/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14585890
So that's why my wife got pregnant on our second try after we were both fully vaccinated

i had no libido for a few days after both of my covid vaccination doses, which might be related
i got it back very quickly afterwards though
it’s just a temporary thing

After I got the Pfizer jab, my ejaculate was completely discolored and tasteless. It literally looked and taster like precum. Luckily my sex parts recovered within 4 months and now my cum looks and tastes normal again.

>>14585890
inb4 scicucks say this is okay because it is supposedly temporary

no. getting blindsided by this is not safe and effective. its literal luck that it might be temporary. science needs to be fucking stopped.

>>14585993
It might be temporary, I see no results past 200 days.
Plus there's no data on the boosters, maybe increased and prolonged exposure to the vaccine will allow the body to adapt and normalise fertility.

study here:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/andr.13209

>>14585906
Let’s wait for him to grow up first, anon

>>14585890
wow what a coincidence, it's almost like this was exactly what people like me said would happen when the shills and mouth breathers here tried to strawman people like me with "mass die offs" trying to make us sound unhinged. Oh well just a coinki dink I am sure

>>14585906
I thought maybe she's cheating, but I guess the vaccine would reduce her semen, too...

should we tell him? >>14585906

triple dosed rational adult and decent human being here

even if this were true, we need to be having less kids to combat climate change, stop being selfish, get vaxxed. take public transport. have less kids.

for once in your life do what the people far smarter than you are telling you to do

>>14586079
This

>>14586079
quality reddit bait
8.5/10

>>14586079
I am the person that is far smarter than you and I am glad you did what you were told. We do need less people like you

>>14586079
I think your being indifferent because the truth is scary and requires standing up to it

>>14586072
just to be clear, I was telling people about this YEARS before covid and have the posts in the archives to prove it, if you want to find them search for this filename

>>14586094
and this one

>>14585890
I still like how you idiots think the virus is completely safe and the vaccine is dangerous.

That's why so many of you died.

>>14586103
>That's why so many of you died.
Who?

>>14585890
>Corresponding Author
>Itai Gat, Sperm Bank & Andrology Unit, IVF Department, Shamir Medical Center, Israel
>willing to blindly trust jews when what they're saying is convenient for you

>>14586086
*fewer

>>14586079
>stop being selfish

why?

>>14585890
the government and the companies that leveraged exceptional pressure against people to get it are going to be legally and financially liable, right guys?

>>14585890
What the vax can do, Covid will do a worst version of it. Covid can affect sperm quality for months, we've known this for a year.

And like always you'd be surprised how many things can have all kinds of physiological effects. The flu and even the common cold can have a negative effect on sperm quality.

>>14586074
Holy kek, undrrated

>>14585906

>>14586122
only if the people do something about it.

But, think of it this way, do you feel any sort of ethical or moral responsibility to participate in civil society if they arnt?

Will you ever feel confidant entering a medical establishment?
Will you ever feel confidant speaking up, when they just financially ban anyone that speaks out?
Will the holocaust be respected if this part of nurenburg isn't fortified?
Will you tolerate paying 4 hours worth of labour a week to eat bugs, when you can get a whole Cow with simply wood, stone and twine?

Like seriously, its a win-win. We either get civil society and a decentralized knowledge renaissance, or a return to monke wilderness epic

>>14586139
Bullshit when you get the virus naturally its only a few molecules. Instead of injecting yourself with billions into your cells. Absolutely potato brained.

>>14586159
have they been able to prove the existence of this virus in a court of law yet

last time I checked, the test kits and injections are based of a copy paste upload to genbank by a communist government.

>>14586165
I honestly don't know, but I didn't take the Vax, I didn't wear a mask.

>>14585890
I have an anecdote for this. Had sperm storage a long time ago before a medical treatment that had potential infertility as a side effects, recently had my fertility checked to see if the treatment had an effect, I also got double vaxxed a year ago. My fertility is fine, everything's normal. Basically, this is bullshit. I'm truly sorry that every vaxx prediction is bullshit I'd have gone insane by now if I was this desperate to convince myself that the vaccine was dangerous.

>>14585890
they have this data broken down by batch #?

>>14585890
Covid is way worse for the same thing. Weird you guys never mention that. Almost like you have an agenda. Funny, that.

>>14586097
It's bad enough here, but I failed to convince any of my family that there was more going on...
My only hope is that some of the natural healers are right about the capacity to heal dna with the right energy frequencies

>>14586200
Well you're the ones getting paid.

>temporary impair semen concentration
>Its now official, vaxxiss have been chemically sterilized, they are eunuchs
>temporary
op I know you are grasping at straws to prove your dooms day hypothesis that covid vaccine is going to make people infertile. But doesn't this make sense? When I got my vaccine I felt sick for a couple days. If I had to guess when you are sick you produce less sperm. But stleast read the tweet and study before saying everyone is infertile.

>>14586232
its called front running the pre programming. after several times of being exposed to the

"we'll never do x" -> "well x may actually be neccessary" -> "we need to do x" -> "everyone who isnt x is a criminal"

schtick it backfires, as people front run, and because its uncertain how many times their going to let people down softely, they assume the worst

>>14586246
>its all preprogramming
You know studies are done by individuals. You think all the people in the study are working for the cabal deep state? You can see the names of its creators on the top. You can even email them. They probably get paid like shit too.

>>14586342
gaslight, i never said its all preprogramming or that all people in the study are working for some cabal deep state.

Rational actors though, after seeing the 99% effective collapse, we wont need more than 1 booster to get our lives back collapse, we'll never vaxport society and the myraid of others all take this turn collapse, form expectations based on prior behaviour. So, for example, If they are running a news to stock market trading bot, they will price in not just this post, but the linguistics of what they expect the nexts posts to be.

>>14586079
Low tier bait
>captcha: V4X TK
>it’s over

>>14586062
>maybe increased and prolonged exposure to the vaccine will allow the body to adapt and normalise fertility.

Why the fuck do we need to adapt to vaccines we literally don't fucking need anyway? Shouldn't we maybe try to create vaccines that don't tank sperm count, or maybe not give them to people?

>>14586172
>I took an unsafe vaccine a year ago and I'm fine so far, that means everyone else should take it too
Absolutely braindead

>>14585906
You wife's future son is black and you know it.

>>14586079
>>14586079
>>14586079
I
LOVE
ISRAEL
MY
FELLOW
JEWISH

>>14586084
>>14586084
>>14586084
HE
THINKS
THAT IT'S B8, WEW

>>14585890
are you b00sted? get b00sted. why u not b00sted? hurrrr dduuurr b00000st b0000st. 35 y/o b000ster.

>>14586403
We need it because the long term risks of Covid - such as Long Covid - are utterly unknown, but meanwhile we have a safe and effective vaccine that lowers your risk.
Of course we need it.

>>14586460
It's psychosomatic

>>14586207
well it is what it is, the idiots in this world go from storm to storm never having any idea why water is falling on them. There is nothing you can do for them. If it is what we suspect then it good for humanity t b h that we sterilize the cucks that were stupid enough to get it

>>14585890
Well, Bill DID say he was looking into ways to tackle overpopulation.

>>14586159
>viral infection
>a few molecues
pick one

>>14586232
you have no penis, you picked having a fake vaccine for a nonexistent viral epidemic over having a penis

>>14586580
I have a penis

>>14585890
Funny, I actually saw a lot of studies claiming the exact opposite, that sperm concentrations and motility went up after vaccination.
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2781360

>>14586617
Its hard to study. Sperm concentration varies shit tons. How hot your shower how stressed you are etc. You need a very large sample size to get statistical significant measurement

>>14585890
It's not even that big of a deal and/or the virus makes you even more sterile

>>14585906
Same and we aborted it

>>14586103
this kek
Like how they say the vaccine causes 1000 side effects but the disease itself has 0

>>14586646
> You need a very large sample size to get statistical significant measurement
Good thing the study has a yuge sample of 37

>>14586210
>Has no argument but "Shill!"
Yes, everyone smarter than you is a shill. Explains everything.

Anybody want to guess the fertility effects of... the flu?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435575/
Oh look, fevers.
>Immune response includes fever
>Fever is why there's a dip in sperm quality
I cannot even begin attempting to explain just how absolutely "ow my balls" crayon lovingly smoothbrain retarded you people are. >>14585890

Let's compare:
>Fevers cause temporary impairment of sperm
>Things that can cause fevers include vaccines and the common cold
Meanwhile you galaxy brains are here proving that boot camp Marine recruits debating whether the yellow crayon tastes like an extinct banana variety (that isn't extinct, by the way) are the sharper balls in the play pit compared to JUST how fucking stupid you are.
>Invent conspiracy theory to explain it instead
>Believe uncritically a screencap of a fucking tweet
>Don't even read the source
>Zero knowledge of even the effects of the common cold
>Never think to google the effects of infections or fever
>Use no search engine or any attempt to learn more
I'd compare you people to young earth creationists but at least the creationists PRETEND to read sometimes. You people make me think Kent Hovind is the bastion of intellectual honesty by comparison. That is just HOW FUCKING STUPID you are.

>>14586712
See
>>14586062

>>14586103
We're going to see the flynn effect go crazy as the dumbest people on Earth finally fucking die off and prove voluntary eugenics was the solution we needed all along.

I can see the ads now. "Get the sperm from our best and brightest or they'll turn out to be billy bob antivaxxer who does his own research by reading the toilet stall graffiti". Women will flock to better alternatives.

>>14586720
Why are so many Phds against vaccination?

le sample size of 37 btw

>>14586731
proof?

>>14586731
Lots of people get Phds, some rando on twitter with a Phd means nothing

>>14586731
Do we have a reliable percentage on that? Would put things into perspective, if reasonings are also given, and what they *specifically* are against (the vaccine in general? certain policies connected with the vaccine?).

>>14586717
Neat, so, corroborates what I said.
>Interestingly, Mohamed Abdelhamid et al have recently suggested that fever from SARS-CoV-2 virus infection induces a reversible negative effect on the semen parameters until one cycle (74 days) of spermatogenesis 29. The current study supports that notion not only regarding the febrile systemic response which impairs spermatogenesis but also on the timing and duration of these alternations. Focusing on long-term follow up, Abdelhamid et al emphasized illness-related testicular damage which extends beyond patient’s recovery. Consequently, they suggested to add that adverse effect to the list of long-term post-COVID-19 syndromes29 . 30 . On the contrary, our findings demonstrate long term recovery after vaccination.

Not sure why Mohamed reached the insane conclusion that fever induced reduction would be permanent. For a researcher that's fucking weird to be that sloppy.

Though the study you link does some really fucky things. Perhaps I missed it, but it does not appear to account for considerable dropoff rates, and continuously changes between relative vs absolute measurements. On the whole it concludes that it is temporary, as by T0-T3 comparison sperm has almost returned to T0 baseline. Yet it fails to present the medical range of what that baseline typically is, and presents a very misleading image to the layman about its potential accuracy as a result.

I have all kinds of issues with that paper and the one cited, but you could be slamming your head on your keyboard and demonstrate "Duh fever duh temporary durrrrr" so whatever.

>>14586731
OH I LOVE THIS ONE
I know where you got that lie
I bet you don't. Do, please, post it again. I love you fucktards not realizing you didn't check the source.

>>14585890
Mildly terrifying if true. I went down a rabbit hole last night on a different topic to stumble upon this
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/868196/

>>14586760
You're talking about the shitty facebook poll. I'm not.

>OH I LOVE THIS ONE
>I know where you got that lie
>I bet you don't. Do, please, post it again. I love you fucktards not realizing you didn't check the source.
The greatest trick the devil ever played was getting this vaxxies so emotionally invested in a political identity that revolves defending the corpo scum that poisoned them.

>>14586765
>Didn't post the source
Bahahahahaha
>>14586766
>Still no source

As the kids say: ez

>>14586762
Nah don't worry nobody's insane enough to risk autoimmunity like that. You find "possible but insane" postulations of methods or means all over in research. If there's a bad idea that "might work if we ignored everything about the downside", there's a publication proposing it. It's the easiest way in the world to publish when "perish" is the consequence of not doing so.

Sort of like leaving your essay to the last minute in high school. "Well this idea is bad but what if it wasn't!"

>>14586774
Funny thing to mention about that "this is a bad idea but let's pretend" habit, because it's especially prevalent in fields like longevity or age "cure" research.

"Well this causes cancer of the everything but now we just need to cure cancer!"
"And this one gives you new orifices to bleed out of but the mice look younger!"
"This drug appears to reverse clotting in strokes but also kills you"
On and on it goes. Someone does something utterly rudimentary like splashing a mouse brain full of fluid, or giving them over 9000% the RDV of mercury, and very narrowly find that it exclusively provides some benefit in some ridiculous underwater basket weaving context.

