Started By
Message

re: Emergency approval for the vaccine in children ages 5 to 11 could be ready in weeks

Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:23 am to
Posted by Earnest_P
Member since Aug 2021
3639 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:23 am to
quote:

However, instances of this claim, as seen in the TrialSite News article, tend to omit the table containing the data for the liver and injection site, instead drawing attention only to the data for the ovaries. The peak concentration in the ovaries, occurring at 48 hours post-injection, was just 0.095% of the administered dose (see Table


So it’s in ovaries at a lower concentration than found in the liver and at the injection site. What does that mean? It certainly doesn’t logically remove concerns that it could damage the ovaries.
This post was edited on 9/13/21 at 10:24 am
Posted by 13SaintTiger
Isle of Capri
Member since Sep 2011
18315 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:24 am to
quote:

I also think its funny that the poster asked for a comparison of flu deaths and posters got mad at the lack of flu deaths.



Are you this disingenuous in real life? Your stats weren’t comparable, and this response by you doubles down on ignorance.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83694 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:25 am to
quote:

but you were pretending to be some type of martyr in this thread.


what? why are y'all so dramatic all the time?

the guy I responded to said parents considering getting their kids vaccinated would send their kids to pedo island and you were all like "nobody is shaming you"

Posted by ell_13
Member since Apr 2013
85309 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:26 am to
quote:

It certainly doesn’t logically remove concerns that it could damage the ovaries.
No one has said what is so damaging if at all.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83694 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:27 am to
quote:

So it’s in ovaries at a lower concentration than found in the liver and at the injection site. What does that mean? It certainly doesn’t logically remove concerns that it could damage the ovaries.


its mean that the levels were 12x greater in the liver and there was no toxicity measured or damage found in the liver

so why be concerned with the ovaries?
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83694 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:28 am to
quote:

Are you this disingenuous in real life? Your stats weren’t comparable, and this response by you doubles down on ignorance.


you could divide by 3 if you like

guess what? flu deaths would still be statistically irrelevant in kids
Posted by 13SaintTiger
Isle of Capri
Member since Sep 2011
18315 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:28 am to
quote:

flu shots are normal vaccines kids get before going to school if it's about "0% chance of dying" then?


Flu shots aren’t mandatory for kids. I never received a flu shot until I was an adult
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
263293 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:29 am to
Jesus...

I wasn't really a vaccine conspiracy theorist, but watch what happens to kids who aren't vaccinated very soon.

Posted by ell_13
Member since Apr 2013
85309 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:29 am to
I don’t believe the numbers were counted equally. A Flu death is not equal to a Covid death based on the CDC classification.
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
35190 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:29 am to
quote:

Are you saying the current chances of my child contracting Ebola or Zika are roughly equivalent to catching Covid?


Dying from it...not a whole lot of difference. It is a statistical improbability.

The goal posts are firm.

Lets be honest though, if CNN ran a story about Zika making a “come back,” you have idiots that would jab their kids.
Posted by GreenRockTiger
vortex to the whirlpool of despair
Member since Jun 2020
43428 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:30 am to
quote:

so why be concerned with the ovaries?


The liver is known to be resilient, not sure about ovaries
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83694 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:30 am to
quote:

I don’t believe the numbers were counted equally. A Flu death is not equal to a Covid death based on the CDC classification.



my entire point was that flu deaths in children are wildly overstated, just like with COVID

apparently that wasn't obvious enough though
Posted by DarkDrifter
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2011
2948 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:31 am to
Yeah, not giving this shite to my kids plain and simple..
Posted by 13SaintTiger
Isle of Capri
Member since Sep 2011
18315 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:31 am to
quote:

you could divide by 3 if you like



So why don’t you even attempt to have a little integrity with irrelevant data you pulled, knowing it wasn’t comparable?

quote:

flu deaths would still be statistically irrelevant in kids


As are covid deaths. Kids aren’t required to get a flu vaccine
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
35190 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:31 am to
quote:

guess what? flu deaths would still be statistically irrelevant in kids


The same can be said for Covid.

You just blew up your own argument.
Posted by WDE24
Member since Oct 2010
54193 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:32 am to
quote:

What does that mean?
First, it’s important to note that the lnp dose given to the rats was 18-35 times higher than that in the human vaccine.

quote:

The human vaccine contains […] basically ~0.46 mg lipids or 460 µg. Let’s just round it up to 500 µg (0.5 mg). That’s approximately 10x the dose given to the rats. However, for the typical ‘70 kg’ male, 0.5 mg represents a per-weight dose of 0.0071 mg/kg, or 7.1 µg/kg. Let’s compare to the rats, which generally weigh around 200 g (0.2 kg), give or take, at 8 weeks, which is the usual age rodents are used for experiments. That would translate to a per-weight dose of ~250 µg/kg. Even if you used much older rats, who can weigh as much as twice as much, that would still translate to a dose of 125 µg/kg. So we’re looking at a lipid nanoparticle [dose] of ~18-35 times higher (as a rough estimate) than the typical adult human dose.”


Second…

quote:

There isn’t evidence showing that COVID-19 RNA vaccines are causing fertility problems. Notably, some participants in the clinical trials for COVID-19 RNA vaccines became pregnant during the trial. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee that reviews the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines published briefing documents that detailed the outcomes in pregnant trial participants. For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the briefing document stated: “Twenty-three pregnancies were reported through the data cut-off date of November 14, 2020 (12 vaccine, 11 placebo). […] Unsolicited [adverse events] related to pregnancy include spontaneous abortion and retained products of conception, both in the placebo group.” For the Moderna vaccine, the briefing document stated: “Thirteen pregnancies were reported through December 2, 2020 (6 vaccine, 7 placebo). […] Unsolicited [adverse events] related to pregnancy include a case of spontaneous abortion and a case of elective abortion, both in the placebo group.” As the above shows, adverse events related to pregnancy for both trials occurred only in the group that didn’t receive the RNA vaccine. That being said, these numbers are too small to provide any meaningful information about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women. For this reason, researchers are conducting clinical trials specifically to address the question of the vaccines’ safety and efficacy in pregnant women. Since pregnant women are more likely to develop severe COVID-19 and complications and the existing data doesn’t indicate that safety concerns in pregnant women are likely, both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that pregnant women should be given access to COVID-19 vaccines, if they wish to be vaccinated.
There doesn’t appear to be any concerns for women of child bearing years, but more robust info is being collected and analyzed a The incidence of pregnancies during the initial trials wasn’t sufficiently high enough to have much statistical relevance.

The fear that the extremely small level of lnp in the ovaries 48 hrs after injection of kids could lead to fertility issues years later has no basis in science. It’s complete fear mongering.
Posted by ell_13
Member since Apr 2013
85309 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:32 am to
I get that. I’m only saying comparing the numbers needs more context and saying 3x more than the other when there are known differences isn’t useful to your argument with that context.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83694 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:32 am to
quote:

So why don’t you even attempt to have a little integrity with irrelevant data you pulled, knowing it wasn’t comparable?



I included the quote about averages to provide more context

quote:

As are covid deaths.


Yeah. I know.

quote:

Kids aren’t required to get a flu vaccine


I know.

Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83694 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:33 am to
quote:

The same can be said for Covid.

You just blew up your own argument.


you fricking retards

quote:

my entire point was that flu deaths in children are wildly overstated, just like with COVID

apparently that wasn't obvious enough though


I've never once argued that COVID deaths in children were an issue

This post was edited on 9/13/21 at 10:34 am
Posted by Cajunhawk81
Member since Jan 2021
2511 posts
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:34 am to
Big mad.
Jump to page
Page First 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 9 of 18Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram