper couldn't get a reputable publisher does speak to the merits of the paper.
If you think you are able to interpret the merits of the paper on its own without the prerequisite qualifications to understand the merits of the paper, you simply have no idea how wrong you are.
If you reject anything the major papers don’t publish how are you any different then a 15th century peasant following the clergy?
Let’s be real, you don’t understand any of this either. You’re simply choosing who to believe.
Thats my argument, don't disagree with me and then try to counter with my own argument.
No one understands any of this so why choose the opinion of a food journal over the opinion of a medical journal when the topic is of a medical subject?
Because you think your opinion is more elite than the opinion of medical researchers.
You mean one of the most highly credentialled and most demonized expert during the pandemic?
Watch these, focus on refuting the content of their claims, not reacting to the names involved - as you've clearly bought into the smear campaign and other propaganda/misinformation:
5+ hour long discussion by highly credentialed domain experts not toeing the line:
"COVID-19: A Second Opinion" - https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html (discussion from experts begins around 40 minute mark)
If that's too long for you to start, here's a 38 minute summary version for you to start with: https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-...
I'm guessing you're the type of person to not actually watch things like this "because they're all quacks!" anyway, am I right?
Mmm, I call BS on this. What does “ongoing” mean? And why does it need to be “ongoing”?
These guys are going to try again and will probably succeed. Why is Hacker News oblivious to this?
every time
Rumors have been swirling for a while that the moon is made out of cheese, a pizza parlour without a basement has kids locked up in it, and that you may have already won 1 million dollars.
Your comment is best-case completely meaningless, worst case actively stirring up trouble. Cut it the fuck out.
Here's an article debunking the rumors from December 2021: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britai...
So there have been rumors. That's a fact.
The scientific process has been corrupted by money.
Here's a source on the 75 years: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-...
> and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least.
They released all of the relevant clinical data right away - weird antivaxxers sued for the full patient records which the FDA will provide after redacting PII, which they estimated would take 75 years given the huge volume of pages they'd have to review and their current staff size / existing workload that they're legally obligated to address.
The data "wasn't supposed to remain hidden" it's just never made public because the summary data already addressed everything in the individual patient files. The patient files can be made public after redaction but unless congress gives them a bunch more money to hire new staff, they're only capable of processing 500 pages/month.
Again, 75 years is just a dumb calculation of the number of pages responsive to the FOIA request divided by their 'free capacity' to review 500 pages per month. They weren't suggesting to actually spend the next 75 years doing it, they were hoping the requester would narrow their request to something relevant.
You could just have congress authorize 10 more staff, increase their capacity to 50,000 pages/month and you'd have it in 9 months. There's no technical limitation, there's no conspiracy theory, it's just a question of staff time [they are legally obligated to process FOIAs, including all of the 'regular order' ones, so they can't just drop all of their other work to focus on this one request]
To get approval for the vaccine to be sold, Pfizer submits a massive amount of documentation to the FDA. They run studies with tens of thousands of patients and then do the typical statistics work to assess whether the vaccines were safe and effective (they were). They submit these studies along with all of the patient data collected during the trials and the FDA reviews the info to make their decision whether or not to approve the sale of the vaccine.
These antivaxxers have decided that there must be something hidden in the patient files, so they filed a FOIA/lawsuit to have the FDA release all of these patient files. Those are the docs that would need to be scrubbed/anonymized. 450k pages of "Patient was administered vaccine, patient was fine".
"Full approval is granted when, over time, the FDA has amassed even more scientific evidence to support use of the COVID-19 vaccines, showing that the benefits of the vaccine are greater than its risks, and that the vaccines can be manufactured reliably, safely and with consistent quality."
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
Look at this ultra top secret data I found by typing "covid 19 vaccine clinical trials data" into google:
https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-resu...
wait till you type in "covid-19 vacccine risk benefit analysis" You'll be entered into a secret society with knowledge that has been kept from the sheeple.
People are right to be suspicious.
Unfortunately anti-vaccine inclined people aren't interested in facts.
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-a...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9754...
Do you know what regulatory capture is and why I specifically brought it up? The FDA is staffed with former pfizer employees. Their chairman is a former Pfizer CEO. The relationship is incestuous and and further perverts incentives. This is not unique to the FDA, it is common in regulatory agencies, which is why the phenomenon has a name.
>And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google
I don't think you understand that the data is coming almost exclusively from the companies that benefit from positive data and agencies with political pressure to release positive data. You do not understand the strong perverse incentives that are aligned in favor of positive vaccine sentiment and you are not sufficiently skeptical. And when publishing anything critical of vaccine safety or efficacy is risky, there effectively are no competitive researchers. No one wants to risk being labeled as an "antivaxxer".
The whole stack is strongly biased in favor of the vaccines because of unchecked financial and political pressure.
>My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever.
The only data that is available is high level summary/aggregations, published by the same orgs that stand to benefit from favorable results. The underlying raw data is not available.
And your link is part of the problem. If you want to convince people to take the mRNA vaccines, you could start by not conflating hesitancy about this new technology with general vaccine hesitancy, that's just dishonest.
One possibility: "We will be lynched if we even imply they're unsafe after pushing them on so many people."
(IIRC it was like 15 vs 18 or 21; not high, but it is enough to question the actual safety IMO)
Phase 1/2: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2639-4.pdf
Page 10 shows 0 deaths in the trial with the most severe adverse event being a "disturbed sleep" event.
Phase 3: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?articleTo...
This was the big RCT trial with 43,400 participants. 2 participants in the medication group died, 4 participants in the control group died, so the vaccine cuts deaths from unrelated causes by 50%! (joking of course) In any case, they didn't even include all cause mortality as an end point.
So again - please provide a link to whatever it is you're referring to because "trust me bro, more people died" doesn't really cut it.
There was another report I remember seeing (but can't find now) that was about this same group that broke it down by cause of death. That one showed a reduction in covid deaths (I think it was like 2 or 3 covid vs 4 covid), with other causes more than making up the difference. But again with such low numbers it doesn't really prove anything, just that I think it's enough to raise questions and definitely doesn't warrant the "safe and effective" mantra.
This is just the dumbest thing. Literal antivaxx nonsense in the most pejorative way possible.
Something like 260 million Americans are vaccinated, there is literally no evidence of vaccine injury, especially when compared to the rates of the supposed injuries (myocarditis included) in those who contract covid.
Follow-on studies show a 95% decrease in the rate of mechanical ventilation/death in those who have been boosted. The vaccines are the very definition of safe and effective.
In no other circumstance would those trials be considered scientifically sound when they intentionally destroyed their own control groups.
Nobody "intentionally destroyed" anything.. We don't even know how many chose to remain unvaccinated, it's likely enough to still be very informative. Why is it so easy for people to lie like this?
So...they nuked their control groups. I'm not sure why you start off your comment denying it, then explain that I was exactly right. There is no control group.
"The control groups were nuked" is something you could claim, which is still overblown because you have no idea how many people actually chose to be vaccinated vs. not.