Maybe 0.001% of those move on to be something added to a drug or method 40 years later. Probably less than that.

This is not picking on one subfield because it is prevalent in virtually all of them taking different forms. The premise is insane, the application is more insane, the results prove they're insane, but hey turns out feeding a mouse liquid uranium DOES kill HIV. It just also kills the mouse. Haven't worked out that problem yet, so putting it in the "for future research" portion.

And there's your primer on why most published research can be completely ignored and usually is by everyone who knows anything about anything.

>>14586774
Finding that paper was the result of an interesting find on a feed additive that is used before harvest to increase lean mass, and the trickle down effectc that could have for residual amounts on human consumption.

>>14586787
Last one - sorry the examples are so numerous and so funny.

>Cured cancer again
>Just have to find a way to replace the blood of the patient with pure orange juice
>Slated for future research

That is a pretty good summary of how the "vitamin C fixes everything" nutcases proliferated. By not knowing what "in vivo" and "in vitro" mean, and not realizing all their studies are "in vivo". Turns out drowning cells in an acid is highly effective at killing them. Who knew! It also kills the patient. Oops.

>Aperture Science
>We do what we must
>Because we can
>For the good of all of us
>Except the ones who are dead
>>14586791
Seriously I have tons of examples of plenty of research like you're rabbit-hole exploring. They're jokes. No, really, nobody takes it seriously and the world would have to be REAL LIFE Aperture Science for any of it to occur. Laugh at it, because the joke is at the expense of the university admin funding it after forcing them to waste time and resources doing stupid shit.

>>14586800
Typo, their studies are "in vitro". Accidentally wrote "in vivo". Which is doubly ironic given they assume they're all in vivo. Sigh.

>>14586800
Similar to the research done on atrizine? Is that also a joke? Because money flows in and out of pockets and protects bad science at the detriment of society often.

Something in this thread stinks.

>C: WYSTD

>>14586200
Why do you even bother trying to argue the truth anymore? Isn't it readily apparent that there is no one to listen? I've given up entirely. If it comes down to it, we'll force them, euthanize them, or wait until they take themselves out.

/sci/ is not /sci/ anymore, nor is 4channel 4channel. Its zombie 4channel. We got turfed into retardation.

Let it go.

>>14586816
Most of those studies these days are a joke as well, yes, compared to how easy it was to show prior chemicals were obviously toxic even in minute quantities to humans.

>So you need a research idea
>You hate them chemicals in the water makin the frogs gay
>Make a sludge or food paste or shower of ultra high concentrations of Atrazine to bathe the mouse in
>"See! Totally causes cancer! Now we just have to find that one farmer who slept in the pesticide shed with all the valves open to present to the EU and THEN we'll show them whose boss!"

Beyond meaningless correlation studies, even more meaningless mouse or other badly devised animal models and so on, it can be exceedingly difficult to demonstrate real harm in an environment. Most of the time governments pump the brakes preemptively merely on the basis of bioaccumulation, simply for failure to show that bioaccumulation can or will stop. After all, "cancerous if you're bathing in it" may EVENTUALLY be reality if it's sticky enough in the biosphere.

I do love that you picked the "make the freakin frogs gay" pesticide though because it's the highlight of absurdity in these examples. What you're really seeing in the wild is *farmers illegally using pesticides far in excess and without proper maintenance or controls*. That leads to accumulation in things like ponds or rainwater in such crazy high concentrations it is possible to harm local wildlife. The issue there is squarely on the farmers, not necessarily the pesticide. Billy Bob thinks he's a fuckin genius for spraying 4x as much as legally allowed "cuz it works better if more rite hue hue hue".

>>14586834
Sheer boredom. Also it's SUPER easy to make fools out of these idiots. Seriously, all anyone had to do was start asking for sources and know maybe undergrad stuff about science.

>>14586079
I'm so happy to see my fellow trans sisters posting here and fighting misinformation in this chud-infested hellhole. So powerful. Get vaxxed and be a decent human being.

>>14586849
>Billy Bob thinks he's a fuckin genius for spraying 4x as much as legally allowed "cuz it works better if more rite hue hue hue".
Are you retarded? That shit ain't cheap enough to do that, the bigger problem spray washings.and dumps of spent chems

>>14586866
>Gets offended at a completely made up gag for hyperbole because it isn't realistic enough
Are you for real?

>>14585890
I was hoping this was true when I got the shot
Thank god for end of humanity

>>14586869
Are you?

>>14586200
>babby's first introduction to the hegelian dilaectic
>>14586834
>>14586849
>droolers too dumb to understand a catch 22 elementary tier hustle calls everyone else retarded
pottery really, this meme never gets old, add a single layer of deception/misdirection and your stupid asses are completely dumbfounded with faced with a non-binary choice. Yah we got us a couple geniuses here fellas. fucking donkeys stfu

>>14586885
I handwaved what you're referring to regarding proper maintenance or substance control. Cry about it then. I like my Billy Bob being so stupid he doesn't appreciate the expense part either.
>That's the joke
Dipshit

>>14586891
>No argument
Huh and here I was told you tooootally had all the truth and evidence and stuff like that.
Here you are instead bending over backward to concede. Turns out all you "gigachads" really are high school dropouts in your moms basements, aintcha boy?

>>14586200
>bro you've been poisoned, here drink this poison to fix it

>>14586892
Ah so you dislike being called retarded?

>>14586893
>words

>>14586894
Nobody tell him how antivenom is made. We'll let it be a surprise.

>>14586894
who the fuck wants to fix anything at this point...
just let the world die in peace

>>14586902
ez

>>14586903
anti venom is made FROM venom, it isnt venom you literal fucking retard. Getting bitten twice by a cobra isnt gonna save from dying from the first bite you fucking drooling moron

>>14586907
Exactly! Guess what vaccines are? Made FROM the virus or parts of the virus. Not the actual literal fully functional virus you "literal fucking retard".

Like walking into a fucking rake in a cartoon. Jesus christ.

>>14586912
you are fucking stupid, dont ever (YOU) me again and make me waste my time reading your moronic ramblings you stupid cunt

>>14586917
Hey Bodhi do you know anything about the connection between hebrew and sanskrit and how they're both 2D visual representations of the torroidal fields corresponding to their spoken form?

>>14586917
LMAO HOLY SHIT HE DIDN'T KNOW HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHA

>>14586917
>Antivenom good, not real venom only part of venom
>Vaccines bad, not real virus only part of virus
>Grug try not think
>Think hurt grug
>Grug get panties in twist grug get shown think bad

>>14586912
So they're just encapsulated toxins? how do these viruses propagate?

>>14586912
>>14586942
>>14586933
The spike is actually worse than the virus for these long term RNG effects, because it is a smaller chunk of shit and has LNP to transport it wherever. They've found it basically everywhere, and it is NOT gone after 2 weeks. It's going to be very interesting to see how/if it impacts vaxxies.

>>14586927
yes, I have videos of it on my channel somewhere

>>14585990
Trying too hard here, saying it the first time was enough

>>14586944
I don't even know where to begin. Why are you asking about viruses? There's a whole lot of detail as to when where how and why to use live virus vaccines, and they're commonly used more for things children might die from. MMR is one example, chicken-pox is another, etc. There is a weakened virus variant of a covid vaccine but it's far less effective than the mRNA vaccines.

>>14586960
That isn't how anything works. https://www.chop.edu/video/how-mrna-vaccines-work
Explain what exactly you think magically happens just because debris are hanging around? Your body is perpetually and always full of various kinds. What sparked this belief this is somehow different?

>>14586210
I wish, unfortunately I'm actually just retarded for wasting my time here with you

>>14586973
1. The spike is smaller than the entire virus.
2. The LNP have allowed it to get places the virus cannot get, by stealth.
3. The body does not get rid of the spike within the expected timeframe. Shit can stay in lymphnodes for months.
4. Reverse transcription kino

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867422000769
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105968118
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

>>14586079
This! So much this!

>>14586927
here it is
https://ugetube.com/watch/codes-patterns-in-the-torah_KsVWyfHshu7Yz5P.html

>>14586079
this guy gets it.

>>14586986
>1. The spike is smaller than the entire virus.
So what
>2. The LNP have allowed it to get places the virus cannot get, by stealth.
So what
>3. The body does not get rid of the spike within the expected timeframe. Shit can stay in lymphnodes for months.
If you're immunocompromised severely with badly managed HIV or immunosuppressed for ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, yes, that is totally possible. So what?
>4. Reverse transcription kino
So what?

>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105968118
Literally test tube again. In vitro. So you believe orange juice cures all cancer too, now, right? But once again: So what?

>>14586903
venom and antivenom are literally the exact opposite. the name should have given you a clue there galaxy brain

>>14587009
>>1. The spike is smaller than the entire virus.
>So what
>>2. The LNP have allowed it to get places the virus cannot get, by stealth.
>So what
So that is how it works.
>If you're immunocompromised severely with badly managed HIV or immunosuppressed for ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION
Nope. It's happening to you right now vaxxie.

>>14587015
Aaaah okay so we should just call vaccines "antivirus" and you won't have a problem anymore!

>>14587021
antivenom is antibodies not venom. I dont know if you are being obtuse or you are really this stupid

>>14587018
Oh so you actually haven't a fucking clue you just toss things out there to sound scary to ignorant morons like yourself.

I can appreciate the sham, but you could at least be more clever about your lack of evidence. "Totally bad things are happening because totally benign things are happening!" sort of doesn't work on anyone past childhood. Arguably it only works on half of children. Perfect for you guys I guess.

>>14586989
I owe you one but all I have are thanks.

>>14587026
And vaccines safely get your body producing antibodies.

So you're upset because.... ? Thing that isn't dangerous compared to thing that is makes you less likely to suffer? I don't get it.

>>14587036
I can see you are too stupid to realize you are actually confirming the "antivaxxers" argument for natural immunity, not vaccines. as getting the weaker variants will create antibodies so there is no need for a "vaccine" (that isnt even a real vaccine anyway), no worries, being this stupid is the norm here most of the time

>>14586079
Expert speaking, well done, everyone should be more like you

https://www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/pfizer-report-japanese-government-pdf#page=17
Told you so. It goes straight for your balls.

>>14587033
no worries man I have lots more than just that one, you are just gonna have to look around for them.

>>14587045
There is, because the vaccine is safer than the weaker variants. Big whoops for you.

>>14587031
Not an argument

>>14587060
Yes, it is. It clearly explained you did not connect your alleged dots while mocking you for thinking anyone is half as stupid as you to believe vague gesticulations mean anything.

In other words: You did not give an argument. The projection is real.

>>14587055
I get it, you are a nigger cattle, you will do w/e round box tells you to do because you arent smart enough to understand the arguments and use some critical thinking to come your own conclusions. As an NPC you have an overwhelming desire to just do what you are told to do, I get it, I really do. You can stop posting now

>>14586158
>But, think of it this way, do you feel any sort of ethical or moral responsibility to participate in civil society if they arnt?
Unfortunately I'm forced to participate in civil society since I am considered a subject of the US federal government and must pay annual tribute to them. They've also constructed a society where participation in their financial system is basically a requirement for sustenance. So yeah.

>>14587067
>I don't have an argument so let me throw a tantrum

>B-BUHT MOM THE INTERNET CALLS ME CHAD!!!

Yeah yeah boo hoo we get it you concede go yell at your mom for your tendies already.

>>14587072
oops I upset the nigger cattle, he gonna moo moo now :(

>>14587076
>Tantruming continues

>>14587066
Not an argument

>>14587078
Conceding already? Well you guys are just boring.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob bros i dont feel so good

>>14587053
I came across something off handed some guy said about speaking the words and visualising the torroidal shapes while combined with a powerful aura could directly manifest things. blew my mind a little. thought I'd see if you had something related. I'd only briefly looked at cymatics before.

>>14587055
>it's safer
Again I cant tell if you are legit retarded or just pretending. I can sit here piling up the evidence for weeks at a time showing you dont know wtf you are talking about nigger cattle

>>14587055
>the vaccine is safer than the weaker variants
>dies

>>14587089
fix you diet and stay away from bright sunlight, also avoid organophosphates

>>14587095
>>14587098
Yes, yes, we all know you're too retarded to use google. Unfortunately like grownups your little fingies will have to type things like "risk ratios of vaccines vs [insert covid variant here]"

But I accept your double concession. Being cleverly stupid is a lot harder than going full retard, but you should never go full retard. Didn't you know that? Never go full retard.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827822002343
vaxchuds...

>>14587094
manifestation, sure have lots on it, on the site and video channel. It is called "yogic powers" in some circles etc

>>14587100
stay away from experimental gene therapy vaccines

>>14587102
this nigger cattle is still mooing? wtf, go back to grazing little moo moo

I thought vaccinations were supposed to cause severe cognitive decline and mass dieoffs like something out of a John Romero movie. Red deer wouldn't lie though, would he?

>>14587103
So now do step 2.
>Compare
Tell me, how likely compared to vaccination is covid itself to cause autoimmune issues?

w h o o p s
>>14587108
Dude I already accepted your concession stop begging for me to keep accepting. We get it, you gave up and lost. You're free to go play "tip the cow" with your other retards at the village pub

>>14587094
try this if you want
https://ugetube.com/watch/chaos-magic-explained_uzELcFpMLr3gMFP.html

>>14587112
It depends on the batch numbers, some had extremely high mortality rates
I think there was a site, howbadismybatch or something like that. Some people got literal; saline

>>14587033
this is a p good one

https://ugetube.com/watch/vedas-are-scientific-encyclopedia-astronomy-quantum-physics-biology_czumOsvHvvWVcww.html

this is p good
https://ugetube.com/watch/tesla-light-sound-sanskrit_uI3uwzTuznKZWS2.html

do you go the runes article on my website yet? If not watch that video

>>14587112
They did. We buried 20% of the population last year but you won't hear about it on mainstream media

https://www.westernstandard.news/business/pfizer-s-own-study-finds-nanoparticles-in-covid-vaccines-enter-organs/article_5b3955f6-d146-11ec-a272-cf3264db392b.html
Thank you science

>>14587169
...And?
So what?
Junk in the body accumulates in places junk gets processed.
...Water is wet. Congrats?

>mfw my balls get cg enriched
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
str8 bussin

>>14587176
cap?

>>14587176
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
>VAERS
>Correlation
>Speculation
>Contradicted by the real world
Yawn.

>still down 16% six months after vaccination
kek

>>14587176
Oh my God it's even worse. One author is a "naturopath", the lead author is just a compsci major and it's published in a fucking rag

Bringing your A-game are ya?

>>14587177
>>14587178
>This study has shown that there is a significant enrichment of GC content in mRNAs in vaccines (53% in BNT162b2 and 61% in Moderna mRNA-1273) as compared to the native SARS-CoV-2 mRNA (36%).
No cap. FR FR. On god. #Dressin.

>>14587184
VAERS has no control for causation. It is purely whatever someone puts on the thing.

Remember how you people thought "from vs with" was important? What happened? Forgot the difference?

>>14587184
>Cites study by Naturopath
Whateeeeeeeever you say broski. You sure got some high standards there.

>>14587188
He's not quoting VAERS data

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573 hyphen 021 hyphen 00283 hyphen 5
https://osf.io/bcsa6/
mfw cancer marker goes up to rush experimental jab to market

>>14587173
You people told me it never left the shoulder muscle

>>14587072
Look forward to the civil war.
You will make a pretty pink mist.

>>14587082
I accept your admission of stupidity.

>>14586103
>That's why so many of you died.
Had it and I'm fine. How many people over 80-years-old do you think regularly post on 4chan?

>>14586139
>What the vax can do, Covid will do a worst version of it.
Through what mechanism do you propose? The virus doesn't reach the blood stream in the majority of the infected, the vaccine reaches the blood stream in 100% of the vaccinated. The virus is cleared in less than two weeks in the reasonably healthy, the mRNA from the vaccine persists for at least two months after vaccination, and the spike for over four months. The reality is that the infected are at more risk of respiratory issues, but the vaccinated have far greater risk for systemic effects.

>>14586232
You should read the study, anon. In the discussion, the authors claimed participants recovered by six months.

T0 = prevax
T1 = 15-45 days
T2 = 75-120 days
T3 = 150+ days

Does it look like they recovered? Sperm count fell even further from T2 to T3. Motility improved a very small amount. All we can conclude is that by six months, things are really no better.

>>14587351
What kind of average are they using?

Why does the abstract say temporary when their data shows basically the opposite?

>>14587351
Do you know what a confidence interval is? Or how sample sizes work? These are especially important when you consider that sperm counts are already volatile(consider >>14586617)

>>14587441
Yes?

>>14587441
>Do you know what a confidence interval is?
Do you? The two measurements with the lowest p-values were sperm concentration and total motile count, which still showed substantial decline from baseline. The only value they took that could denote a "recovery" was semen volume, which had the highest p-value of the bunch, meaning it has the lowest probably of being accurate. There's absolutely no reason they should have made the claim that there was a recovery by 150 days based on the data except to get the paper approved.

As for the other comment you're pointing to, look at semen volume and sperm motility in T1 (the 15-45 day group). They look pretty good in the short term, no? That was touted as some benefit very early on. I'm not aware of any previous papers that looked at sperm numbers past the 2.5 month mark, which appears to be when all of the numbers took a nosedive. It goes to show why we should be looking at these things over a longer period of time, and why the approval process for vaccines and medication typically take years. We were told there was no way the vaccines could have any long term effects, that the mRNA was gone in hours, the spikes were gone within weeks, and it all turned out to be wrong.

>ignores obesity lowering sperm concentration
>ignores microplastics lowering sperm concentration
>ignores onions products lowering sperm concentration
>focuses on the temporary effects of the vaccine instead

>ignores obesity lowering sperm concentration
>ignores microplastics lowering sperm concentration
>ignores *onions* products lowering sperm concentration
>focuses on the temporary effects of the vaccine instead

>>14587544
>temporary
Can you show me the data that confirms it's temporary? I can control my weight, I can control what I consume, but I can't control what the vaccine does once it's in my body, which is why I chose not to get it.

False. Have been vaccinated and am experiencing none of these symptoms. Your not red-pilled your just an idiot.

>>14587553
Ah yes, I'm sure you have an acute sense of the number of sperm and their motility in your ejaculate.

>>14587555
Gargle it and find out.

>>14585990
eeeww you licked your own cum?!

>>14585890
every single thing that chudwiggers attribute to the vaxx is equally attributable to COVID itself

every single thing that libwiggers attribute to COVID is equally attributable to the vaxx

why are wiggers fundamentally unable to know reality?

>>14585906
>well what about this one example!
/sci/, ladies and gentlemen...

>>14587181
Don't worry vaxxbros we'll get them next time

>>14587615
You're fundamentally wrong, unfortunately. Do you think a virus confined to the respiratory tract for a week will have the same effect as organ cells producing spike proteins for 4+ months? Even if you think both are bad, they're not in any way "equal" in their attributes.

>>14585890
>two weeks
lol

>>14587351
Do you know what a null hypothesis is? And what P value represents here?

>>14587840
See >>14587524. Perhaps you can explain how the authors concluded there was a recovery in the T3 group, when the only parameter that recovered was semen volume, which had a p-value that indicates it may not be reliable, whereas sperm concentration and total motile count were both under a 0.05 p-value.

>>14587844
What is a null hypothesis anon. What was the null hypothesis in this circumstance. You don't know because you are retarded.
>measurement has lowest p value where spem concentration
That's not how P values work. What was the null hypothesis. You don't know statistics because you are retarded. Literal pseudo intellectual.

Lmao imagine thinking your smart but taking a vaccine for a virus that doesn't even stop the virus or stop you getting sick just reduces the death rate in the very old. But you're a 30 year old and will defend you taking it to the death. Hilarious.

>>14587849
>That's not how P values work.
It is. The value under 0.05 is much more likely to be legitimate and not an error. Three of the four values that fit that criteria show significant derangement. The only one that fit any form of recovery was more than likely a mistake.

>>14587849
>measurement has lowest p value where spem concentration
Do you always type like a retard, or just on 4chan?

>>14585990
did you taste your own cum anon?

>>14587861
Look, this is from the study. When you say measurement with lower P value is better that's not how things work. A measurement doesn't have a p value. That makes no sense. P value is the likelihood of the null hypothesis being true. Null hypothesis here for the value we care about? Vaccine has no effect on sperm concentration. Now take a look at T0-T3 median difference. It has a P value of .26 very bad. For something statistically significant we are looking for .01 for P value which is a sort of arbitrary value we set but this goes way beyond it. So there was no statistical difference between T0 and T3 sperm concentration. Wow author of study correct about what their data shows? Who could of known.

>>14587874
>complains another anon doesn't understand what they're talking about
>uses a completely different analysis to make their point
Wow, you got me, you totally refuted the chart I provided by completely ignoring it and going with their secondary analysis. Brilliant. You're truly a statistician, just keep analyzing until you finally get a result you like. Meanwhile, we still have >>14587351 which shows three of the four parameters significantly rejected the null hypothesis.

>>14587866
Who doesn't?

>>14587874
I'm mistaken in saying .01 is the standard pretty sure of depends on the field for what is statistically significant. I don't know what medical people use for what is statistically significant.
>>14587884
anon that P value is only for T2 not T3 which is what we care about to know if the vaccine makes you infertile.... You keep tripping over yourself with how you can't read a study. Can't even read a table. Literal peusdo.

>>14587892
>anon that P value is only for T2 not T3 which is what we care about to know if the vaccine makes you infertile
The fuck? You only care about results at 3 months and not 6?

>>14587895
T3 is long term which was classified as over 150 days after vaccine. T2 is medium term. Maybe you haven't read the study. If you want to say something makes you infertile you should would probably care about long term, but maybe you haven't read the study and that's where your misconceptions come from. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209 feel free to read

>>14587866
Did you taste someone else's anon?

Protip: nothing ever happens
Covid was nothing
The vaccine is nothing
Nothing will happen

why noone references that n=39? thought this was sci not a retard camp

>>14585906
>fully vaccinated
Hows that working out for ya?

>>14587990
It's pointless to talk to these people

>>14587682
>Do you think a virus confined to the respiratory tract for a week
Why do wiggers always bend over backwards to prove me right?

>>14586912
Nigga do you geuinely not the diffrence between vaccine mediated TH2 immunity and natural TH1 immunity which is far superior, people who are vaxxed literally still suceptible to other strains of covid.

>>14587916
Let’s hope not anon

>>14585993
>its literal luck that it might be temporary
this

>>14586072
You probably are unhinged. At that point it was just random panic mongering of "this could go wrong, or this".
Now, i didnt get a vax and dont plan to, as i also agreed there was risks (non specific though). But this is kind of a broken clock being right once a day situation, more than you having any actual knowledge.

>>14588014
Add me on discord.
wylad#3744

>>14585890
So why did the US non-Hispanic white fertility rate grow in 2021 despite large vaccination rates?

>>14585906
Why would you have a kid? It's immoral.

>>14586200
Yeah but there's only a 'chance' of getting covid. Whereas when you get the vaccine you 100% get the vaccine.
Explanation with random numbers for arguments sake:
50% chance of getting covid, with further 25% chance of something 'bad' happening. So vaguely 12.5% of something bad happening.
100% chance of getting vaccine with getting a vaccine, 15% chance of something 'bad' happening. So vaguely 15% chance of something happening.
So the Vaccine is "safer" in that its 15% vs 25% chance of something bad happening. But you may not get covid ever, thus rendering its chances of impact moot.
As said these are completely made up numbers to illustrate a point, not be a fact. Anyway i actually believe the real chances of getting covid are lower and the chance of something bad happening with either is more similar. So Vaccine loses by far.

I have been to two conventions, a few smaller events, as well as the movies and arcade a half dozen times in this last year and not gotten spicy cough (all of these being very busy and me not wearing mask).
Just have a good healthy diet with all vitamins you need, exercise, and believe you are healthy and wont get sick.

Hopefully it's permanent.

>>14588307
Did everyone get injected on day one? People were working from home or laid off their jobs. This gave them more chances to copulate.

>>14587070
big wilderness out there
and alot of pine trees

> that sample size.
Faggots, the lot of you

>>14588554
That's homophobic pal. Check yourself.

>>14586165

>>14588554
you have to remember its hard to have a very long study like this 150+ days. The p value is true independent of the sample size. If I have a sample size of 1000 and get a p value of .01 and sample size of 10 and p value of .01 one p value is not more valid then the other. This is why we use statistical tests like p values.

>>14588014
>Why do wiggers always bend over backwards to prove me right?
Feel free to produce evidence that the virus ends up in the blood in the majority of mild cases.

The results are in: everyone I know who go vaccinated still got COVID, and typically reported 'being sick all week' with a persistent cough. Out of everyone I know who was not vaccinated, my dad was the only person to get sick at all, admittedly very sick, for two days. I also know two people who were explicitly stated to have died of vaccine injuries.

