OT: mRNA Vaccines & Cancer Link Becomes Clearer

I've had all COVID shots and boosters, plus RSV, and am none the worse for it. I have had COVID recently, but it was basically a 4-day cold.

As for the terrible risks from mRNA vaccines, I just read the definitive study of the relative efficacy and risks of traditional egg-based Flu vaccines versus a new mRNA Flu vaccine, which study has almost three million patients, half getting one and half getting the other. The mRNA vaccine is about 10% better than traditional, with lower numbers of adverse reactions.

So mRNA vaccines will not be banned anytime soon. Instead, mRNA (and DNA) vaccines will replace all others for these kinds of viruses.

Joe Gwinn

Cursitor Doom snipped-for-privacy@notformail.com wrote

Yep

Yep.

Just because some silly cow claims something...

What I find interesting, is a Google search on the guys name, allows 19 pages of results to come back. I'm never allowed

19 pages of results in the year 2023. Some days, I get one page of results and that is it.

In the 19 pages, I see absolutely no rebuttal. It appears no one is interested in writing a rebuttal. Or, for some reason, the Google result does not include rebuttals.

I have to do one of these. It only went to 10 pages. No snopes results came back.

snopes Angus Dalgleish

One of the problems with making anecdotal claims, is without a submitted paper to comment on, there's no real interest in just yacking. No one wants to Gish Gallop with the guy.

Once you write a paper, that is accepted into a journal, then... you get feedback. First there is peer review. Then... there is anecdotal commentary and media feedback, once you produce a result of note.

You can write papers which are meta-studies, and use the selected results of a lot of other research, to draw conclusions. Valuable science can be done that way. No soap box needed.

*******

This is an example of an animal study. Notice, that the experimenter does not "jump to any conclusions" nor "run down the street with hair on fire". There are some offhand comments about previous (non-mRNA) vaccines also having interesting side effects.

Now, that's how you do science. And that particular item, is effectively a call to others, to do their own well-designed animal study. The experimenter in that paper, does not have a proposed mechanism. And that's why they did the post-mortem workup, to collect as many useful observations as possible. Others will build on that work (one way or another).

Paul

I already had one

It is irrelevant.

Oh dear oh dear.

Righttarded fruitcake.

No, just a fruitcake.

The problem is that without a scientific education in some depth, the qualifications to distinguish reasonable explanations from conspiracy - most academics are left wing, because the gummint pays their salaries, most career scientists and technologosts are right wing, because they know what works - and the gummint doesn't pay their salaries - what position you take depends ( as my rarely so candid leftard green vegan sister remark 'on which websites you read' (she listens to the BBC and reads the Guardian so she can be well misinformed).

Toss in some Marxist rhetoric against the evil capitalists making money, and you have the Anti-Science anti-Vax movement. It's not right wing. It's not left wing, Its just shit stirring by the people who used to be in the Communist party.

De-stabilisation is what its called. Destroying a democracy from within by telling tales about its government.

The tragedy is that many of them (but not all) are in fact *true*.

E.g the gummint aren't injecting mind control chips into your brain with Covid vaccines, they don't need to. They have the BBC and the Guardian for all that. They are however lying to you about climate change, immigration, economics, renewable energy and net zero, and in general anything they take a political stance on.

If you think about it, if a political party said 'elect us and we will fix this serious problem ' and you did, *and they did*, what reason would they have to exist any more?

Look at UKIP...

I got as far as this:

"First the ‘vaccine’ did not stay at the site of injection as promised but travelled throughout the body and were found at post-mortems to be everywhere. "

Nobody promised that the vaccines would stay at the point of injection. How could they work if they did that?

If that is the standard of this guy's pseudo-scientific work, you can see why nobody reputable would publish his 2020 paper, which he claims was suppressed.

If they demonstrated competence in solving the problem, then they'd have demonstrated that they would likely be competent to solve other problems and therefore be eminently re-electable. The trouble is none of the parties shows any competence and even where they do start to work on a problem, the end point is so far down the line that the next government cancels the work on it or takes the credit for the result.

Google Conservative Woman and this description of the site pops up:

'We advocate for conservatism, the only rational response to modern day problems; we challenge leftism wherever it lurks and threatens our liberty.'

I think most people would see that as a statement that the site supports right wing views.

Do you never tire of typing strident cobblers?

What does that matter? There are people on the Left who are equally concerned about the vaccines. I recall Dave Plowman being equally dismissive and contemptuous before the clot-shot killed him a short time later.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. One of the better known errors of reasoning.

Jeroen Belleman

I agree that there are nutters everywhere, but the point being discussed was political leanings of that particular site.

Amen to all that.

Which is why the hidden secret state of corrupt Whitehall and Brussels mandarins got all the power and the politicians merely were allowed to sell what *they* decided to do as best they could.

The best government is the least government that can maintain law and order. Today's government is the most government the taxpayer can stand without riots in the streets, and f*ck law and order.

I don't answer leading questions. When did you stop f****ng your pet rabbit?

(shades of Simply Red's 'Bunny's too tight to mention' @

)

Is plowcunt dead? I had him killfiled so I never noticed. And how did you know what he died of?

It was the prostate cancer that killed him, not the vaccination.

Wrong as ever, my antipodean friend. Bowel cancer actually - which had been successfully treated until he had his covid jab. Flared up again shortly after. Poor bastard.

Er, no. What was being discussed was the emerging link between mRNA vaccines and cancer (see the subject line!) It was you and "Steve" who as usual were attempting your usual Marxist tactic of diverting the thread into something completely different.