- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:24 pm to N2cars
quote:Yeah, but you didn’t say please…
::crickets:
Just like always.
Allow me to retort.
I’m out of town visiting my youngest daughter who, after a complicated, dangerous, even life threatening pregnancy, is going to birth our tenth grandchild. (BTW TD prayer warriors this is testimony to y’all’s prayers and God’s goodness)I’ve just finished a lovely family meal and am enjoying a glass of wine.
So you will excuse me if your gotcha posts weren’t sufficiently scathing or important to warrant an urgent reply defending myself in the fifteen minutes you allowed.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your tone, but you’re coming across as something of a jackass. I apologize if I’m reading you wrong.
Read what I wrote again. My comment offered no data nor cited any study and was based solely on personal experience. It didn’t even include several men I know that are in the same situation as the women I mentioned.
Nevertheless, because you asked:
LINK
quote:
. Abstract
The oncogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothetically proposed, but real-world data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination are insufficient. Therefore, this large-scale population-based retrospective study in Seoul, South Korea, aimed to estimate the cumulative incidences and subsequent risks of overall cancers 1 year after COVID-19 vaccination. Data from 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023 were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance database. The participants were categorized into two groups based on their COVID-19 vaccination status. The risks for overall cancer were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and data were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The HRs of thyroid (HR, 1.351; 95% CI, 1.206–1.514), gastric (HR, 1.335; 95% CI, 1.130–1.576), colorectal (HR, 1.283; 95% CI, 1.122–1.468), lung (HR, 1.533; 95% CI, 1.254–1.874), breast (HR, 1.197; 95% CI, 1.069–1.340), and prostate (HR, 1.687; 95% CI, 1.348–2.111) cancers significantly increased at 1 year post-vaccination. In terms of vaccine type, cDNA vaccines were associated with the increased risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers; mRNA vaccines were linked to the increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers; and heterologous vaccination was related to the increased risks of thyroid and breast cancers. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:33 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
I'm not sure I understand this logic. "The people who work on cancer and vaccines can't be trusted to give us information on cancer and vaccines." So who do we listen to? Our cousin who works at the plants and posts about the vaccines on Facebook?
When government is controlling the grants, and withholding them for those who come to the disapproved conclusions, it’s hard to trust anyone.
Look at what happened to the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration. The government financiers hounded them out of the mainstream discussion. So I would answer, “You should tend to trust the people government is defunding.”
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:40 pm to Tifway419
quote:That doesn't make the arguments in it invalid. If the research is good, the money should keep flowing.
The article is clearly a lobbying effort to keep the money coming in for their research efforts.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 8:58 pm to N2cars
Post hoc analysis of historical data collected for other reasons and not a closed or controlled study yet. The sampled data was fairly small in those who had the injection (far more included in analysis without the shot). These can be helpful especially in conjunction with actual closed or controlled studies, but by themselves and with smaller and varying sample sizes can end up being more about the ones the finally chose to compare.
The best thing about this analysis is that it has spurred a phase III clinical trial to test it in a more controlled environment that will setup to test this from start.
The best thing about this analysis is that it has spurred a phase III clinical trial to test it in a more controlled environment that will setup to test this from start.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:05 pm to dallastigers
How about you do it?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:12 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
I simply asked for data that backed up your andectol experience.
Usually, people here don't bother posting a response with any meaningful data
You posted something.
I pray that everything thing goes well,for you, and your future grandchild.
Usually, people here don't bother posting a response with any meaningful data
You posted something.
I pray that everything thing goes well,for you, and your future grandchild.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:21 pm to N2cars
quote:
How about you do it?
Do what?
The post hoc analysis? That’s done and the basis of the WSJ article.
The Phase III trial? That has been set up due to this post hoc analysis.
quote:
MD Anderson Research News October 19, 2025
*Cancer patients who received mRNA COVID vaccines within 100 days of starting immunotherapy were twice as likely to be alive three years after treatment as those who never received a vaccine
*These findings have prompted a randomized Phase III trial to determine if mRNA COVID vaccines should be part of the standard of care for this type of therapy
*If validated, findings could significantly increase the number of patients who benefit from immunotherapy
https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/-esmo-2025--mrna-based-covid-vaccines-generate-improved-response.h00-159780390.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09655-y
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:46 pm to N2cars
quote:
I pray that everything thing goes well,for you, and your future grandchild.
Thank you very much for your prayers and good wishes. We appreciate them a great deal.
It was a worrisome affair with our daughter in KC and us in BR and my being unable to travel until my liver/gallbladder issues were resolved by two surgeries.
Our granddaughter’s birthday is the tenth and her brother will be delivered a few days later.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 9:52 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
We are all fighting a battle. Sometimes, it is easy to forget that in our posting.
Sounds like a great birthday celebration forthcoming.
Sounds like a great birthday celebration forthcoming.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 5:35 am to Tarps99
This is good news and we should take a win when we can get one.
However, this also shows that the mRNA covid vaccine demonstrates a powerful off-target effect.
In this case, the off-target effect is beneficial, but are there other powerful off-target effects that are not beneficial?
However, this also shows that the mRNA covid vaccine demonstrates a powerful off-target effect.
In this case, the off-target effect is beneficial, but are there other powerful off-target effects that are not beneficial?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 6:03 am to The Boat
quote:
Its remarkable. Cancer deaths have dropped to 0 for people taking the China Virus shot. Because they die from the shot instead.
Not to mention the number of turbo cancer deaths we've seen post shot.
But people still think Covid was real despite only 1100 flu deaths that year compared to the average 20 million or so.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 6:26 am to TaderSalad
quote:
But people still think Covid was real despite only 1100 flu deaths that year compared to the average 20 million or so.
First, when was the last year (not even average) that influenza killed 20 million people? That is approaching 1918 numbers worldwide.
Your 21-22 season number is about 1/6th of influenza deaths in the US but even so why would you not expect the influenza infections and deaths to decrease precipitously when the world was taking precautions against another airborne respiratory infection?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 7:50 am to N2cars
quote:
Does the actual data sound biased to you?
Statistics can be framed, manipulated and outright fabricated to drive an agenda. Medical trials are notoriously famous for being rigged and framed to show exactly what those leading it intended it to. Hence the point of not believing anything from media particularly pertaining to politics or medical trials. The covid vaccine stopped the spread remember? We do
Posted on 11/7/25 at 6:59 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
so why would you not expect the influenza infections and deaths to decrease precipitously when the world was taking precautions against another airborne respiratory infection?
Are you implying it was expected for influenza deaths to decrease almost to nil compared to covid-19 deaths for 2020-2021?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 7:24 pm to gmac8604
quote:
Are you implying it was expected for influenza deaths to decrease almost to nil compared to covid-19 deaths for 2020-2021?
First, let's deal with his crazy numbers. The number of deaths from flu in the US ranged from 12,000 to 52,000 annually from 2010 through 2020 a far cry from his 20 million number. Deaths in the 2021-2022 season was 6300. So while over half a low normal year to 12% of a high year it is not close to "nil".
My point is, when most people are taking some level of precaution against an airborne respiratory virus, it is not unusual but rather fully expected that the number of deaths from another airborne respiratory virus (influenza) would go down significantly.
What I am pointing out is purely logical, it is what anyone with a brain would expect to have happened. The poster I replied to instead used 20 million dead as a benchmark something that hasn't come close to happening even worldwide in over 100 years. Either he was lying or he has zero perspective on what he was talking about.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News