In summary:
Out of 19 vaccinated:
* 12 sick 'for a week'
* 5 sick for 5 days
* 2 died
Out of 7 unvaccinated:
* 1 sick for 2 days

>>14588134
Daily reminder comparing like-for-like (for you dipshits that means controlling for prior condition and other demographic factors) vaccinated people do better than unvaccinated people. Cope and seethe.
>>14587892
The study reports itself a bit sloppily but the other anon is right. The comparison to baseline would be T0 to latest report at T3. Anon is also correct here >>14587874 in that the description BY THE AUTHORS of that study plainly state as much in the discussion or end portion.

That makes it real ironic when people are misquoting the tables to imply something they do not imply, and the authors clearly know better too. Guys, you need to pass an actual stats class. At least go through fucking khan academy for fuck sake.

>>14588421
You, especially, are hysterically stupid. You cannot know for a fact beforehand all the variables that would preclude a serious outcome. If we could do that, we wouldn't need population vaccinations. You're free to "believe" all you like, but for every age demographic when one properly controls for prior conditions, weight, etc, vaccinated persons do better if infected than unvaccinated ones.
Put another way: Your belief of "just be healthy bro" means being vaccinated is the far better end of the bargain even then, because your same reasoning applies. "Just be healthy" and your risks remain low, be vaccinated and they're even lower.

>>14589378
>Studies with hundreds of millions of people altogether
>Versus
>Muh anecdote of 20 people
Oh boy the real scientists are arriving.

>>14589406
Nobody's buying it anymore, time to move on champ

>>14589413
>I don't have an argument
Thanks for conceding make way for the others who need to bend the knee.

>>14589418
You don't have an argument, you're just a sperg raging at people because they don't want your precious pharma poison that lowers their sperm count. Get a life

>>14589424
I've explained myself quite well. Your pretending I haven't and resorting to pure fantasy is just embarrassing. You can suck me off later, but right now it's just boring.

>>14589428
>I've explained myself quite well.
Crazy people's crazy thoughts makes sense to their crazy minds.

>>14589412
Let's say we have two studies:

n1=1,000,000
Estimating P(gets COVID | is not vaccinated)

n2=5
P(gets COVID | is not vaccinated | lives at 339 Walnut Ave. Mitchell Manitoba | works from home | shops at Superstore | shares a similar genetic background)

I want to determine my likelihood of getting COVID. I'm hoping you'd agree that if n1 = n2, the second one would be overwhelmingly more accurate. Around what n2 do you think the studies would be equally useful? Personally, I don't really care how many people are effected if their lives are extremely different from mine. When the doctor tells me that I am at high risk of diabetes due to a family history, I don't respond by telling him that most people aren't diabetic.

>>14589441
Christ it's so annoying when stupid people think they're clever. No, fuckwit, that's called the ecological fallacy. You do not know the mechanism nor the trait involved or if your sample size is an artifact due to its size (as it almost certainly is). You are making all kinds of inferences about group composition with no actual evidence to any of it, including your having those inferred traits on the same baseless inference.

But sure, explain more how confirmation bias run amok is totally evidence. Can't wait for you to butcher statistics further.

>>14589450
>The first person to describe ecological fallacies was the sociologist H. C. Selvin (1958). Selvin defined three different types of ecological fallacy:

>1. The fallacy of composition: This occurs when it is assumed that what is true for the group must also be true for the individuals within that group.

>2. The fallacy of division: This occurs when it is assumed that what is true for the individual must also be true for the groups to which they belong.

>3. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness: This occurs when data from one level of analysis (for example, groups) is treated as if it were data from another level of analysis (for example, individuals).

This sounds like exactly the problem I was trying to highlight. Statistics tell you facts about a group, so if I had said that my anecdotes suggested something about many people, you would be right. However, I only made statements about myself. To suggest that a study with millions of people says anything about a single person would be the first kind of ecological fallacy.

It's true that I don't know if the effect is a result of my small sample size, but it's also true that you can't make a statement about a single person with aggregate statistics, so we're both wrong in that sense. I'm looking for actionable information, so I've used the method most doctors use, look at what you've got. I'm healthier than ever, so it's working.

>>14589492
>Confirmation bias run amok
Doing exactly what I said you'd keep doing is hardly a refutation. Congrats, you're as bad with statistics as the average journalist.

>>14589450
>You are making all kinds of inferences about group composition

I'm making inferences about only a single person, myself. The fallacy you named specifically calls out the case of using data about a group to make inferences about a single person, like you did here >>14589412

>>14589509
My guess is that you think I'm trying to say something about everyone using my own experiences? I'm not.

>>14589520
>N-NO I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT ME I DIDN'T MENTION 19 OTHER PEOPLE STOP CALLING ME OUT STOP IT

Do tell us more about "muh lived experience" on your new totally genuine pivot as you bury yourself in your own stupidity.

>>14589527
The 19 other people are used as data points to do inference on 1 person, myself. Statistics typically conclude with less data than they start with.

>your new totally genuine pivot
It's the first inference I made, and my second post in this thread. Surely you don't disagree with my first post? If you think I'm lying, then I can't really do anything to stop you, but I can't imagine how there could be some kind of logical error in "2 people died".

>>14589539
>The 19 other people are used as data points to do inference on 1 person, myself.

You can't make up shit this stupid if you tried.

>>14589548
How does statistics work, if not that? Some number of data points are used to build a model, and that model is used to perform inference.

>>14586079
No. Absolutely wrong logic. Holy fuck.

Let’s be clear.

>>It is NOT ok for vaccines to cause a change to your body that you did not consent to.

>>14589550
Not the retarded way you did it, no.

I absolutely do not see how people can pick at certain blind spots of the study, while at the same time ignoring the fact that CDC releases studies where half of the participants don’t make it to the end, and it still somehow gets considered valid.

>>14589587
Relevance? Sometimes that can be an issue, but it depends on a lot of things. Much of the CDC releases correspond to data seen worldwide, so you'd kind of need to start alleging global conspiracy at that point.

>>14589413
You are retarded. Actually a brainlet. You will always be a pseudo intellectual. You will never do real science.

>>14586473
And your proof of that is what exactly?

We know for a certainty that Covid causes brain damage.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/long-covid-even-mild-covid-linked-damage-brain-months-infection-rcna18959

Pretending long covid is only psychosomatic is lunacy but that's what I expect from vaccine deniers. Stupid fucks

>>14589597
not him but cdc methods are garbage in first place. Like i read one study where they did an efficiency study without accounting whether participants where sick and recovered beforehand which would naturally affect the success rate.

>>14589629
I can't exactly comment on a study you aren't linking me.

>>14589578
So how DOES it work?

>>14589646
Pay me a consulting fee and I will happily gather the data to calculate your individual risk for you.

>>14589634
well i obviously dont save links i consider unusable garbage. I just clearly remember being mad at how bad it was. Especially since these fuckwits send us inspectors that make our work harder.

>>14589653
I'm not asking you to calculate my individual risk, as that is impossible, I'm asking you to explain what is wrong with using multiple data points to do inference. Do you find linear regression stupid?

>>14589658
It is not impossible. You're just a retard. Also, the inferences you made ABOUT Those "data points" are invalid to start with. Such as inferring that because vaccinated people still got sick, but your father got lucky, therefore vaccine bad somehow. Pretty obvious you're a retard.

Oh then there's that whole "death due to vaccine injury" line. Yeah you're a troll.

>>14589655
Okay. I don't believe you. Given the average scientific literacy of these people so far, more accurately the total illiteracy, I find it far more probable you did not understand it and have cherrypicked a justification you remember as confirmation bias.

HOWEVER - it is irrelevant. The data largely corroborates the rest of the world. So you have to further posit a global conspiracy. That's fucking ridiculous.

>>14586968
I think he's trying to say he eats his own cum

>>14589666
>because vaccinated people still got sick
>your father got lucky
>therefore vaccine bad somehow
I didn't say any of this, I stated plain numbers without doing any interpretation, and I made an argument about the nature of probability. The only thing I've said about the vaccine AT ALL in this thread has been that 2 people died of them, and that's directly from their family doctor.

The only statistical inference I've made is "I will not get it".

>>14589687
>The only statistical inference I've made is "I will not get it".

That's treason in the highest order to vaxcucks

>>14589687
>Why yes I was trolling
Yeah already said so why did you bother agreeing
>>14589729
Only /pol/tards can be this dishonest and wear it as a badge of pride.

>>14585890
My surprised face.
People were warned.

What most people still haven't caught onto yet is the vaccinated are "contagious" and can affect healthy non-vaxxed humans, even pets.

>>14586109
>unironically dismissing a study because a jew wrote it

>>14589406
>vaccinated persons do better if infected
>IF infected
>IF
My whole point was that more people than not haven't been and wont be infected.
And you make it like im against the very idea of vaccines. No, its just these ones are shit. Will be looking at actual data for older ones too though as this all has me sceptical of all previously 'obvious' things.

If i had gotten vaccines, i'd be on what 3rd dose at least, and I (like probably a decent chunk of people here) are in the most at risk category from the vaccines, males 30 and under (even more so 18-25).
So it clearly shows the vaccine risk doesn't exactly go along with the health of the target, given that that population group is likely among the healthier ones.

I personally would like a lot more info/data on Novavax, in population. But it seems it'll be hard to do so given how high the vaccination rates are with other options before it came out. Meaning very few clean slate humans to have as data points.

>>14587553
No refunds, goy

>>14589607
The article states that there isn't much proof behind the idea that vaccines would have mitigated the risk, as the study was done before then. Also one of the doctors mentions that the brain damage has a possibility of being reversible, of course I agree it may not be reversible in everyone, it's nonsensical to believe otherwise. On top of that the article does state this stuff is more common/pronounced in older age groups so there is that to consider. NTA, but you need to present a better article than this if you want to BTFO anti-vaxxers. Just my two cents.

>>14585890
show me current birthrates amongst widely vaccinated populations, mr claimant

>>14590202
Yes, "if". If you live on an island by yourself obviously nobody gives a shit. None of you fuckers do, though, you just completely don't understand how infections spread and assume living in hodunk bible town means you're immune. Guess how well that has been going?

>>14591116
While it is true these dumb fucks can't keep two ideas in their heads at the same time, often on purpose, the second piece of the puzzle is the simple fact that vaccinated people on average have far lower average viral load. https://www.nature.com/articles/ "SARS-CoV-2 is associated with changes in brain structure in UK Biobank" and many other studies show this consistently.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586
-022-
04569-5

Lower viral load will ordinarily correspond to less severe symptoms including less severe long term symptoms. Stands to reason given to some extent damage will be a matter of probability of viral development or immune response.

To test this hypothesis I then went to find a newer summary of the latest research pertaining to what the other anon linked, you can find that here: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/vaccinated-less-likely-to-develop-long-covid

Unsurprisingly, my hypothesis was right. I wrote out the steps simply to show how easy it is to follow the simple reasoning. Obviously lower viral load should, ordinarily, mean it's a good bet vaccinated participants would have fewer problems. So all anyone needs is honesty which, I grant you, antivaxxers lack entirely.

>>14591255
Whups wrong title I grabbed the other article's title on accident. Relevant viral load title is "Infectious viral load in unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals infected with ancestral, Delta or Omicron SARS-CoV-2"

Here is the correct link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-
01816-0

>>14588213
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>14591122
https://is2.4chan.org/sci/1655649589434.png

damn vaxcattle they lied to you

>>14589607
I'm curious if this is unique to a COVID-19 infection, or if infections in general cause similar changes. In fact, I recall a study on influenza which found brain changes. My general conclusion is it's not a great idea to be frequently ill.

>>14591255
>While it is true these dumb fucks can't keep two ideas in their heads at the same time, often on purpose, the second piece of the puzzle is the simple fact that vaccinated people on average have far lower average viral load.
That stopped being the case once Omicron hit.

>Lower viral load will ordinarily correspond to less severe symptoms including less severe long term symptoms.
The problem with this is there's been very little correlation between acute symptoms and long covid. Even your own article makes the point that it doesn't matter if the case is mild or severe, there's changes to the brain.

>To test this hypothesis I then went to find a newer summary of the latest research pertaining to what the other anon linked, you can find that here
A major issue is that those studies are from previous variants. Do you have proof the same risk reduction happens with Omicron? I could very well argue the opposite, that the vaccinated are more likely to get infected than the unvaccinated at this point, which will increase their risk of developing long-term symptoms.

>>14591528
>That stopped being the case once Omicron hit.
>Infectious viral load in unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals infected with ancestral, Delta or Omicron SARS-CoV-2

I link and cite the title of said link directly refuting this statement. You did not even read the post you are replying to. In the bin you go.

