Covid/mRNA Vaccine Info General - "Covid Seasonal Flu Vaccines is Society's New Normal" - FDA

[Stoneheart]

Just to be clear: you are talking about small RNA or microRNA/miRNA? Because from what I’ve read, small RNA/miRNA is distinct from mRNA (messenger RNA). As far as I know, small RNA/miRNA isn’t being used in the vaccines. But do correct me if I’m wrong.

well there is a whole cluster of different small RNAs. they are not used in the vaccine

Or are you worried about the effect of the vaccines on the small RNA in our bodies?

Yes!
some are cut from mRNA(or not, thats a very new field).
We know very little about all of this, thats why its a Problem.

It seems as if the worst that can happen is that microRNA renders mRNA ineffective. I do believe Kariko et al’s work in mRNA addressed this challenge?

Thats just the basic hurdle for medical application and to be fair miRNA is the least of my problems.

The other small RNAs are way more scary because we know so little about them.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I can’t imagine why anyone would ever dismiss you as a troll.

Well it'd be nice if he'd address my refutations instead of just continuing to schizopost the same debunked shit and dismiss me as a troll. I know, you agree with his schizoposts because you're one of his fellow antivax tards, but even you should be able to see how bad that is.

It's hilarious how he just ignores posts that debunk his schizoposting. He needs to get back on his meds

It's also hilarious how the thread title is "Covid/mRNA Vaccine Info General" when it's content is just his schizo rants about how the vaccine is totally bad and he ignores anything that debunks his point, including linking to a study that concludes the exact opposite of what he claims

 

[Abracadabra]

The other small RNAs are way more scary because we know so little about them.

From what I’ve read, small RNA is a regulatory mechanism. The worst that can happen with an mRNA vaccine is that the vaccine is rendered ineffective. At best, the interaction is complementary. The trap-mRNA technology that can potentially switch off small RNA is not being used in the current mRNA vaccines.

Since there’s much we don’t know about small RNA, it would be interesting to know how it interacts with other medical interventions that we’ve already been using.

 

[Some Badger]

Sure ya are. I already did destroy his retarded schizoposting in the other thread and he totally dismissed me as a "troll" and then went on with his schizo posting.

The study he links to literally says the thing he is sperging about is not an issue at all. After I said this, he tardraged and just called me a troll.

Also, the whole Myocarditis thing is not as common from the vaccine as it is from covid and is also not a big deal, as @Abracadabra pointed out. He will also ignore this and call him a troll because OP is mentally ill with schizophrenia and is off his meds.

Now go back to /pol/ or whatever shitty site you came from

See, I knew you wouldn't actually make an effort to refute OP because getting buttmad and namecalling everyone who responds to your posts with the slightest shred of skepticism and resorting to ad hominems instead is more immediately gratifying.

All according to keikaku, I guess.

 

[Abracadabra]

Good find, especially if it's published in the Lancet and not some blog somewhere. The main point of contention here in this paper is the bias in reporting the vaccine's effectiveness via RRR--"relative risk reduction"--without balancing that out with consideration for ARR--"absolute risk reduction". It's not saying the vaccines are useless but rather the emphasis on RRR exclusively is leading to bias in reporting and misinformation about the vaccines. It doesn't take rigorous look into the "attack rates" with and without vaccine and overall population. This part here is really important:


So kind of like how the medical industry started using the PCR test to prove Covid cases and illnesses--not what the test was made for--the medical research is emphasizing only RRR, leading to the the kind of presumptions we have from government about everyone needing to get vaccinated. It's promoting severe imbalance on reporting the efficacy and, it seem, even the necessity of vaccinations.

These two paragraphs give the whole bag away, even before the mention of Phase 3 trials being "uncoordinated" and not satisfying "public safety concerns". Why are they uncoordinated? What's the big problem with emphasizing RRR over ARR? Right here:



Even those among us who don't know the science at all, like people who just work in IT jobs for example, have to recognize that by testing the reports of the Covid vaccines' effectiveness the authors of this publication have found utterly broken reporting and--worse still--science. THIS is why the Phase 3 trials are incoordinated, because there's too much variation in how they are conducted and how results are met. There's no general uniformity to their protocols and their reporting.

This means that a lot of what the public, let alone most doctors, are learning about the vaccines is coming from a total mess of haphazard data gathering and reporting.
And that mess is what is directly informing the governments of the world on how to proceed regarding the pandemic and vaccination. Wonderful.

Same author and journal:

“Simple mathematics helps. If we vaccinated a population of 100 000 and protected 95% of them, that would leave 5000 individuals diseased over 3 months, which is almost the current overall COVID-19 case rate in the UK. Rather, a 95% vaccine efficacy means that instead of 1000 COVID-19 cases in a population of 100 000 without vaccine (from the placebo arm of the abovementioned trials, approximately 1% would be ill with COVID-19 and 99% would not) we would expect 50 cases (99·95% of the population is disease-free, at least for 3 months).”

