- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 WDE24
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:23 am to WDE24
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:24 am to Salmon
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:25 am to Klark Kent
quote:
but you were pretending to be some type of martyr in this thread.
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:26 am to Earnest_P
quote:No one has said what is so damaging if at all.
It certainly doesn’t logically remove concerns that it could damage the ovaries.
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:27 am to Earnest_P
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:28 am to 13SaintTiger
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:28 am to shel311
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:29 am to stout
Jesus...
I wasn't really a vaccine conspiracy theorist, but watch what happens to kids who aren't vaccinated very soon.
I wasn't really a vaccine conspiracy theorist, but watch what happens to kids who aren't vaccinated very soon.
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:29 am to Salmon
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:29 am to WDE24
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:30 am to Salmon
quote:
so why be concerned with the ovaries?
The liver is known to be resilient, not sure about ovaries
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/icons/shrug.gif)
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:30 am to ell_13
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:31 am to stout
Yeah, not giving this shite to my kids plain and simple..
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:31 am to Salmon
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:31 am to Salmon
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:32 am to Earnest_P
quote: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.
What does that mean?
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 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.
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.
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:32 am to Salmon
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 on 9/13/21 at 10:32 am to 13SaintTiger
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
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/icons/shrug.gif)
quote:
As are covid deaths.
Yeah. I know.
quote:
Kids aren’t required to get a flu vaccine
I know.
Posted on 9/13/21 at 10:33 am to jimmy the leg
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
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)