>>14591262
>Furthermore, we could show that, in the case of Omicron BA.1 breakthrough infections, only boosted individuals had lower infectious VL, but not RNA VL, compared to unvaccinated individuals.
What happens once antibodies wane by two months? What about BA.2, 3, 4, and 5, which are more prone to antibody evasion? Did you look at the charts? The reduction isn't impressive. Did you look at the method? In vero, so they didn't even look at actual patients.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/9/5/ofac135/6550312
>We found no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Delta, overall or stratified by symptoms. Given the substantial proportion of asymptomatic vaccine breakthrough cases with high viral levels, interventions, including masking and testing, should be considered in settings with elevated coronavirus disease 2019 transmission.
In vitro analysis showed no reduction, even for Delta. That doesn't include boosters, but considering rapid antibody decline from boosters, I'd expect any efficacy to be very short lived. Unless you plan to get a booster every couple of months, that doesn't sound like a very good strategy.

>>14591528
See >>14591548

>>14591532
Who gives a shit. The difference in viral load isn't even significant. The bottom line here is that the people who made and pushed the experimental gene therapy told everyone that the spikes couldn't leave the injection site, and that it could have no impact on reproductive organs. They lied about both.

>>14591532
>In the bin you go.
Do you want an honest conversation, or did you come here to behave like a jackass? Your behavior has been confrontational and belittling the entire time.

>>14591532
>I link and cite the title of said link directly refuting this statement.
So only the boosted count as vaccinated now, I suppose. And it's not the case for more recent Omicron variants. Onto the fourth injection to be considered vaccinated, I guess.

>>14591255
>Lower viral load will ordinarily correspond to less severe symptoms including less severe long term symptoms.
Are you a supporter of Ivermectin? I hope so, it's been shown to substantially reduce viral load, far more than the vaccines.

>>14591548
>>14591550
>>14591551
>>14591555
>>14591557
>>14591566
Oh wow the mad butthurt. Sorry bud maybe you should've actually read the fucking post before making retarded claims.

>>14591575
That's at least two people you're responding to, because only one of those posts are mine. Are you going to answer any of the questions?

>>14591583
There aren't any honest questions, so no. I don't give a shit if some other retard jumped in to support your dishonesty. You fucked up, stop acting like a fuck up and try asking an honest question and maybe I will.

PRO TIP: An HONEST question does not assume ONE EXAMPLE STUDY is THE ONLY STUDY EVER DONE.

>>14585993
>>14586062
Keep in mind the fact that they want you take yearly boosters for the rest of your life.

>>14591590
>ONE EXAMPLE STUDY is THE ONLY STUDY EVER DONE.
Good, can you provide a study that proves viral load is lower with Omicron? Because an in vero study which shows two injections did nothing and boosters only modestly reduced viral load isn't a very good way to prove your point, especially when I provided a study showing there was no reduction, in vitro, as far back as Delta. This is also in contrast to another study YOU provided, which showed severity of infection made no difference in brain scans.

And that other anon's point about Ivermectin is a great one. If you believe vaccines are efficacious because they (supposedly) reduce viral load, then you should be a major supporter of IVM.

>>14591590
How are these not honest questions? Let's try again.

Do you believe that only the boosted count as vaccinated (because the unboosted do not show reduced viral load against current variants)?

Do you believe a booster every two months is warranted to maintain any perceived efficacy at lowering viral load?

Do you support treatments like IVM which have proven efficacy in reducing viral load?

>>14591598
Oh okay, so you're a dumb fuck who can't read.
>We compared RNA and infectious VLs in NPS samples of 91 Omicron BA.1-infected patients and 62 Delta-infected patients who received two doses of vaccine more than 2weeks before diagnosis. Because Omicron BA.1 can be titrated only on Vero E6-TMPRSS cells, we also titrated another set of samples from vaccinated Delta-infected patients on this cell line to assure comparability between infectious VLs. Omicron BA.1 breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated patients resulted in similar genome copies compared to Delta but significantly lower infectious VLs (14-fold, 1.146 log10, P<0.0001, t-value = 5.3336, df = 120.2, Cohen's d = 0.90) (Fig. 4a).
>However, a significantly lower infectious VL, but not RNA VL, was observed for boosted individuals (5.3-fold, 0.728 log10, adjusted P=0.001325, t-value = 3.635, df = 71.237, Cohen's d = 0.64) (Fig. 4d) compared to fully vaccinated subjects.

You dishonestly, because you're using motivated reasoning, ignored what the study clarifies regarding two values and took the lower value instead of the specific infectious VL criteria. The other reason I linked THAT STUDY is that it demonstrates why, to make a proper comparison that matters, you cannot simply use RNA VL.

It also demonstrates the reasoning behind a third shot to reduce risk for Omicron was justified by demonstrating significant reduction in infectious VL, where not having that booster did not provide much of an effect.

>>14591605
>Pushing the ivermectin bullshit
Yeah sure totally honest. Totes.

>>14591609
>In this study, we quantified infectious VL in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the first five symptomatic days by in vitro culturability assay in unvaccinated or vaccinated individuals infected with pre-variant of concern (pre-VOC) SARS-CoV-2, Delta or Omicron BA.1.
>in vitro
>Our findings indicate that vaccines may lower transmission risk and, therefore, have a public health benefit beyond the individual protection from severe disease.
Oh, so they lower transmission risk based on an in vitro study? Neat.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2791601
>Secondary attack rates for Omicron
>Unvaccinated estimate 0.439 (0.322-0.562)
>Partially vaccinated estimate 0.566 (0.482-0.647)
>Fully vaccinated estimate 0.512 (0.478-0.547)
>Booster vaccinated estimate 0.327 (0.245-0.422)
What do you know, almost no efficacy even when boosted, and the fully vaccinated performed even worse than the unvaccinated.

>>14591619
>Yeah sure totally honest. Totes.
Yup.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-53702100239-X/fulltext

Sure looks like IVM reduces viral load. But let me guess, you don't like these studies, but you're willing to take a study at face value which claims viral load is misleading, forms a conclusion based on an in vero analysis, which doesn't match real world data?

It keeps getting better.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586
-022-01453-0
>The researchers found that vaccination seemed to reduce the likelihood of long COVID in people who had been infected by only about 15%. That’s in contrast to previous, smaller studies, which have found much higher protection rates. It’s also a departure from another large study5, which analysed self-reported data from 1.2 million UK smartphone users and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine halved the risk of long COVID.

>The authors of the latest study also compared symptoms such as brain fog and fatigue in vaccinated and unvaccinated people for up to six months after they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The team found no difference in type or severity of symptoms between those who had been vaccinated and those who had not. “Those same fingerprints we see in people who have breakthrough infections,” Al-Aly says.

>>14591631
>Oh, so they lower transmission risk based on an in vitro study? Neat.
I have no idea what point you think you're making but I'm sure it's incredibly stupid. The study I linked analyzes blood samples. Your point is....?
>What do you know, almost no efficacy even when boosted, and the fully vaccinated performed even worse than the unvaccinated.
Hello bait and switch. Now you link a study talking about viral spread, secondary attack rates, in household contacts. That isn't even remotely relevant to what the topic has been. I guess you realized you done fucked up and have to change topics to avoid admitting it like a flat earther.

It really is always the same with you people. You fuck up and feel you can't win, so you switch topics and bring up something totally unrelated instead. You can't even be honest when you're anonymous.

>>14591637
>Sure looks like IVM reduces viral load.
Great so you support the vaccines which do so with greater efficacy and better safety, right?

>>14591683
Ivermectin is safer

>>14591689
Sure it is grandpa, now go play cards with the other boomers who don't know their head from their ass.

>>14585890
I've been wanking 5 times a day for years, I'm good

>>14591683
>I have no idea what point you think you're making but I'm sure it's incredibly stupid. The study I linked analyzes blood samples. Your point is....?
Which showed no reduction in viral RNA so they decided to do an in vitro, in vero analysis which inflated the perceived efficacy by claiming there was a difference in infection VL, and then translated that to a probable reduction in secondary attack rates to lower infectious viral load. That was a huge stretch. So I've given you three studies to refute both points (lowered viral load, and reduced infection risk). The first study refuted reduced viral load. The second study refuted the probable infectiousness in spite of similar viral load. The third study showed almost no efficacy in reducing risk of long covid, which also indicates there's likely no difference in viral loads.

>Hello bait and switch. Now you link a study talking about viral spread, secondary attack rates, in household contacts.
Did you not read your own study and the portion I quoted? If viral load is reduced, transmission rate should also be reduced, no? That was the claim of the paper. "Yes, there's no difference in viral load, but look, this cell line wasn't infected at the same rate so they really DO work!"

Fact: Vaccines do not reduce viral load to a relevant degree against current variants.
Fact: Vaccines do not reduce secondary attack rates to a relevant degree against current variants.
Fact: Vaccines do not reduce risk of long covid, or long covid severity, to a relevant degree.

>Great so you support the vaccines which do so with greater efficacy
Oh yeah? Where did you see that? The study I provided showed no reduction. The study you provided showed no reduction, and then came up with some bullshit hypothesis about infectious viral load which shows no relevance in reducing secondary attack rate or long covid. IVM reduced viral load by several fold even after only one dose. IVM is superior at reducing viral load.

>>14585890
m e d s

>>14591764
>Which showed no reduction in viral RNA so they decided to do an in vitro, in vero analysis which inflated the perceived efficacy by claiming there was a difference bla bla bla conspiracy theory bla bla
Not it chief. You have no understanding of the study and make up a story to feel smarter. Sucks to suck.
>If viral load is reduced, transmission rate should also be reduced, no?
No. "Risk compensation theory". You're so comically ignorant it isn't even funny. ABSTRACTLY, yes, IN PRACTICE not necessarily. Just like safety features SHOULD reduce fatalities but with risk compensation they do not necessarily (such as vehicles and increasing vehicle speed to compensate).
>The study I provided showed no reduction.
Nope. Lack of transmission reduction (see also: risk compensation) has fuck all to do with side effects, hospitalizations, the RELEVANT TOPIC BEING BRAIN DAMAGE REMEMBER?

God its like all you unvaccinated retards have brain damage. Oh wait. Ohhhhhh...

>>14586079
Nice bait

>>14591696
>i'm an ignorant ageist bigot, i have super low iq, old people make me angry because they have more money, power, influence, knowledge, experience and intelligence than i do, so i regularly voice my hatred of the elderly, which i will inevitably drop if i live to be old enough.
>although i openly and vocally hate old people, i also still wonder why they aren't bending over backwards to improve the world for my benefit.
>i wouldn't lift a finger for them, i hate them.
>why aren't they being nice to me? its not fair!!!

>>14591788
Bahahaha grandpa got all upset I don't care about his retardation

>>14591776
>Not it chief.
They showed no reduction in viral RNA. Everything else is moot because we can just look at secondary attack rates and long covid risk, which vaccines failed to reduce.

>No. "Risk compensation theory".
Then they shouldn't have hypothesized that in your paper. You're not discrediting the opinion of the authors of a paper you chose to rely on.

>Nope. Lack of transmission reduction (see also: risk compensation) has fuck all to do with side effects, hospitalizations, the RELEVANT TOPIC BEING BRAIN DAMAGE REMEMBER?
Anon, I provided you a link to a paper showing vaccines did jackshit to prevent long covid, and you provided a paper claiming case severity made no difference in the MRI scans. You refuted your own damn argument.

>>14591798
>I don't understand anything
Yeah we already covered that. Boy you're desperate.

>>14591816
You have to be trolling at this point.

>Claims vaccines reduce viral load
>Proven FALSE (by your own paper and mine)
>Claims vaccines reduce infectious viral load
>Proven UNLIKELY, as secondary attack rates and risk of long covid show little to no difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated
>Claims vaccines reduce risk of long covid via lower viral load
>Lower viral load proven FALSE (by your paper and mine), reduced risk of long covid if vaccinated proven FALSE
>Claims vaccines reduce risk of brain damage by lowering viral load
>Lower viral load proven FALSE, risk of brain damage based on case severity prove FALSE (by your own damn paper)
Christ.

>>14591798
>long covid risk, which vaccines failed to reduce.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022
-01840-0
So with a sample of over 10 million people, focusing only on breakthrough infections compared to unvaccinated (so your worst case for the vaccinated sample) there is STILL benefit and a considerable one.
>Compared to people with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not previously vaccinated (n=113,474), people with BTI exhibited lower risks of death (HR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.74) and incident post-acute sequelae (HR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.82, 0.89).

So, yeah, all this shit in between has just been you making a jackass out of yourself and lying - which you guys always do but it's funny to watch you squirm.

Even compared to a source cited presumably by you BEFORE
>The researchers found that vaccination seemed to reduce the likelihood of long COVID in people who had been infected by only about 15%.