DEFINE_ME

The reason why RRR is used in media for public consumption? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that people aren’t generally inclined to do math while reading a news article. ARR can easily be misinterpreted and exploited by a number of interest groups.

Commentary on the article in the same journal:

“In a Lancet Microbe Comment, Piero Olliaro and colleagues
1 suggest that reporting relative risk reduction (RRR) for vaccination does not reflect entirely its therapeutic performance and consider the solw use of RRR a reporting bias. In addition, they propose that absolute risk reduction (ARR) should be reported as a measure of the vaccine's effectiveness. The authors end up comparing the numbers needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of COVID-19 among the vaccines, which derives from the absolute reductions.
However, this suggestion might have a paradoxical effect in misleading perception of treatment performance.

This approach disregards three epidemiological facts.

First, number needed to treat (NNT) is not an intrinsic property of a treatment, it is rather a property of the population that receives a treatment...

Second, the authors raise a concern that different levels of background risk might change relative risk reduction of studies. This statement disregards the constant property of relative risk repeatedly demonstrated by subgroup analysis of clinical trials and meta-scientific evaluations of a treatment across studies of different baseline risks...

Finally, effectiveness—a real-world property—is about clinical decision making, and not to be derived from efficacy studies (randomised controlled studies)...”

DEFINE_ME

We need to emphasize that both are commentaries.

 

[EyelessMC]

Myocarditis appears to be a rare occurrence

Well if it was a common occurrence then the vaccines would be tantamount to poison. I'd hope people understand this is a rarity, but it's a rarity with sudden influx after approval. Wait, first let me say that I don't mean to sound rude or crass here since I read your post and it sounds like you just want to contribute to the discussion and not sperg out like other posters. Thank you.
Now back to it: The points here seem to be that "it's rare", "it's mild", "it's just another potential side effect like everything has side effects" and so "it's not a real concern" since "benefits outweigh risks"

Spoiler: My response

MILD: On people's repeated emphasis of it being just "mild" myocarditis, I already posted what a "mild" case of myocarditis could mean--several months to half a year away from rigorous physical activity like sports, continued monitoring and testing to see if it improves on its own without leaving weakening or damage to the heart, potentially needing medication, etc. Mild myocarditis is already too much myocarditis.

RARE: Rarity isn't the issue--not to mention that this is a new occurrence (that this is effecting teenagers so much and particularly male kids is something to study) so we don't really know how rare or common it could be yet, since the FDA only gave emergency approval to vaccinate youths recently. Again, it can't be overstated that within a month of that approval we now have this problem. It's something to be investigated, not hand-waved away by regulatory agencies simply because it currently seems to be rare and "mild" and Covid is seen as the great menace.

"BENEFITS OUTWEIGHS RISK": These youths are the absolute least of anyone who need to be vaccinated since they are the furthest from being in the demographic at risk of Covid, and now we're finding that the consequence is an sudden spike in reports of heart inflammation. It's not an emotional ploy, mind you, to consider the grave reality that a kid as young as 13 or 14 now has myocarditis from a vaccine given to them to protect them from a virus they weren't at risk for. If Canada's NACI put out a risk assessment graph for 20yr olds to potentially reconsider getting the vaccine, how much more so 15yr olds or little 12yr olds?

I'd understand if it was just a passing initial heart flutter like some medications (and a lot of foods) can cause, but it's diagnosed heart inflammation we're talking about, and it's being reported in the dozens especially in demographics least at risk. What's more, the idea that the agencies directly necessary for investigating links between the vaccine and this condition are still pushing the vaccines rather than putting it on hold like they did with the J&J vaccine at the outset of blood clot reports is....troubling. The news isn't helping either.

Look at this recent news report as an example:

See what I mean? This isn't even how they handled the J&J situation, but because this may related to the vaccines overall and not one in particular it's a different story, I guess. This entire report is indicative of the "it's not a big deal" mentality. It really just an effort to reassure people there's nothing to worry about and to just get the vaccine, despite the fact that the CDC is still investigating the issue for good reason. I mean just listen to this doctor they had on:
"There are several things that we do, that we let our children do, that are extremely risky, compared to the risk of getting a vaccine--"
Hey retard, we're talking about the Covid vaccine, not vaccines in general. Stop conflating the two.
"--and we still let them do it, such as driving, riding a bike, eating a hotdog at a fair.. [laughs] "
What the hell reasoning is this? Last I checked my 13yr old can't drive and riding a bike isn't gonna inflame my 16yr old's heart, let alone eating a hotdog. This reasoning is fundamentally retarded and meant to retard others' critical thinking in order to allay their concerns.

