I am not lying. I really believe that the initial message hammered home to us was that the mRNA vaccines were safe and effective, without mention of the risks. If I am wrong, give me evidence that I am mistaken instead of calling me a liar.
Which was entirely appropriate, but is not what you claimed.
Please quote even a single health authority who “hammered home” the message that most drugs don’t come with risks. Or, more particularly, that the mRNA vaccine could not have any adverse effects.
Alternatively, admit that your claim was untrue and retract it.
2 Likes
Bullshit!
What evidence do you have that the health authorities misrepresented the health risks from the vaccine as they became known (recognising that it would take time for low probability side-effects, such as myocarditis and pericarditis, to reveal themselves).
Please cite where “the health authorities” stated that the vaccine was 100.00% safe, no risk of side-effect whatsoever.
Otherwise, this claim is simply a lie, and I must as Faizal did, request you to:
More bullshit!
Neither you. nor ‘trialsitenews’ 
, were attempting to inform clinicians in a serious and level-headed manner. The latter’s polemic intent is clear from its hyperbolic title: “Global Data Bombshell”.
Your own attempted use of it was in a further incompetent attempt to justify RFK Jr’s feckless decision – something that it in no way justifies, as (i) the probabilities involved, whilst heightened, are still vanishingly low, and (ii) no causal link has been found.
This is why the report suggested merely “heightened awareness”, not even the slightest suggestion of withdrawing the vaccine.
This renders this article a non sequitor.
Your crank magnetism leaves you vulnerable to a wide number of ill-supported ideas. Occasionally that can provide forum members a bit of intellectual stimulation demolishing them. Very quickly however, this can become tedious.
But when these ill-supported ideas put lives at risk, it can make people on here angry.
But none of this should suggest that you are in any way making any sort of substantive contribution to this forum.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
And you have very much cast yourself in this forum in the role of Bozo the Clown.
2 Likes
Here is what I wrote in a post about Gil’s falsehood:
And here is how Gil chose to “respond” to my quotation of extensive writing by the authors:
The bold text should allow you to see the anatomy of a lie.
1 Like
Who said what, specifically, when, and in what context? Quote them with sources please.
You write as if some one has claimed a drug had no side effects, which I simply don’t believe.
3 Likes
I do occasionally check in, and almost always regret it immediately. This is no exception. 
I see harsh words flying back and forth, but I have no time or desire to tease out who is more in the wrong. Please just stop.
In the future I will do more to make holding any sort of discussion here harder. If there is anything more of value to be said, you should make new threads to say it in. This is nothing new.
2 Likes
Will note that any time you see a Really Big Odds Ratio™ (hence RBOR™), it doesn’t mean the event on the large side is vastly more common, it just means the denominator is itsy-bitsy-teensy-weensy (hence ibtw, a technical term of statistics). ibtw also implies a really small probability somewhere due to VFC (vanishingly few cases).
Any odds ratio reported without confidence intervals is incomplete, and for large ORs should probably be ignored entirely, as inference based on VFC is speculative. My educated guess is the OR=55 stated above sufferers from EWCI (extremely wide confidence intervals), which also imply ibtw and VCF.
A better approach would be to look at incidence rates, which account for both the event and time-to-event. That may not be possible here (VCF again), but the data limitations would be clear, instead of hidden behind a RBOR™.
5 Likes
Not really – see the tables I posted above. The CI in question is 54.16 – 57.80.
Your point on “itsy-bitsy-teensy-weensy” denominators & “VFC” is however well-taken. When the numbers are this small, a drug can easily raise the odds ratio by multiple orders of magnitude, without the resultant odds becoming large enough to alter the risk-benefit balance of the drug.
2 Likes
I don’t know. That all sounds so complicated, probably requires doing math and stuff. Isn’t it just easier to look at a pie graph where one drug takes up most of the pie, and scream “IT’S POISON!!! GONNA KILL YOU!!!”
2 Likes
@Giltil are you searching for those quotes?
1 Like
I just want to reiterate a point that is often underappreciated by both sides of this debate:
Given that the main benefit of COVID vaccines is that it reduces the risk of severe illness after one is infected, and not necessarily the risk of infection itself, why were vaccine mandates justified? After all, if someone chooses to take the risk of dying, shouldn’t they be allowed to make this decision, foolish though it may be?