I'm sorry, 15% is "vaccines fail to reduce" now? Even at the lower margin of 15%, that's huge you fucking moron holy shit.

>>14591826
None of that is true. Vaccines do reduce viral load, including for omicron, and you have to make up a reason to disregard the study which you do by inventing a conspiracy theory.

Only schizos think science "proves". Science provides evidence. Evidence you don't understand even a little.

>>14591827
>15% if HYUGE!
>IVM only reduces viral load by several fold!? Get out of here grandpa!
Yeash.

>>14591836
I don't subscribe to your religion of cherrypicked badly done studies. Nor your mental illness where you lie in between posts even contradicting what you previously stated.

Your desperation is self evident in just how much you have to lie and try to move the goalposts.

>>14591683
>>14591696
>ivermectin is less safe than vaccines
gonna need a source for that, and it should specifically be about the compound ivermectin, not horse medicine

>>14591842
Which study do you want me to pull dosage from? I don't subscribe to your bullshit, so obviously I have no clue which one you think best demonstrates your case. The dose-effect you propose is what matters in how I reply.

>>14591831
>Vaccines do reduce viral load, including for omicron
Oh yeah? Your paper showed no reduction in RNA. That's why they decided to infect a cell line, to argue the infection rate was actually reduced by 15-fold (and only in the boosted) which manages to provide almost no protection against secondary attack rate and long covid.

>>14591847
>I have a conspiracy theory
Your failure to understand why something matters does not mean it was done for nefarious reasons. That's just part of your religion.

>>14591839
>I don't subscribe to your religion of cherrypicked badly done studies.
All righty then, please point out what you think is badly done with these studies >>14591637. You clearly have no issue with in vitro results when the in vivo results don't pan out, so I'd love to know what your critique is here.

>>14591852
Who said anything about a conspiracy? In vivo results showed no reduction in viral load. So they argued that viral load alone may not be the whole story and completed an in vero study. However, we can look at in vivo results. Whether they're right or wrong about infectious viral load, what does it matter when real world results are show it makes no difference? IVM lowers viral load to a greater degree than the vaccines, and reduces secondary attack rates to a greater degree than the vaccines. I've seen nothing on long covid risk, but I'd imagine that is reduced as well. I'm not advocating for IVM either, I'm making the point that if you believe viral load is the end all, be all, then you should be jerking off with lube dosed with IVM.

>>14591854
>You clearly have no issue with in vitro results when the in vivo results don't pan out, so I'd love to know what your critique is here.
Why would I waste a single instant on anything you post when you're this dishonest? You people cling to made up schizo fairy tales like life rafts. What I posted has nothing to do with conflating in vitro results to in vivo effects, because in the case I posted the lab analysis demonstrates what's going on with the cells in the samples collected.

You keep saying those words like they're magical incantations with zero comprehension behind them, and obviously continue to refuse to read the linked citation to explain any of it. So why would I waste a second on you?

>>14591860
>What I posted has nothing to do with conflating in vitro results to in vivo effects
The in vivo results showed the vaccines did not lower viral RNA.

>>14591858
>>14591864

You don't know what those words mean. Anyway, the difference that matters is in symptoms and effects following infection. Moving the goalpost by talking about viral transmission has nothing to do with the topic.

So, to summarize:
1. Vaccines reduce the viral load, and for omicron reduce how effective the viral load is when more precise testing is done to compare. Just chanting "Buht muh in vitro" is completely irrelevant, all results are laboratory analysis and you have no actual stated reason beyond your belief in the magic of the words.
2. Vaccines reduce symptoms of infection. In the earlier cited work by an anti-vaxxer, and more accurately in the 10+ million sample nature study I just posted above, that includes long covid and therefore subsequent brain damage. Also noted in a much earlier posted article.

You chucklefucks can lie and pivot all you want, but anyone outside your religion knows how full of shit you are.

>>14591873
And because this is funny to me,
>In combination, these results indicate that the observed high transmissibility of Omicron BA.1 is not caused by elevated VLs, and the mechanism behind the higher transmissibility remains to be investigated.

If any of you dipshits bothered to read the study including the discussion portion, you'd know it was an extensive mechanism investigation to determine whether earlier proposed higher VL's were responsible. This provides evidence that it is not, as both RNA VL and infectious VL were lower in breakthrough cases.

You know, that thing you're lying about because you didn't read it.

The whole point of this study was to provide evidence to suggest viral load is not the cause of the greater rates of transmission. As a result, it also contradicts your myths, which is why you have to lie about what it says.

>>14591852
You're not presenting a counter argument to his claim.

>>14591903
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Cope and seethe.

>>14591846
How about this one
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1.full.pdf

>>14586617
Shouldn’t happen unless the vax entered the reproductive system, which we were told was a conspiracy.

All covid studies post first pandemic wave that explore the effectiveness of vaccines and do not record antibody levels prior to entering the participants into the system are invalid.

>>14585890
This means it's working, safe and effective.

>>14591905
He listed his evidence...

>>14591910
Okay, so while I was pulling this through some basic checks, risk of bias tools, that sort of thing, I thought to check if someone else did so first to save time. Yes, they did: https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(21)00422-4/fulltext

A study like this one can help you understand some of the basic starting steps to analyzing a given trial or set of trials. Naturally, claims of "shenanigans" are precluded as such tools and standard analysis models come as a package applicable in general to general findings. This amounts to the fact that, due to the method employed in this small trial and others of its kind, and the small effects for viral clearance found, the average result approaches null once excluding studies with high risk of sampling bias and risk of error from uncertainty (part of sensitivity analysis).

So what about side effects compared to vaccination?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015
When adjusting for signal noise (see study for detail) the vaccine has no significant elevation of risks of severe clinical adverse events.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2788172
"In this systematic review and meta-analysis, approximately one-third of placebo recipients in COVID-19 vaccine randomized clinical trials reported at least 1 systemic AE after both the first and the second dose, with headache and fatigue being the most common."

Unfortunately, nothing anywhere near as extensive has ever been done for Ivermectin that I could locate. Even so from extensive search on individual or meta-analytic findings the score appears equal.

So is Ivermectin less safe than vaccines? Well, yes.
"But you just said there's no evidence of side effects!"
It's less safe because it doesn't work as well as vaccines do, or really at all for clinical comparisons given all the null results from hundreds of clinical trials. If you think that's some kind of "cop out" you might want to check your agenda.

>>14592016
Assertion of a conspiracy because you don't understand something is not evidence. It is an assertion. Without evidence.

>>14592079
Whup wrong quote from the second jama study. Meant to quote the overall systemic event portion. Overall placebo reported 29.8 (23-36.5) and vaccine reported 56.8 (47.1-66.5). For... "my shit hurts and I'm tired".

If anyone wants to consider that evidence the vaccines are dangerous be my guest. I'll laugh at you though.

>>14591873
>You don't know what those words mean.
I do actually. You provided a study that showed vaccination did NOT reduce viral RNA in the vaccinated. I provided a second study that supported that claim.

>1. Vaccines reduce the viral load
No, they don't. Your study states exactly that when it involves Omicron.

>and for omicron reduce how effective the viral load is when more precise testing is done to compare.
So that's what the in vero testing was for, to measure how well it replicated in a cell line. Does that carry over to real world results? Does it lower transmission risk? Does it lower risk of long covid? The answer is not really. It provided a hypothesis that failed to pan out in vivo.

>all results are laboratory analysis and you have no actual stated reason beyond your belief in the magic of the words.
Studies on cell lines are neat, but real world results matter more.

>2. Vaccines reduce symptoms of infection.
Anon, I jumped into this thread over you claiming brain damage in the infected, and that vaccines would reduce the risk. Your own study, the study YOU provided, argued case severity made no difference when it came to pre- and post-infection MRI's. So how does symptom management support your claim at all, especially in light of everything else which doesn't support your claims (no reduction in viral RNA, little to no reduction in risk of long covid, little to no reduction in transmission rate, all indicating the vaccines are no longer working against current variants).

>In the earlier cited work by an anti-vaxxer, and more accurately in the 10+ million sample nature study I just posted above, that includes long covid and therefore subsequent brain damage.

Sure...look at that massive 15% reduction which also shows there was no difference in the severity of symptoms. >>14591645

I'm still waiting for a reasonable argument against IVM. You claimed the provided studies were poorly done, but gave no reason to support that claim.

>>14592082
>Assertion of a conspiracy
Can you point out the conspiracy? I believe you're making things up, no conspiracy was stated, you are repeatedly avoiding answering questions.

>>14592079
>It's less safe because it doesn't work as well as vaccines do
Oops! It reduces viral load to a greater degree than the vaccines. I provided papers to support that. You provided papers to support that. So now I guess we're at the point where we need to claim that vaccines work for reasons that don't involve reducing viral load. :-)

>>14592108
Your illiteracy is not my problem. Follow the thread.
>>14592106
>>14592113
Cope and seethe. You continue to completely make shit up to save your faith. Not my problem.

>>14592117
>Your illiteracy is not my problem. Follow the thread.
You're lying anon, you know it or you'd gleefully point out the post that had the conspiracy theory.

>Cope and seethe. You continue to completely make shit up to save your faith. Not my problem.
I gave you two separate studies, one of which showed a several fold reduction after a single dose. >>14591637 Your own study showed no reduction in viral RNA against Omicron, and a study I provided also showed no reduction in viral load. >>14591548 Your only defense for this has been that I'm stupid and somehow it doesn't matter, and that in vero results are somehow more meaningful to real world results. Those real world results show that either vaccines are not reducing viral load, or that reduction in viral load is meaningless in terms of risk for infecting others >>14591631, reducing symptoms, and reducing risk of long covid >>14591645.

>>14592128
>You're lying anon, you know it or you'd gleefully point out the post that had the conspiracy theory.
I sincerely don't give one single shit about your bait.
>I gave you two separate studies, one of which showed a several fold reduction after a single dose.
Funny, you seem to be avoiding the fact they've been reviewed and found rather wanting. >>14592079
>Your own study showed no reduction in viral RNA against Omicron
This is false. The repetition of this lie is chief among why I don't give a shit about you idiots.
>and that in vero results are somehow more meaningful to real world results
When you're comparing severity of outcome, yes, mechanism matters. Your ignorance is not some mistake of mine. This is explained in the study you refuse to read.
>Those real world results show that either vaccines are not reducing viral load, or that reduction in viral load is meaningless in terms of risk for infecting others
And you lie again, plainly here, as you are citing transmission studies. That is not what they show. Yawn.
>reducing symptoms, and reducing risk of long covid >>14591645.
Where you literally cite a publication stating it reduces risk of long covid. Oof.

The game is pretty obvious and boring.
You make shit up including contradicting yourselves, I point out that you've made shit up and are contradicting yourselves.
You make up more shit and pretend you haven't been caught.

I mean, okay, I guess if that's entertaining to you. Kind of admitting you lost though when each reply just continues to lie to save face.

>>14592138
>I sincerely don't give one single shit about your bait.
It's not bait, you could provide proof and are choosing not to.

>Funny, you seem to be avoiding the fact they've been reviewed and found rather wanting.
First, I asked for YOUR critique, not someone else's. Second, I see nothing pertaining to viral load in the review. The closest it comes is viral clearance, and even the studies I provided show clearance was similar, but peak viral load was substantially lower in the IVM groups. Remember, I'm not supporting IVM, you are based on your claim that reduced viral load is important.

>This is false. The repetition of this lie is chief among why I don't give a shit about you idiots.
It's not, and I directly linked to posts showing it's not. Instead of plainly showing how it's false, you're calling me stupid, which is what you've repeatedly done to avoid answering questions.

>When you're comparing severity of outcome, yes, mechanism matters.
I linked back to multiple posts showing no reduction in symptom severity, a meager 15% reduction in long covid risk, and no reduction in secondary transmission. In vitro is good for testing a hypothesis, but it must be validated in vivo, and your study hasn't panned out in vivo.

>And you lie again, plainly here, as you are citing transmission studies. That is not what they show. Yawn.
I also linked to comments providing multiple studies showing no reduction in viral load and no reduction in symptom severity, plus very little reduction in long covid risk.

>Where you literally cite a publication stating it reduces risk of long covid. Oof.
Ah yes, 15%. Very impressive. I'll give you that, here's a gold star, you've proven a whopping 15% reduction in long covid, no reduction in viral load, no reduction in transmission rate. What a glowing review for the vaccines. :-)

>>14592161
>It's not bait, you could provide proof and are choosing not to.
Already did. You're just lying to claim otherwise
>First, I asked for YOUR critique, not someone else's.
Ahahahahahahaha
>Second, I see nothing pertaining to viral load in the review.
It's in the study you just admitted you won't read because reasons.