This is the same reasoning behind the current push by certain agencies to just overlook this subject and continue telling people to get the vaccines. But the concern is valid. The investigation is needed. This isn't something to hand-wave away because of risk-benifit analysis--which doesn't even balance out for the demographic predominantly effected. It's bad enough in adults 40~yrs old but 16 too?

Spoiler: Personal thoughts

Consider also that heart disease is the leading cause of death globally, especially in an obesity-addled country like the USA. There's many who already have a genetic predisposition to heart problems from their family or deity, etc. This kind of thing, however mild, cannot be treated with just a shrug and nod to the existence of medical side effects on a whole.

Well, no vaccine is perfect and side effects are par for the course

Heart inflammation from a vaccine without long-term testing is not par for the course, especially not when reported in these numbers and by an experimental vaccine from a niche scientific field (mRNA), we have no long-term testing for, only received emergency approval, etc. etc.

[CDC VaST info and link]

I posted that in the OP

“The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination enormously outweigh the rare, possible risk of heart-related complications, including inflammation of the heart muscle, or myocarditis. The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, a global force for longer, healthier lives, urges all adults and children ages 12 and older in the U.S. to receive a COVID vaccine as soon as they can.”

The American Heart Association is a charity that funds research. Their opinion is irrelevant. Only the results of the CDC's investigation and their peer review matter, and that's some ways off for now. This nonprofit and the CDC together do not currently have enough information regarding the potential severity (mild cases can become severe depending on the infection/cause) and long term effects even of just the myocarditis cases, let alone anything else mentioned in the OP. The AHA's "urge" means nothing here.

Myocarditis occurring after covid (and other common diseases)

This is why I posted the news article above, because this redirecting of attention to other causes of myocarditis does no good in discerning the correlation to the vaccine itself. I'm sure you meant to show that the condition isn't unique to the vaccines, which is very true and it's good you mention that but it goes without saying. Most people bringing it up in this case, however, are just redirecting attention away from the vax correlation as if to run defense, rather than discussing the potential implications of the CDC's investigation.

TL;DR Thank you for the post and good info, but this isn't something to just shrug at like other side effects, especially not when we have legal and private sector mandates about having to get vaccinated. The concern is severe even if the cases are mild, especially in light of what we've recently learned.

Further again, if we're remotely suspecting the vaccine of causing this--even setting aside the potential Spike protein correlation which I have yet to see doctors mention and discuss--then why don't we halt vaccination of youths until we know for certain and have the results of investigation peer reviewed? Why aren't we being cautious here? They were cautious about the J&J vaccine when it was suspected of the blood clot issue. They halted it for a week to investigate, so why are't we seeing even that level of caution here?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason why RRR is used in media for public consumption? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that people aren’t generally inclined to do math while reading a news article.

No reason to do math, just report the information itself. It doesn't need to be so involved in common news articles.

ARR can easily be misinterpreted and exploited by a number of interest groups.

As can the RRR. That's neither here nor there. The point is the unilateral focus on RRR over ARR and the manner in which protocols and trials are conducted.

Commentary on the article in the same journal:

“In a Lancet Microbe Comment, Piero Olliaro and colleagues
1 suggest that reporting relative risk reduction (RRR) for vaccination does not reflect entirely its therapeutic performance and consider the solw use of RRR a reporting bias. In addition, they propose that absolute risk reduction (ARR) should be reported as a measure of the vaccine's effectiveness. The authors end up comparing the numbers needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of COVID-19 among the vaccines, which derives from the absolute reductions.
However, this suggestion might have a paradoxical effect in misleading perception of treatment performance.

Hence the reason why I said in that very post you replied to that it's not saying the vaccines are ineffective or useless. I also didn't make that implication when I updated the OP.

Finally, effectiveness—a real-world property—is about clinical decision making, and not to be derived from efficacy studies (randomised controlled studies)...”

"It's about clinical decision making and not derived from efficacy studies". This doesn't make sense to me. By definition "efficacy" means "effectiveness". Why would real-world clinical decision making not be informed by studies which test for the effectiveness of the object of said decision--in this case the Covid vaccines?

We need to emphasize that both are commentaries.

Fair enough. I'll update the OP with this segment and emphasize the commentary aspect.

 

[Abracadabra]

Well if it was a common occurrence then the vaccines would be tantamount to poison. I'd hope people understand this is a rarity, but it's a rarity with sudden influx after approval. Wait, first let me say that I don't mean to sound rude or crass here since I read your post and it sounds like you just want to contribute to the discussion and not sperg out like other posters. Thank you.
Now back to it: The points here seem to be that "it's rare", "it's mild", "it's just another potential side effect like everything has side effects" and so "it's not a real concern" since "benefits outweigh risks"

Spoiler: My response

MILD: On people's repeated emphasis of it being just "mild" myocarditis, I already posted what a "mild" case of myocarditis could mean--several months to half a year away from rigorous physical activity like sports, continued monitoring and testing to see if it improves on its own without leaving weakening or damage to the heart, potentially needing medication, etc. Mild myocarditis is already too much myocarditis.