The answer is that when someone gets severely sick or dies of COVID they don’t just drop dead and expire at home. Ambulances are called to take them to hospital where they are seen by Emergency Room personnel, then admitted to hospital to take up a bed, and often end up intubated in the ICU for days or weeks before they recover or die.
This all uses up resources that are then not available to other patients in need. This is why the main objective of COVID mitigation measures was to “flatten the curve.”
I don’t think most people quite realize how close we came to a situation where victims of heart attacks, car accidents, gunshots, etc. would have to be just left to die on the sidewalk because there wouldn’t even be an ambulance available to take them to hospital, never mind capacity to treat them once they arrived there.
There was serious discussion of how we would go about deciding who most “deserves” to get a ventilator when there would eventually be too few to go around. Should it be first come first served? A lottery? Or should we decide which candidate is most valuable to society and let the others die?
We didn’t get there, but it was close. And arguably the main reason we didn’t get there was the vaccines.
4 Likes
Another answer is that while they are getting sick they may also be passing on the virus to other people who may have conditions that render them unable to be vaccinated or at risk even when vaccinated or may just not want to catch a potentially life-threatening or life-changing disease from a selfish idiot.
2 Likes
Yes, that is another important aspect of flattening the curve.
1 Like
As I see it, regarding the safety aspect of things, the main problem associated with the mRNA vaccines is the lack of precise control over the amount of antigen protein eventually produced and the distribution of mRNA or lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) in the body. Another but probably manageable problem is the presence DNA contamination.
What do you mean by “presence DNA contamination”?
2 Likes
Please cite the evidence you believe demonstrates this problem exists.
2 Likes
The following passage is taken from section 7.2 of the paper below (emphasis added).
Optimization of structural features of mRNA, in particular the 5′ cap, 5′ and 3′ UTR regions, coding region and Poly(A) tail increases mRNA control over immune responses, which results in higher translation efficiency. The length of the Poly(A) tail means that mRNA can be translated multiple times. Consequently, it is impossible to know what is the dose of Spike proteins synthesized after each vaccination, no more than its pharmacokinetics and biodistribution over time, whereas, for classic vaccines, we know the exact dose of recombinant antigens or of attenuated virus injected, as well as their dissemination and elimination. The changes made are not without consequences on the risk of potentially serious adverse effects. The bioavailability of LNP is not controlled and there is no guarantee that LNP is endocytosed only by muscle or dendritic cells at the injection site. The fact that LNP can be endocytosed by cells of critical organs (brain, heart, ovaries), which do not regenerate or very little, is highly problematic. Indeed, the cells of these organs, which express the Spike protein on their surface, are then destroyed by phagocytosis via macrophages, a response that results from inflammation linked to innate immunity. The support by the immune system not being immediate, and before the Spike protein will be finally exocytosed in the extracellular environment and joins the blood system, it can then bind to the ACE2 and NRP1 receptors of many cells and thus induce the same problems than those seen in severe infection. It would be wise to develop vaccines using LNPs that specifically target antigen-presenting cells (APC). There are several possible targeting delivery strategies such as adding an antibody to the surface of the LNP that would be specific for a target cell or increasing the affinity of the LNPs with the cellular microenvironment at the site of injection, by acting on the redox potential, the enzymatic activity or even the pH.
Have you any evidence this actually causes any serious problems?
1 Like
And importantly, does he have evidence that these hypothesized mechanisms for how mRNA vaccines cause their side-effects merits canceling funding for further research into the technology?
Heck, supposing the authors here have correctly identified these mechanisms, shouldn’t the government be offering grant money for research groups to invent, improve, and find solutions to the technology?
Indeed. The very paper that @Giltil cites says exactly that:
A wide distribution of vaccine mRNA in organs can lead to systemic adverse effects and, therefore, there would be a need in the future to develop lipid nanoparticles allowing targeted delivery of mRNA vaccines in specific cells and to deepen the studies on their biodistribution, their bioavailability and their toxicity in animal and human models, in order to refine the doses by calculating their own risk-benefit balance. Hence, we recommend (i) adapting the mRNA of vaccines to the least mutated virus proteins and (ii) personalizing its administration to these categories of chronic patients at risk most likely to suffer from adverse effects linked to the inhibition of metabolisms affected by their pathology.
Gil keeps shooting himself in the foot and citing articles that contradict what he is trying to claim. He should maybe copy his role model, RFK Jr., and just totally make up shit out of thin air.
2 Likes