I think we're done here. It's beyond obvious just how desperate you are, and it goes from comedic to just being downright sad. I genuinely hope you're trying to troll.

>>14592161
>First, I asked for YOUR critique, not someone else's.

By the way, there it is. The flat earther defense. "I asked if YOU did the experiment!"

My sides have reached orbit.

>>14592079
your article gives the study I linked generally low ratings of bias (and low is their lowest category, there is no "no bias" category). You have yet to compare the safety profile of the Ivermectin dosage used in my study to a standard vaccination. You seem to be arguing that vaccines are safer because they protect you better against covid, but I am not asking for that, I am asking specifically for the safety of the substances themselves

>>14592169
>It's in the study you just admitted you won't read because reasons.
https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(21)00422-4/fulltext

I opened the PDF. CTRL + F "viral load" = 2 results, only in the citations, not in the actual paper. I also read the paper. Here's what the paper looked at:
>Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000) nor mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000), and moderate certainty evidence shows that it probably does not increase symptom resolution or improvement (RD 14 more per 1000) nor viral clearance (RD 12 fewer per 1000).

Viral load was not evaluated. Are you suggesting real world results matter besides viral load? Kind of makes me question the efficacy of an in vero study compared to real world results. Hmm...

So let's recap. You claimed covid causes brain damage. You claimed brain damage is related to symptom severity. The paper you cited specifically pointed out that case severity did not matter. It should have stopped here, but you clung to the idea that the vaccines reduce viral load, AND somehow it will reduce brain damage, which again, your own study dismissed. You then became unhinged, repeatedly called others stupid and liars, refused to answer questions, refused to admit your own studies didn't support your claims even when they were directly quoted to you, adamantly claimed in vitro matters even when the evidence shows it's irrelevant, claimed you won, claimed others lost, claimed we've been caught (but again, you won't point out how, just that we're stupid).

You're very much like a girlfriend who is pissed off at you, but tells you "if you don't know why I'm mad, I'm not telling you." If you aren't prepared to debate, then don't bother debating. If you're just going to resort to ad hominem attacks and refuse to answer questions then you're wasting both your own time and the person you're arguing with.

>>14592173
When you claim the studies provided are terrible, and then after you're asked three different times why, you resort to using someone else's words, it gives the impression that you're unable to make your own evaluation and were just spewing shit and had to go googling for information.

>>14592213
>I am asking specifically for the safety of the substances themselves
That was in the post you're replying to

>I opened the PDF. CTRL + F "viral load" = 2 results, only in the citations, not in the actual paper.
It's a meta-analysis... of a bunch of papers...you quoted the summary and the graph results are in the figures/tables portion.

You're either bots or you really are that stupid holy shit.

>>14592231
Ok flerf

>>14592232
>It's a meta-analysis... of a bunch of papers...you quoted the summary and the graph results are in the figures/tables portion.
It's a meta analysis evaluating particular criteria, of which viral load is not one. The figures and graphs are in the PDF. Viral load is not listed in the figures or graphs.

>>14592239
Viral load is included, it's simply labeled differently. Try again. This time, read the paper.

>>14592232
Ah, I presume you mean the sentence
>Unfortunately, nothing anywhere near as extensive has ever been done for Ivermectin that I could locate. Even so from extensive search on individual or meta-analytic findings the score appears equal.
can you be more specific about what you mean by this? what actually are the scores you're finding?

>>14592244
>it's simply labeled differently.
So tell me what it's labeled as. You could have done so in the time it took you to make that comment.

>>14592247
There are no significant findings of adverse events beyond aches and pains for the vaccinations, and there weren't significant findings of adverse events I could find in a way that mattered. If there are, it's beyond my will to care, so I gave up and called it even since the baseline of the vaccine is already safe on that score.

In terms of efficacy, obviously ivermectin fails (see also that literature review in that same reply).

Why do you care about semen so much? What are you fucking gay?

>>14592255
Would you agree that -- disregarding efficacy against covid -- ivermectin is at least as safe as the vaccines?

>>14592254
Sounds like a whole lot of not my problem that you can't read.
>>14592261
Already wrote that in the reply. It is less safe because it doesn't work against covid. Meaning what risks do exist are needless to boot.

That means even in a vacuum disregarding covid, because ivermectin is ineffective it is therefore a pointless added risk however small. By definition that means even in that condition it is less safe.

>>14592266
>Already wrote that in the reply. It is less safe because it doesn't work against covid. Meaning what risks do exist are needless to boot.
You're bringing up efficacy against covid again, so you did not answer my question there and you did not answer it here. Once again, I'll ask: do you agree that -- DISREGARDING EFFICACY AGAINST COVID -- ivermectin is at least as safe as the vaccines? If you did answer that question already, do me a favor and just answer it again. Lack of a clear "no, I do not agree" will be taken as agreement

>>14592272
Your question is nonsense. Absent dosage for a given effect, meaning absent a condition to rank dosage against, there isn't a relationship to determine risk with. Dose could be "one micron" and risk zero as a result. Dosages are matters of efficacy vs risk with respect to a given condition.

Risk at the dose in that paper? Ivermectin would have a higher risk given the dosage is daily. For 3 days? I could not find any evaluation of risk of Ivermectin at that dose for only 3 days in some large scale trial. That is indeterminate. As indicated, everything I went through was either lower dose or equivalent dose for treatment of conditions like malaria on a smaller reporting scale. I could find no real comparative studies to properly evaluate large-scale risk with, especially absent those conditions or possible regional interactions (with parasitic infections or other local viral/fungal/etc).

>Lack of a clear "no, I do not agree" will be taken as agreement
Not getting the answer you want because it's more complex than you want it to be isn't some victory for you. If you think that it is, you've definitely lost more than a stupid argument.

>>14592266
>Sounds like a whole lot of not my problem that you can't read.
It doesn't say it anywhere. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I was missing it. Way to impress, anon.

>>14592281
Act less like a dishonest twat and I put up more effort to help. Maybe you'll learn that lesson. I doubt it.

>>14592280
Obviously I'm not asking about "one micron", what's the point of bringing that up? It's not "more complex" answers I'm hedging against with my gambit, it's weaselly non-answers like that. From context it's clear that I'm asking about the dosage in the Israel study, i.e. 12 to 15 mg per day for three days
>Risk at the dose in that paper? Ivermectin would have a higher risk given the dosage is daily
That's specious reasoning, that three consecutive days of 15mg of ivermectin is inherently more risky than two non-consecutive vaccinations. What numbers are you basing this on? If I'm reading the rest of your post correctly, you haven't found any actual information about this -- there is no scientific study that shows that 15mg of ivermectin for three days is less safe than even a single dose of vaccination. Do I have this correct?

>>14592294
Dear lord stop pretending I'm doing something nefarious and pay the fuck attention.
>That's specious reasoning, that three consecutive days of 15mg of ivermectin is inherently more risky than two non-consecutive vaccinations.
You did not read what I wrote properly. If the dosage was given daily for an equivalent EFFECT to the vaccine against infections, and keep in mind that's on broad scale deployment, it would be far more dangerous. The VERY NEXT SENTENCE then explains that for only a 3-day interval I could not find a sufficiently large scale deployment at that dosage to compare effects.
>it's weaselly non-answers like that
Your failure to understand why it matters does not make it "weaselly". It just makes you a jackass.

>there is no scientific study that shows that 15mg of ivermectin for three days is less safe than even a single dose of vaccination.

Three days of 15mg ivermectin would not produce the months of benefit the vaccines do. Again, you are just not comprehending that the question is stupid. To get the same benefit, you would be taking Ivermectin long term at high dosages.

That is why I separated between the two. Just saying "There isn't a study evaluating that sufficiently for a 3-day series" is meaningless because it's comparing apples to a forklift.

>>14592280
Also,
> Ivermectin would have a higher risk given the dosage is daily. For 3 days? I could not find any evaluation of risk of Ivermectin at that dose for only 3 days in some large scale trial.
you must not have looked very hard, because this was one of the first studies google gave me on ivermectin safety profile
>https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30163-4/fulltext
>3 days of ivermectin 300 μg/kg per day, ivermectin 600 μg/kg per day, or placebo
Presumably you are disregarding studies like this because they are not "large scale" trials? I agree that I can't find those either, but all of the relevant small-scale trials on ivermectin safety I am seeing show that they are just as safe as covid vaccines. Have you found a small-scale study showing the opposite?

>>14592300
>You did not read what I wrote properly. If the dosage was given daily for an equivalent EFFECT to the vaccine against infections, and keep in mind that's on broad scale deployment, it would be far more dangerous.
That's not what you said, you said
>Risk at the dose in that paper? Ivermectin would have a higher risk given the dosage is daily. For 3 days? I could not find any evaluation of risk of Ivermectin at that dose for only 3 days in some large scale trial.
>...in that paper?.... at that dose
>...in that paper?.... at that dose
>...in that paper?.... at that dose
>...in that paper?.... at that dose
Which paper were you referring to if not https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1.full.pdf?

>>14592294
Okay, okay, maybe I get what you're not putting together.

The problem is, ***again***, dosage is determined by a kind of risk-reward analysis where you want a given effect for a given time with a given risk.

The problem here is if you exclusively want to compare to a 3-day trial, then there's no data either way. Because then you would, to make it a fair comparison, significantly decrease the dosage of the vaccine to make it equivalent.

>>14592304
Not the same dosage. The linked study exceeded 800, and that was another issue I had trying to find equivalence.

As explained again above, if you're exclusively going to limit to 3 days then zero data exists for comparison. Because the vaccine dose would need to be adjusted to make the comparison at all.

>>14592307
The more you treat my attempts at trying to figure out your hangups as a trick the more I'm just going to start calling you retarded.

>>14592310
Answer my question. When you said
>Risk at the dose in that paper? Ivermectin would have a higher risk given the dosage is daily. For 3 days? I could not find any evaluation of risk of Ivermectin at that dose for only 3 days in some large scale trial.
were you talking about the dosage in the medrxiv paper, or were you talking about the dosage required for an equivalent effect to the vaccine against infections? Or some other dosage besides those two?

>>14592308
>Not the same dosage. The linked study exceeded 800, and that was another issue I had trying to find equivalence.
Sorry, which study are you talking about here? There have been many linked studies in this thread

>>14592318
Well! My eyes do be getting old apparently. I somehow misread the ivermectin dose. Either that or accidentally transposed different tabs in my memory. That explains a lot. Though I don't think it changes anything, it does help clear up a misunderstanding.

So, yes, I suppose you could use the other study linked as the dosage there exceeds the one in the viral load study linked by the other anon. But you'd still need to correspond dose to effect and length of effect to make the comparison equivalent. Not sure how you'd manage that.

>>14592317
>were you talking about the dosage in the medrxiv paper, or were you talking about the dosage required for an equivalent effect to the vaccine against infections? Or some other dosage besides those two?
The dosage in the medrxiv paper, yes, based on the supposed benefit that dosage might accrue. You'd either need to scale down the vaccine dose to make the effect equivalent or scale up the ivermectin dose / dose length.

>>14592339
>But you'd still need to correspond dose to effect and length of effect to make the comparison equivalent. Not sure how you'd manage that.
Yeah I'm not either, so aside from this statistical comparison that neither of us has any idea how to calculate, we can both agree that dosages exceeding 200 μg/day of ivermectin -- which was found to reduce viral loads and viral clearance times for covid in at least one study -- have been found to be safe in other studies
> dosage in the medrxiv paper, yes, based on the supposed benefit that dosage might accrue. You'd either need to scale down the vaccine dose to make the effect equivalent or scale up the ivermectin dose / dose length.
What would you need to scale the ivermectin dose up to in order to get a similar level as vaccines? The medrxiv paper found a positive effect at, well, the dosage in the medrxiv paper

>>14592339
Let me point out an example of you being weasely btw, if you genuinely don't see yourself being that way
>That explains a lot. Though I don't think it changes anything, it does help clear up a misunderstanding.
You brought up the fact that the linked study exceeded 800 as part of your argument, but when it turns out you were wrong, you decide it doesn't change anything? Why would you make it part of your argument in the first place if its truth or falsity doesn't actually change anything?

>>14592346
>so aside from this statistical comparison that neither of us has any idea how to calculate
Yes, I do know how you could. But just interpolating figures assuming some linear dose-response relationship or whatever wouldn't work because there isn't a function to describe it. I know exactly how you could if such data were available.

Let me get one thing straight here: I know a lot more about all of this than any of you do. Don't even pretend it's otherwise.

>What would you need to scale the ivermectin dose up to in order to get a similar level as vaccines? The medrxiv paper found a positive effect at, well, the dosage in the medrxiv paper

It's a qualitative comparison. So you would either need to make the vaccines much weaker, so a much lower dose, to correspond to a short time interval one would take ivermectin with OR chronically use ivermectin.