RARE: Rarity isn't the issue--not to mention that this is a new occurrence (that this is effecting teenagers so much and particularly male kids is something to study) so we don't really know how rare or common it could be yet, since the FDA only gave emergency approval to vaccinate youths recently. Again, it can't be overstated that within a month of that approval we now have this problem. It's something to be investigated, not hand-waved away by regulatory agencies simply because it currently seems to be rare and "mild" and Covid is seen as the great menace.

"BENEFITS OUTWEIGHS RISK": These youths are the absolute least of anyone who need to be vaccinated since they are the furthest from being in the demographic at risk of Covid, and now we're finding that the consequence is an sudden spike in reports of heart inflammation. It's not an emotional ploy, mind you, to consider the grave reality that a kid as young as 13 or 14 now has myocarditis from a vaccine given to them to protect them from a virus they weren't at risk for. If Canada's NACI put out a risk assessment graph for 20yr olds to potentially reconsider getting the vaccine, how much more so 15yr olds or little 12yr olds?

I'd understand if it was just a passing initial heart flutter like some medications (and a lot of foods) can cause, but it's diagnosed heart inflammation we're talking about, and it's being reported in the dozens especially in demographics least at risk. What's more, the idea that the agencies directly necessary for investigating links between the vaccine and this condition are still pushing the vaccines rather than putting it on hold like they did with the J&J vaccine at the outset of blood clot reports is....troubling. The news isn't helping either.

Look at this recent news report as an example:
View attachment 2208953
See what I mean? This isn't even how they handled the J&J situation, but because this may related to the vaccines overall and not one in particular it's a different story, I guess. This entire report is indicative of the "it's not a big deal" mentality. It really just an effort to reassure people there's nothing to worry about and to just get the vaccine, despite the fact that the CDC is still investigating the issue for good reason. I mean just listen to this doctor they had on:
"There are several things that we do, that we let our children do, that are extremely risky, compared to the risk of getting a vaccine--"
Hey retard, we're talking about the Covid vaccine, not vaccines in general. Stop conflating the two.
"--and we still let them do it, such as driving, riding a bike, eating a hotdog at a fair.. [laughs] "
What the hell reasoning is this? Last I checked my 13yr old can't drive and riding a bike isn't gonna inflame my 16yr old's heart, let alone eating a hotdog. This reasoning is fundamentally retarded and meant to retard others' critical thinking in order to allay their concerns.

This is the same reasoning behind the current push by certain agencies to just overlook this subject and continue telling people to get the vaccines. But the concern is valid. The investigation is needed. This isn't something to hand-wave away because of risk-benifit analysis--which doesn't even balance out for the demographic predominantly effected. It's bad enough in adults 40~yrs old but 16 too?
View attachment 2208983

Spoiler: Personal thoughts

Consider also that heart disease is the leading cause of death globally, especially in an obesity-addled country like the USA. There's many who already have a genetic predisposition to heart problems from their family or deity, etc. This kind of thing, however mild, cannot be treated with just a shrug and nod to the existence of medical side effects on a whole.

Heart inflammation from a vaccine without long-term testing is not par for the course, especially not when reported in these numbers and by an experimental vaccine from a niche scientific field (mRNA), we have no long-term testing for, only received emergency approval, etc. etc.

I posted that in the OP

The American Heart Association is a charity that funds research. Their opinion is irrelevant. Only the results of the CDC's investigation and their peer review matter, and that's some ways off for now. This nonprofit and the CDC together do not currently have enough information regarding the potential severity (mild cases can become severe depending on the infection/cause) and long term effects even of just the myocarditis cases, let alone anything else mentioned in the OP. The AHA's "urge" means nothing here.

This is why I posted the news article above, because this redirecting of attention to other causes of myocarditis does no good in discerning the correlation to the vaccine itself. I'm sure you meant to show that the condition isn't unique to the vaccines, which is very true and it's good you mention that but it goes without saying. Most people bringing it up in this case, however, are just redirecting attention away from the vax correlation as if to run defense, rather than discussing the potential implications of the CDC's investigation.

TL;DR Thank you for the post and good info, but this isn't something to just shrug at like other side effects, especially not when we have legal and private sector mandates about having to get vaccinated. The concern is severe even if the cases are mild, especially in light of what we've recently learned.

Further again, if we're remotely suspecting the vaccine of causing this--even setting aside the potential Spike protein correlation which I have yet to see doctors mention and discuss--then why don't we halt vaccination of youths until we know for certain and have the results of investigation peer reviewed? Why aren't we being cautious here? They were cautious about the J&J vaccine when it was suspected of the blood clot issue. They halted it for a week to investigate, so why are't we seeing even that level of caution here?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No reason to do math, just report the information itself. It doesn't need to be so involved in common news articles.

As can the RRR. That's neither here nor there. The point is the unilateral focus on RRR over ARR and the manner in which protocols and trials are conducted.

Hence the reason why I said in that very post you replied to that it's not saying the vaccines are ineffective or useless. I also didn't make that implication when I updated the OP.

"It's about clinical decision making and not derived from efficacy studies". This doesn't make sense to me. By definition "efficacy" means "effectiveness". Why would real-world clinical decision making not be informed by studies which test for the effectiveness of the object of said decision--in this case the Covid vaccines?

Fair enough. I'll update the OP with this segment and emphasize the commentary aspect.

Not rude or crass at all. I welcome any healthy discussion. Thank you for the replies.

I think it’s fine if people are exercising caution with regard to the vaccine. They’re adopting the same mindset that the medical community possesses. The point is we don’t demonize each other for leaning towards certain medical choices.

I do believe the reason that other causes of myocarditis have been brought up is not to outright dismiss any concerns but to contextualize its occurrence. A causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis has not been definitively established. There may be other factors behind it. I believe it’s also to mitigate the possibility that people begin to form extreme ideas about the rate and severity of myocarditis. Again, the important questions are: is the severity of this myocarditis more harmful than the usual cases (from colds, from flu)? Is the rate of myocarditis statistically unusual after receiving the vaccine as opposed to its rate in the population without vaccination?

With regard to the blood clots and suspension of the vaccine, I would guess it’s because there were fatalities.

All medical interventions come with benefits and risks. The medical community can make the most optimal recommendations given the available information, but it’s ultimately up to us to accept or decline. I would hope people do their research, talk to their doctors, and seek out second opinions.

I also think it has to be said that due to the unusual circumstances of the pandemic, these vaccines are being held up to a level of scrutiny that is not typical with other vaccines when they were brought into the market, so there will be a tendency for overcorrection.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

Its a good argument, if that way of manipulating the human body was a problem, we would have known for a long time.

This is peak retardation. Regardless of your stance on the vax "we did it right before therefore you should never be worried about it being fucked up in the future" is literal npc logic.

 

[Abracadabra]

"It's about clinical decision making and not derived from efficacy studies". This doesn't make sense to me. By definition "efficacy" means "effectiveness". Why would real-world clinical decision making not be informed by studies which test for the effectiveness of the object of said decision--in this case the Covid vaccines?

The emphasis on RRR is not exclusive to Covid vaccines. It’s common in public health information.

“Efficacy” and “effectiveness” are medical terms.

“Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in a disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial. It differs from vaccine effectiveness, which measures how well a vaccine works when given to people in the community outside of clinical trials.”

What does vaccine efficacy mean?

Vaccine efficacy measures the percentage reduction of a disease in a clinical trial. Vaccine effectiveness measures how well a vaccine works in the real world.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

The only way to measure effectiveness is to actually release medicine to the public and observe. It cannot be measured in a lab or in clinical trials. Effectiveness is what is being monitored now. Public policy is first made with efficacy in mind, then adjusted accordingly based on effectiveness. I believe we’re seeing that in action.

https://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/Session4_VEfficacy_VEffectiveness.PDF

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

I skipped the vaccine so far. My partner got it. Guess who is bedridden and feels like they're fucking dying after their second shot?

 

[Cliff Booth]

This is going to be exactly the same as the other thread except with actual negrates and god willing, negrate spergouts. Fucking bravo, OP.

 

[EyelessMC]

Explanation of how herd immunity works, how Corona viruses function, the difference between them and influenza and why flu vaccination is more important/useful than trying to make a Coronavirus vaccine (Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, trained in microbiology and infectious disease) :

I skipped the vaccine so far. My partner got it. Guess who is bedridden and feels like they're fucking dying after their second shot?

lol I guess she wouldn't take your "No" for an answer. Well, now you get to say "I told you so" between keeping an eye on her and making her chicken noodle soup. If anything happens, and preferably nothing happens and she just gets over some typical post-vax sniffles, keep us posted!

Not rude or crass at all. I welcome any healthy discussion. Thank you for the replies.

Hey, thank you. Being able to discuss things amicably is like drinking a fresh glass of water.

Spoiler: A BUNCH of replies to Abracadabra

I think it’s fine if people are exercising caution with regard to the vaccine. They’re adopting the same mindset that the medical community possesses.

