“the risks don’t outweigh the benefits for those under 18”
Is that the main point?
So everyone else should probably get it according to him. There should just be more public access to the risks.
But… If your believe what he’s saying to be true… Then you’re getting the vaccine (I’m assuming you’re over 18?)… Or already have I guess? If you believe in your source?
Nah, religious beliefs and all that.
Ah yes… Religion 
Done a lot of good for society and science from what I’ve heard.
Glad you think my religious beliefs are funny, I’m excited to see how it all plays out. Seems weird that somehow I never managed to catch “the most infectious disease in human history” despite not following any of the “guidance” associated with it.
Maybe I’m superhuman, or maybe God is protecting me.
Hey, I can hardly argue what your skydaddy tells you is right, I lack a certain divine confidence that I used to hold dear.
I do my best to stay on top of the literature. Thanks for the share.
Hope my ribbing wasn’t grossly offensive, glad you’re healthy! Hopefully we all stay that way and these delta variants (or whatever issues these vaccines are apparently going to create) don’t kick this can down the road for eternity.
No worries bud, I don’t take the word of internet strangers to heart. It’s all love 
We don’t conduct science via infographics. But we could review each one of those 31 RCT studies if we wanted to and see if the study methods seem rigorous enough to draw strong conclusions from. That site is obviously biased and therefore probably promotes mostly studies that found positive effects while ignoring ones that did not find effects or found negative effects (to be fair, they do cite a few studies that don’t support the hypothesis that Ivermectin is a good treatment). And like I said, none of those studies appear to be conducted at institutions that have a well known track record for publishing carefully designed and rigorous studies.
Fortunately there is one treatment that is highly effective for COViD-19 with very low risk side effects, and that is any of the vaccines that are currently available. I’ll share those publications in a separate post here.
Well, since none of us here read Japanese, the study you cited isn’t particularly useful to any of us. We will just have to listen to some podcast of somebody reading the runes and telling us what to believe I suppose.
It seems reasonable that parts of the lipid nanoparticles could drift around the body. Not sure how that was studied, but perhaps through radio-labeled lipid nanoparticles injected into animals that were later detected in tissue post-mortem. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the mRNA was delivered to cells beyond the arm in any significant quantity.
With that said, I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to hypothesize that some of the vaccine could get delivered, via the blood, to other parts of the body. In fact this could be tested for. You could do this in an animal study by injecting the vaccine into the muscle, and then taking tissue samples from different parts of the body and doing a Western blot assay to detect the presence of the spike protein (that is created by the mRNA) in the different body tissues. I wouldn’t be surprised if this experiment has already been done, I just don’t know of any examples.
Here is the original study regarding safety and efficacy of the Moderna vaccine, (15,000 volunteers for each group of placebo or vaccine):
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
Here is the original study regarding safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine (21,000+ subjects per group):
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
I think that’s what the study was studying. But my Japanese isn’t great.
Just analyze the data? My understanding is that it’s a peer-reviewed study, so it should be valid data.
Are you kidding? If that’s not written in Japanese it might as well be in Swahili!
For reals though, data looks legible
I guess the takeaway from this is still… Vaccines are more than likely safer than no vaccines?
Only if you have a genetic predisposition that would make you more likely to contract or die from the virus, or if you have an average of 4 co-morbidities.
Overall, being generally healthy is safer than the vaccine.
Yes, but it seems pretty obvious that increased spread = increased mutations. And increased mutations increases the likelihood of this being a forever problem with a decent chance of much deadlier and quicker spread.
“Being healthy” isn’t an option for those with many pre-existing comorbidities.
Now you’re just saying their lives aren’t worth as much.
That’s an assumption. There is still the possibility the vaccine does more good than you think. Just like people make the assumption it is bad, there is similar possibility for it to be good. 
You have no real data to support either side more than your gut feeling.
I’m gonna go ahead and point out that everything anyone says here is an opinion without supporting data, lol.
This isn’t true, I just have the opinion that people should serve out their natural lifespan and then move on. I personally think that every life is of equal value, however nature doesn’t share my sympathies.
Yup, and it’s a polarizing topic, doesnt help that half the peeps dont want to even look at the potential they are wrong and the other side is right because they let uncle Sam injected them with god knows what.
Well I can certainly read THOSE data. Interesting findings and it looks like they did do it via radio-labeling. I actually find this very interesting since it’s actually the radio-labeled mRNA itself.
It’s good that they collected the data, but it’s difficult to interpret what this may mean. Is it necessarily a bad thing that it spreads through the body in very low concentrations? Are there toxic effects that are a consequence of this? Perhaps this could explain why a certain (low) percentage of people got swollen lymphnodes in some of the clinical trials?
This does make me think that there is data on whether or not the mRNA was translated into protein at the off-target sites (using Western blot analysis like I suggested). Again, it’s hard to say if that actually is toxic or not without additional studies. Most of these effects are probably transient, we know that the mRNA and proteins made by it only last so long, I would imagine the lipid nanoparticles are metabolized after some period of time too.
Problem is it doesn’t seem to work against the variants or mutations.
However, it seems that people with natural antibodies have a higher rate of protection against the variants. People say that getting every human vaccinated will prevent mutations, this is an opinion, and could very well be wrong via the virus jumping back to animals to mutate.
Now we also know that the spike proteins cause damage everywhere they are, and we also know that the vaccine gets into tissues all over the body, creating spike proteins. Seems to me that natural immunity is then by default more effective than vaccine immunity. Especially when natural antibodies aren’t causing blood clots or heart inflammation like the vaccine is.