Keep in mind this is purely in the hypothetical of assuming it does anything (which as I linked earlier it does not appear to on review). Assuming best case scenario regarding hospitalizations, I'm thinking the Brazil study ( https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869 ) even assuming a linear relationship to achieve the 10-fold reduction for something like Delta the CDC reported from vaccination you'd be reaching a very high daily dose of ivermectin. No clue how risky that is and just multiplying is pointless.

>>14592355
Go back up and see where I mentioned what I misremembered the dose to be and why. That regarded inclusion of a study on side-effects. The thing is, to make an apples-to-apples comparison you'd have to do something we don't have the data to do. THAT is why it is irrelevant that I misremembered it.

I only said before >>14592308 the mistaken higher dose I misremembered made it hard to find equivalent studies. Which is a different thing than "making the dose-response relationship equivalent". How the hell is that dishonest? Just because they're around the same time? Seriously, what?

>>14592355
This is often the problem with communication and disagreement. No, it was not some core part of my argument and never was. I only mentioned the damn rabbit hole at all trying to be honest in the first place.

So guess how fucking funny it is that it's being used to imply dishonesty, when I'm the one who said "Given what I've read I can't say it's more dangerous at that dose for that span of time". Yes, totally, my stating that in spite of how I knew I'd have to explain things about dose-response and risk management bla bla bla that's TOTALLY me being dishonest.

Here's a safety study where they exceeded 200 μg/day by a factor of TEN -- of course this is even more than the 800 μg/day anon thought the covid study used -- which found essentially the same adverse effect rate as placebo
Once again, one of the very first results on google for ivermectin safety study. Did he even look at all?

>>14592368
>>14592280
I dunno did you read anything I actually wrote? I sure as fuck did a lot more than you.

It is very funny to me that every single attempt to put in effort is met with assumption no effort was put in, or that effort put in was equivalent to "hurrr look I did a google".

Yes, I totally did nothing else. I didn't try to compare methodologies, or sample sizes, or avoid confounds, or anything at all. No all I did was slam my fingies into google and totally didn't find it. Which wasn't what I wrote in the first place.

That you people assume everyone else is as lazy and dumb as you are is very high on the list of reasons why nobody likes you. Not only is it not as easy as "Look dose matched" the fact YOU THOUGHT IT WAS speaks volumes about YOU.>>14592368

That was the first result on Google, here's the second
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31960060/
Methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the safety and doses of ivermectin was conducted. Eligible studies reported patient-level data and, for the meta-analysis, clinical trials reporting data on doses ≥200 and ≥400 μg/kg were included. Incidence ratios were used to compare adverse events by severity and organ system affected.

Results: The systematic search identified six studies for inclusion, revealing no differences in the number of individuals experiencing adverse events. A descriptive analysis of these clinical trials for a variety of indications showed no difference in the severity of the adverse events between standard (up to 400 μg/kg) and higher doses of ivermectin. Organ system involvement only showed an increase in ocular events in the higher-dose group in one trial for the treatment of onchocerciasis, all of them transient and mild to moderate in intensity.

>>14592384
Thanks for proving my point. Fucking retards.

Here's another from the first page
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27469
Maybe this is where he got 800 micrograms from?
>Our study used two doses regimen of 200μg/kg, with no ivermectin-related adverse events observed. Recent studies have evaluated ivermectin doses up to 800μg/kg, given in a single dose or three consecutive days, and reported good safety profiles.15-17 A meta-analysis of the safety profile of higher doses of ivermectin showed no increased risk of adverse events with higher ivermectin doses compared to 200 or 400μg/kg.
Far from every study being a lower dose than the Israeli study, EVERY study is on a dosage at least as big. Anon, can you link to one of the studies you found that looks at less than 200?

>>14592371
Tbh a lot of what you wrote is padding and generic insults

>>14592395
One does not cast pearls before swine. If you wanted something better, be better.

>>14592398
Yeah, like that, which is why I did not address most of your text
Anon, which study did you look at that investigated safety of ivermectin at doses under 200μg/kg? Were there any?

>>14592410
Your failure to read is not some duty of mine to rectify. Cry about it.

>>14592414
Yup that sure is a generic information-free insult. So when you >>14592280 said
>Risk at the dose in that paper? Ivermectin would have a higher risk given the dosage is daily. For 3 days? I could not find any evaluation of risk of Ivermectin at that dose for only 3 days in some large scale trial. That is indeterminate. As indicated, everything I went through was either lower dose or equivalent dose for treatment of conditions like malaria on a smaller reporting scale.
was this back when you thought the Israeli study was doing 800μg/kg and not 200μg/kg? Or did you actually find studies that looked at less than 200μg/kg?

a paraphrased high-level overview of my discussion with say-much-while-saying-nothing anon, because we're well past bump limit so why not
>>14591683
>Vaccines have better safety than ivermectin
>>14591842
>source?
>>14591846
>Which study do you want dosages from? [generic insult]
>>14591910
>This one
>>14592079
>Well the study you gave me was mentioned in this meta-analysis and so ivermectin probably doesn't work, and so the ivermectin is less safe because it doesn't protect you from covid unlike the vaccines. [generic insult]
>>14592213
>The study you linked found low levels of bias in my paper, and you didn't actually compare the safety of the vaccines and ivermectin directly, you're saying the vaccines are more safe because they protect you from covid. What about the substances themselves?
>>14592232
>I answered that. [generic insult]
>>14592247
>Oh, where you said you couldn't find information, and the little information you did find, the "score" appears equal. What do you mean by that -- what scores did you find?
>>14592255
>There were no significant adverse events found for the vaccines, and obviously ivermectin fails in efficacy
>>14592261
>Ok but aside from covid efficacy, you would say ivermectin is at least as safe as the vaccines?
>>14592266
>No, because ivermectin doesn't work against covid. Even in a vaccum, disregarding covid, ivermectin is an unnecessary risk because it is ineffective [editor's note: against covid presumably, lol]
>>14592272
>Ok but DISREGARDING COVID, is ivermectin less safe or nah?

>>14592284
>Act less like a dishonest twat
Yes, you're obviously practicing what you preach.

>and I put up more effort to help
There's nothing for you to help, the analysis did not include "viral load" or anything of the sort, you're simply lying and resorting back to "if you don't know, I'm not telling you."

Continuing,
>>14592280
>Your question is nonsense. If you don't tell me specifically what dose you mean then how can I tell risk? Dose could be two atoms and there would be zero risk! Are you asking about two atoms? If you're talking about the dose in that paper we've been talking about then Ivermectin has a higher risk because the dose is daily, for 3 days. I couldn't find any information on that dose for 3 days in a large scale trial, all I found was either lower dose or similar dose for conditions like malaria
>>14592294
>>14592304
>Yeah I'm not talking about two atoms, I'm talking about the paper we've been talking about, i.e. 12-15 mg/day, or 200 ug/mg. i don't buy your reasoning about three consecutive days, that's not inherently more risky about two non-consecutive vaccinations. And I'm finding a bunch of studies where they looked at the safety of ivermectin at or exceeding the doses in the israeli study.
>>14592300
>[generic insult]. If the doses were high enough to give an equivalent effect as the vaccines, they would be far more dangerous, and I didn't find a sufficiently large scale deployment for 3 days at such a dose to compare effects. [generic insult]. Three days of 15mg ivermectin would not provide the benefit that vaccines do [editor's note: despite the fact that the "15mg" figure is from a paper which found a significant positive effect]
>>14592307
>You didn't say at an equivalent dose, you said "the dose in that paper".
>>14592308
>>14592310
>[generic insult]. Dosage is determined by a risk-reward analysis -- if you just want to compare a 3-day trial there isn't enough data. The dosage in the study you linked is smaller than the one you originally linked, which is 800, and I couldn't find anything to compare to that.
>>14592317
>>14592318
>Wait, are you talking about the medrxiv paper, or the dosage for an equivalent effect as the vaccines, or what? And where are you getting 800 from?

Continuing
>>14592339
>oops you're right, it was 200 and not 800. That doesn't change anything though.
>>14592355
>It's weaselly of you to bring up a fact for your argument, but when it turns out your fact was wrong you say it doesn't change anything.
>>14592363
>>14592365
at this point my patience for anon's say-much-while-saying nothing writing style ran quite thin, and so I stopped addressing the specific things he said. Then I started just putting up ivermectin safety studies in non-reply posts because it showed he was full of shit earlier and the non-reply format seemed to trigger him in an amusing way, witnessed by his regression to single-line generic insults with no meaningful content at all
Anyway, anon, this is what you look like

>>14592398
Anon, when you have multiple people asking you simple questions, and you repeatedly respond with insults, you should ask yourself who's the one with the issue. If you think we're all so stupid, you should either 1. make an honest attempt to teach us or 2. leave. You choose option 3. Repeatedly respond with insults, tell us we're lazy, yet you put in the time and effort to reply every time with more insults. You're a troll, and I don't think that's what your intent was when you entered this thread, but you were proven wrong from the very beginning and have been hell bent on wasting everyone's time since then.

>>14592436
>>14592440
>>14592444
The both of us wasted far too much time on that person. It takes far less effort to call people idiots and liars than it does to produce studies and quotes. Whether they were trolling or refused to give up, we surely wasted more of our time than they did.

>>14592456
Yeah but it was fun

>>14592436
>>14592440
>>14592444
>Bunch of blatantly dishonest bullshit
Yawn.
>anon's say-much-while-saying nothing writing style
"I don't understand therefore"
>>14592448
You're all stupid and blatantly dishonest. If you don't like being insulted for bad behavior, stop behaving badly.
> tell us we're lazy
Repeatedly refusing to sit and read citations given and then responding for hours with blatant lies about said citations is at least laziness, yes. Grow up.
>but you were proven wrong from the very beginning
The cope is hilarious.

So all that being said, unvaccinated people suffer on average more neural damage from covid infections INCLUDING in omicron and unsurprisingly will have greater risks of long covid. Glad we agree.

Hey guys. Check this out. Brain damage from covid isn't determined by case severity.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586
-022-04569-5
>The participants who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 also showed on average a greater cognitive decline between the two time points. Importantly, these imaging and cognitive longitudinal effects were still observed after excluding the 15 patients who had been hospitalized.

Check this out. No need to get covid when you can get neural inflammation from a vaccine! Fast and effective.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34480607/
>The availability of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), provides hope towards mitigation of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Vaccine safety and efficacy has not been established in individuals with chronic autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS). Anecdotal reports suggest that the vaccines may be associated with brain, spinal cord, peripheral nervous system, and cardiac inflammation. Based on the high morbidity and unpredictable course of COVID-19, and the need to achieve herd immunity, vaccination has been recommended for patients with MS. We report clinical and MRI features of seven individuals who received the Moderna (n = 3) or Pfizer (n = 4) SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. Within one to 21 days of either the first (n = 2) or second (n = 5) vaccine dose, these patients developed neurologic symptoms and MRI findings consistent with active CNS demyelination of the optic nerve, brain, and/or spinal cord. Symptoms included visual loss, dysmetria, gait instability, paresthesias, sphincter disturbance, and limb weakness. Age ranged from 24 to 64 (mean 39.1) years; five were woman (71.4%). The final diagnosis was exacerbation of known stable MS (n = 4, two were receiving disease-modifying therapy at the time of vaccination), new onset MS (n = 2), or new onset neuromyelitis optica (n = 1). All responded to corticosteroid (n = 7) or plasma exchange (n = 1) therapy, with five returning to baseline and two approaching baseline. Large prospective studies are required to further investigate any possible relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and acute CNS demyelination.

Check this out. Want to have long covid? Skip the virus, just go for the vaccine!

https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-cases-coronavirus-vaccines-may-cause-long-covid-symptoms

>>14592605
>Bunch of blatantly dishonest bullshit
Great summary of the conversation
>source that the vaccines are more safe than ivermectin?
>at what dosage?
>the one from this paper
>at the dosage of ivermectin you would need to take to get the same protection for months like the vaccine, the vaccine is way safer
>what about the one in the paper tho
>SHUT UP NOT MY FAULT YOU CANT READ

>>14591223
Dude, its been 2 years and half a dozen "waves" and still a vast majority of people HAVE NOT been infected. So yeah its more likely to not be infected than be infected.
I'm not even an ameritard, let alone churchtard. And live in the suburbs of a 7million population city. Going to all those events and places i said. Hell my whole family (7 people) spent two days around a single family member who did have covid and no one else got it.
Just be healthier lol, sucks that the only protection you can have is the vaccine because you are too retarded to just live healthy.