Certain people of the medical industry, yes, and it is how the industry operates when at its best. You're right. Sadly, the majority seem content to go-along-to-get-along and forego or even obfuscate concern, even from their peers. Only online am I seeing videos like these which voice scientific concern about the Covid vaccines. This one even has a million+ views. However with Silicon Valley's new "Vaccine Hesitancy" algorithm I wonder if such videos will get traction anymore.

Dr. Mike Yeadon is another name few remember (whose video you can find in the OP). He was warning about the Spike protein being dangerous very, very early on. I wonder how things would have been if he was given more consideration and his concerns given study rather than everyone just running in the same direction. Maybe they would have learned what they did about Covid and the Spike protein's inherent danger earlier, and then the vaccines may have been able to be reworked in a way to make them both effective and safer.

But now I'm speculating, since it's stated the pharmaceutical companies already tried to ensure the S proteins of their vaccines wouldn't cause trouble by staying put, and yet now we're seeing not just blood clots but heart inflammation. I just want more scrutiny where it counts and from whom it counts, from doctors and regulatory agencies not just the public. And I want people to be able to decide for themselves with full information, not be brow-beaten into things against their will by uber-vaxers and government mandates.

The point is we don’t demonize each other for leaning towards certain medical choices.

Exactly. We can poke fun but ultimately it's up to each individual to make their decision and voice their reason for it if they see fit.

I do believe the reason that other causes of myocarditis have been brought up is not to outright dismiss any concerns but to contextualize its occurrence.

You have a very optimistic view of it. lol I wish I could share the same, but after seeing the overall lack of discernment in the powers that be I can't. You're right that it should be brought up so people don't think it's some rare new disease burgeoning from the Covid vaccine, and heart health awareness is always good considering it's the leading cause of death in general, but I don't see anyone in the mainstream or in the medical community--aside from the outliers--accepting that the potential correlation warrants concern. If it warrants investigation and study it certainly warrants concern.

A causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis has not been definitively established. There may be other factors behind it.

True. I'm leaning heavy on my suspicion about the S protien of the vaccines until I see some doctors actually address it in relation to this issue and regarding the blood clots, but reasonable suspicion =/= factual answer. We need to be open to scrutinize and accept study results. I just hope the results aren't tainted by special interests or otherwise. The FDA, like the EPA, doesn't exactly have a spotless track record for that.

Again, the important questions are: is the severity of this myocarditis more harmful than the usual cases (from colds, from flu)?

I haven't heard of such an influx of reports regarding myocarditis from any cold or flu in such a short span of time, though. It was authorized less than a month earlier and now the reports are in the dozens.

Is the rate of myocarditis statistically unusual after receiving the vaccine as opposed to its rate in the population without vaccination?

GREAT question and one that better be part of the CDC's sincere investigation.

With regard to the blood clots and suspension of the vaccine, I would guess it’s because there were fatalities.

Fair point, but you see where I'm coming from, right? If we at all think this condition, inflammation of the heart, is correlated to the vaccines then we should pause vaccination, at least in young adults and children, until we get to review the results of the CDC's investigation. We definitely shouldn't have any mandates or massive push to vaccinate either.

All medical interventions come with benefits and risks.

Right, which is why I mentioned the risk analysis of those more endangered by the vaccine than by Covid. No doctor should be hand-waving this aside as a non-issue like that woman in the news report did.

The medical community can make the most optimal recommendations given the available information, but it’s ultimately up to us to accept or decline.

If the mandates weren't in place this last part would be easier.

I would hope people do their research, talk to their doctors, and seek out second opinions.

YES.

I also think it has to be said that due to the unusual circumstances of the pandemic, these vaccines are being held up to a level of scrutiny that is not typical with other vaccines

Actually they are entirely atypical of other vaccines. You can see the first video in the OP for how, and as I mentioned multiple times, the only real scrutiny seems to be coming from rare voices in medicine and the public (half of it). It's almost absent where it matters most--in research and and from regulatory agencies--which is why that commentary publication about the bias formed from emphasizing RRR and how "uncoordinated" the scientific trials are is important since it further shows how little attention and back-and-forth is being done. It's all cheers for the vaccines and that benefits no one.

Well, there's also a lot of partisan hackery going on but that helps no one.

I've been warning about BigPharma's shadiness and the lack of scrutiny since November of last year when I discovered that Pfizer was already shipping vaccines and the government was stockpiling them for use even before the FDA gave emergency authorization, and all this was being done despite Pfizer not at all having published their preliminary study for peer review. There's more info like this in the OP but it's important to recognize just how much has been overlooked and hand-waved as concerns from the start.

The emphasis on RRR is not exclusive to Covid vaccines. It’s common in public health information.

