3 ms·

No, they don't concentrate in the ovaries. That's choice morsel of bullshit antivax disinfo. For a backgrounder of what actually happens, see Derek Lowe's rece

No, they don't concentrate in the ovaries. That's choice morsel of bullshit antivax disinfo. For a backgrounder of what actually happens, see Derek Lowe's recent blog[1]. Most of the lipid nanoparticles end up in the liver, which is exactly what you expect. There's a detailed debunk of the ovaries issue in [2]. Thanks for being curious about your part in spreading covid misinfo. I suspect most people aren't aware of what they're doing, just repeating stuff they heard from people they trust but probably shouldn't. [1]: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/spike-protein-behavior https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/sp... [2]: https://byrambridle.com/ https://byrambridle.com/

lugged 5y ago
The talk I linked came out last week, they specifically discuss the articles you've linked. Specifically, the reasoning your articles give for spike proteins being harmless is that they stay in the local injection site and lymphatic system. But we now know this is not the case and that these spike proteins do travel around the blood stream and concentrate in the ovaries. The claims that guy made on the radio a while back were wrong but there is new information coming out about this and we specifically do not know the ramifications yet. Phizer is looking at the new data package right now. At least, that is the argument currently being put forward, I don't know how much of it is fact based and how much is conjecture but it has me concerned at least somewhat. Calling everyone an antivaxer really doesn't help anything. This shit is a moving target.
effie 5y ago
And you are not repeating stuff you read from other people? Details on safety and efficacy of vaccines for different sub-populations are still subject of study, new data is being generated, and as new information comes out, our ideas on the risks and benefits may keep changing. Thank you for the links but please keep the arrogant tone down.
- manwe150 5y ago
  After vaccinating half the population, with the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise, the data is unlikely to substantially change for the other half of the population. PCPs already are aware of some subgroups that warrant additional caution and study, and additional study is ongoing to refine our knowledge. I would not classify that as expecting our understanding to change. He linked to a meta analysis that links to many other studies to carefully support each statement. That is not the same as making claims that are not based in current data or statistics.
  - effie 5y ago
    > the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise Efficacy of post-vaccine follow-up and reporting may change with time, and hopefully will. The problem is that there is no meticulous data gathering from all vaccinated persons. Reports of issues are voluntary in most cases and in some cases institutions are not even notified by the vaccinated persons. According to one study of VAERS frmo 2020, a passive reporting system, the real amount of issues is underreported; depending on the effect, the reporting efficacy is somewhere between 12-76% [1]. This is not a great system and because of that data gathering is not as fast as could be. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/
    - manwe150 5y ago
      That is what I meant to say also. So not to beat a dead horse, but there is no meticulous data gathering from unvaccinated people either, and we know that also suffers from vast underreporting. The one data set (being unvaccinated) simply also has a very strong signal of known serious health issues, while the other data set (getting almost any current vaccination) has a very weak signal of very rare, usually minor issues.

lugged 5y ago

The talk I linked came out last week, they specifically discuss the articles you've linked. Specifically, the reasoning your articles give for spike proteins being harmless is that they stay in the local injection site and lymphatic system. But we now know this is not the case and that these spike proteins do travel around the blood stream and concentrate in the ovaries. The claims that guy made on the radio a while back were wrong but there is new information coming out about this and we specifically do not know the ramifications yet. Phizer is looking at the new data package right now. At least, that is the argument currently being put forward, I don't know how much of it is fact based and how much is conjecture but it has me concerned at least somewhat. Calling everyone an antivaxer really doesn't help anything. This shit is a moving target.

effie 5y ago

And you are not repeating stuff you read from other people? Details on safety and efficacy of vaccines for different sub-populations are still subject of study, new data is being generated, and as new information comes out, our ideas on the risks and benefits may keep changing. Thank you for the links but please keep the arrogant tone down.

manwe150 5y ago
After vaccinating half the population, with the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise, the data is unlikely to substantially change for the other half of the population. PCPs already are aware of some subgroups that warrant additional caution and study, and additional study is ongoing to refine our knowledge. I would not classify that as expecting our understanding to change. He linked to a meta analysis that links to many other studies to carefully support each statement. That is not the same as making claims that are not based in current data or statistics.
- effie 5y ago
  > the rate of discovered issues being hard to measure because it is almost background noise Efficacy of post-vaccine follow-up and reporting may change with time, and hopefully will. The problem is that there is no meticulous data gathering from all vaccinated persons. Reports of issues are voluntary in most cases and in some cases institutions are not even notified by the vaccinated persons. According to one study of VAERS frmo 2020, a passive reporting system, the real amount of issues is underreported; depending on the effect, the reporting efficacy is somewhere between 12-76% [1]. This is not a great system and because of that data gathering is not as fast as could be. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33039207/
  - manwe150 5y ago
    That is what I meant to say also. So not to beat a dead horse, but there is no meticulous data gathering from unvaccinated people either, and we know that also suffers from vast underreporting. The one data set (being unvaccinated) simply also has a very strong signal of known serious health issues, while the other data set (getting almost any current vaccination) has a very weak signal of very rare, usually minor issues.