Very true but as I mentioned the Covid vaccines are very unique and we need as much balance and full information as possible about them, particularly because they didn't go through the rigorous testing vaccines normally do. Also with how they're being pushed on the public through various means, "Vax-ed or masked" for instance. Bias and imbalance here also influences legal code, like arrests.

These are arrests of people who went unmasked in certain areas. This kind of thing is directed by government powers which claim authority for the public's health and safety as informed by whatever the experts, studies and reports tell them. Scientific bias is never good, but here it directly effects everything too.

“Efficacy” and “effectiveness” are medical terms.

“Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in a disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial. It differs from vaccine effectiveness, which measures how well a vaccine works when given to people in the community outside of clinical trials.”

What does vaccine efficacy mean?

Vaccine efficacy measures the percentage reduction of a disease in a clinical trial. Vaccine effectiveness measures how well a vaccine works in the real world.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

I see, kind of like how "theory" has a different meaning as a scientific term. Thanks for the clarification!
Even so, the results of one (efficacy) informs the exercise of the other (effectiveness), since if the clinical trials don't provide viable results then they wouldn't continue ahead to real-world application (where we would measure effectiveness).

Still, now I feel silly. Sometimes I forget that the sciences don't just use Latin for particular definitions and concepts.

Public policy is first made with efficacy in mind, then adjusted accordingly based on effectiveness. I believe we’re seeing that in action.

https://www.who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/resources/Session4_VEfficacy_VEffectiveness.PDF

I hope you're right, and that's why we need sincere investigation, study and prudence--both from those with the PhDs and from each of us. Unlike with Flu vaccines there's still too much uncertainty regarding so much of these mRNA vaccines and too much nonsense surrounding the throttling of information about them in favor of just vaccinating everyone, even to the detriment of those least at risk.

Spoiler: personal griping

Yet another reason I hate Trump's idiotic push for Operation Warp Speed. The jackass rushed science just to have a legacy. I'm glad no one is giving him credit for it now regardless of how much he begs for attention on his blog.

 

[Abracadabra]

Hey, thank you. Being able to discuss things amicably is like drinking a fresh glass of water.

No worries. Vigilance is always a good thing, especially when it comes to medical concerns. Whether or not people eventually accept or reject the vaccine should be at their own pace. The massive global push to vaccinate the population is of course driven by a desire to re-open economies as well as rescuing healthcare systems (for instance, hospitals are overwhelmed and fatalities are high among healthcare workers).

Estimated 115,000 health workers have died from COVID-19, says WHO

At least 115,000 health and care workers are estimated to have lost their lives to COVID-19, the chief of the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday.

www.euronews.com

Unfortunately I’m not in the US so I can’t really comment on the vaccine mandates. There aren’t any here so far.

If you’re interested in a deep dive, mRNA has a very fascinating history. I already posted links earlier, but here’s an mRNA study pre-pandemic (2018 ):

“The use of mRNA has several beneficial features over subunit, killed and live attenuated virus, as well as DNA-based vaccines. First, safety: as mRNA is a non-infectious, non-integrating platform, there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis. Additionally, mRNA is degraded by normal cellular processes, and its in vivo half-life can be regulated through the use of various modifications and delivery methods...

Second, efficacy: various modifications make mRNA more stable and highly translatable...

Third, production: mRNA vaccines have the potential for rapid, inexpensive and scalable manufacturing, mainly owing to the high yields of in vitro transcription reactions...”

mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology - Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

mRNA vaccines represent a promising alternative to conventional vaccine approaches, but their application has been hampered by instability and delivery issues. Here, Pardi and colleagues discuss recent advances in mRNA vaccine technology, assess mRNA vaccines currently in development for cancer...

www.nature.com

Also, some idea of why this vaccine was developed so quickly:

“The fastest any vaccine had previously been developed, from viral sampling to approval, was four years, for mumps in the 1960s...

The world was able to develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly because of years of previous research on related viruses and faster ways to manufacture vaccines, enormous funding that allowed firms to run multiple trials in parallel, and regulators moving more quickly than normal. Some of those factors might translate to other vaccine efforts, particularly speedier manufacturing platforms.

But there’s no guarantee. To repeat such rapid success will require similar massive funding for development, which is likely to come only if there is a comparable sense of social and political urgency. It will depend, too, on the nature of the pathogen. With SARS-CoV-2, a virus that mutates relatively slowly and that happens to belong to a well-studied family, scientists might — strange as it sounds — have got lucky.”

The lightning-fast quest for COVID vaccines — and what it means for other diseases

The speedy approach used to tackle SARS-CoV-2 could change the future of vaccine science.

www.nature.com

I’m guessing if you’re throwing billions of dollars at research, that definitely helps speed up the development of medicines.

Some insight into the regulatory process:

“One of the topics discussed at the meeting was whether human trials of vaccines could begin without first completing animal studies.

Animal studies perform a vital risk assessment function, allowing researchers to determine whether products are safe and effective. For obvious reasons they usually precede human trials. Animal studies are of vital importance, but they can also add years to vaccine development timelines.

According to an ICMRA report of the 18 March meeting, while not unanimous, participants generally agreed that some vaccine constructs for which there is adequate knowledge around the technology used and the immune response elicited, may be allowed to proceed to human trials.

However, participants also agreed that where human trials are allowed without prior animal studies, such studies are, in general, expected to be conducted in parallel with human trials, so that the data generated are available prior to enrolling large numbers of human subjects into Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.”

Accelerating regulation in response to COVID-19

article published in August 2020

www.who.int

“Due to the urgent need for a vaccine in a surging pandemic, Pfizer and Moderna were given approval to simultaneously test their vaccines on animals while they were conducting Phase 1 trials on humans. The vaccines were tested on mice and macaques.

“They overlapped preclinical studies with the early phases of the trials,” said Dr. William Moss, executive director for the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins University. “In fact one of the reasons we are even talking about vaccines now just 10 months later is that some of the phases in which vaccine development normally occurs were overlapped rather than done sequentially.”

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:content:9792931264

Animal trials eat up a lot of time. Finally, identifying the pathogenesis of Covid-19 was possible at an accelerated rate because scientists had already been studying SARS and MERS for years:

“These data show that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19–like disease in macaques and provides a new model to test preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model | Science

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

See, I knew you wouldn't actually make an effort to refute OP because getting buttmad and namecalling everyone who responds to your posts with the slightest shred of skepticism and resorting to ad hominems instead is more immediately gratifying.

All according to keikaku, I guess.

I did offer my refutation, but you and schizOP didn't even address my points (the same thing you accused me of doing).

I guess it is true that users with anime avatars are retards

 

[Stoneheart]

From what I’ve read, small RNA is a regulatory mechanism. The worst that can happen with an mRNA vaccine is that the vaccine is rendered ineffective. At best, the interaction is complementary. The trap-mRNA technology that can potentially switch off small RNA is not being used in the current mRNA vaccines.

we dont know how most of the small RNA works, thats a problem. you shouldnt confuse miRNA with all small RNA.

Since there’s much we don’t know about small RNA, it would be interesting to know how it interacts with other medical interventions that we’ve already been using.

Yes. but it will take 20 more years till we know most about the main small RNAs.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

I did offer my refutation, but you and schizOP didn't even address my points (the same thing you accused me of doing).

I guess it is true that users with anime avatars are retards

Take a chill pill, grandpa. Just because you worked in a hospital as a janitor 30 years ago doesn't mean that science hasn't advanced since then. You do know we don't use leeches anymore, right?

 

[Abracadabra]

we dont know how most of the small RNA works, thats a problem. you shouldnt confuse miRNA with all small RNA.

“Small RNAs play a major role in the post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. Though RNAi was initially discovered in nematodes and plants, RNA-mediated regulation is widely found in eukaryotic organisms, and similar small RNA guided regulatory pathways appear to be operative in prokaryotes. Eukaryotic small RNAs play critical roles in regulating gene expression in development, cancer biology, anti-viral defense and chromatin modification.”

The Importance Of Small RNAs | NEB

Small RNAs play a major role in the post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression.

international.neb.com

So far the consensus seems to be that they are regulatory.

“These small RNA molecules connect to and activate protein complexes, most notably the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC). Once bound, they can bind to their target mRNAs and both physically prevent ribosomes from continuing to synthesize the associated protein and mark that mRNA for destruction...

In particular, RNA interference prevents mRNAs from outlasting their need, by disposing of them before they might otherwise naturally degrade.”

What is RNA Interference? | Ask a Scientist

RNAi refers to a phenomenon where small pieces of RNA can shut down protein translation by binding to messenger RNAs that code for those proteins.

www.thermofisher.com

 

[knobslobbin]

 

[EyelessMC]

Gonna be adding this to the OP. Might have to make any future developments of this to the "Government" section rather than the "science" one, though.

[horrific]

"Correlation doesn't equal causation!" "It's only as risky as eating a hotdog or driving!" "Think about others and get the jab to stop the spread!!"
Yet more and more information, both clinical and anecdotal, continually suggests an imperative for greater scrutiny and earnest testing and result reporting. We can't just keep peddling the vaccines and hand-waving away concerns. How else will doctors be able to inform their patients about whether or not it's a good idea to take the Covid vax if the info they need to learn is just brushed aside?

That said, we should be hearing a lot more about this Nevermind.

https://archive.is/S0Zx7

 

[RussianParasite]

Stuff is super scary.

Lol. Kill yourself, pussy.