5 ms·

Ooh, I remember when this also was a conspiracy theory that it was a crime to mention.

Arnt 4y ago
You misunderstood. The crime is to imply that it means something bad which isn't actually the case. The most common cases can described as "vaccine has effect x" implying that x is bad, or "vaccine has bad effect x" implying that covid doesn't. The crime is a special case of lying by omission.
- origin_path 4y ago
  If you want to argue that COVID causes widespread menstrual disruption then go ahead. Show the evidence. You would have to show problems with this study, because the unvaccinated cohort (of whom we may presume some caught COVID) had cycle length changes in which the CIs contain zero i.e. they didn't change. My girlfriend has quite a few female friends who reported massive cycle disruptions after their vaccinations - not a day or two but where it disappeared for months on end, or where bleeding became uncontrollably frequent. It's the main reason she opted not to take it (+their general ineffectiveness). These symptoms appeared after vaccination exclusively. At no point did anyone report this happening after COVID even though plenty of them had had it, which given their age range is expected, because COVID was already very mild in that age group. It's also worth recalling that the very existence of this phenomenon disproves specific claims about the vaccines that were supposedly beyond question (that they stayed at the injection site). The CDC later silently deleted this claim from their website because it became untenable. Clearly, the people who you claim were "lying by omission" were in reality trying to flag that the authorities didn't understand their own experimental tech. Just like with so many other topics.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    No, I don't want to argue that. Disruption from covid not a bad assumption: The vaccines use small fragments of the virus, after all, so the virus contains every fragment used in a vaccine. But I wouldn't argue it. I also wouldn't argue that it does NOT cause any disruption. If one of those fragments cause menstrual disruption, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the rest of the virus undoes whatever the fragment does. Not something I'd want to argue and not something one should silently imply.
    - iinnPP 4y ago
      I don't believe the MRNA vaccines work as you state. The study picked people using 9 different vaccines though so presumably at least one of them is as you state.
    - vaxxfan 4y ago
      2 years in and you don't know how the COVID vaccines work. You want to talk about crimes? I can just laugh.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      The virus does not get injected into your muscle... Generally you get it through mouth or nose, its a totally different receiver mechanism.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      I understand why you think that, and it's true enough for most classical vaccines. But, the mRNA vaccines are different in at least five ways from the actual virus: 1. The spike protein it creates is structurally slightly different; they edited its structure to stop it collapsing in the absence of the rest of the virus. 2. The mRNA that codes for the spike is 'optimized' in ways nature either can't or won't do. In theory the optimized versions and viral versions are equivalent except for potency. 3. The mRNA is obfuscated to hide it from the immune system, which would otherwise immediately destroy it as being too dangerous to allow. This involves pseudouridine substitutions. It's a part of what makes the tech experimental. 4. The mRNA is protected by "lipid nanoparticles". This tech is totally different to what the virus does, and has caused unexpected toxicity problems in the past. In fact it's why mRNA based drugs never launched and why the COVID vaccines were the first outing for the tech despite it being under development for many years. They thought the toxicity wouldn't matter because the nanoparticles only become problematic on repeat dosings which, as everyone knows, vaccines don't require (doh). 5. The vaccine enters the body via a very different pathway, one which is far more likely to result in accidental injection straight into the bloodstream. For normal viral replication it often gets stuck in the nose, mouth, throat or lungs and can't reach e.g. the heart or the reproductive organs.
- legostormtroopr 4y ago
  Are you implying that a change in menstrual cycle isn’t “bad”? Because half the population would disagree. A 4 day late period could for some women suggest an unwanted pregnancy, and in a jurisdiction without access to reproductive services that could be a massive stress event.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    I'm not implying that, no. Rather that one should not imply that covid causes no disturbance, without having checked.
  - lazide 4y ago
    It’s not uncommon for cycle length to vary that long for any number of reasons, including stress.
- blitzar 4y ago
  Seatbelts cause massive bruising when you are in a head on collision at high speed. Airbags can fracture bones in the face, damage eyes or even result in a concussion at suitably high collision speeds.
- vaxxfan 4y ago
  You whole comment is so much backside covering considering that this is just one in a long line of claims that were literally called conspiracy theories/misinformation/anti-vax and therefore censored into oblivion. And again it turns out to be true. > "vaccine has bad effect x" implying that covid doesn't. This is crazy! First off, everything and the kitchen sink is associated with COVID via Long COVID. Literally, 200+ counting symptoms can so be said to be "caused" by COVID. So according to your principle the COVID vaccines has card blanche to cause massive damage! Vaccines have a good reputation because they used to be the safest medical products available on the market. Their safety profile must be impeccable because we give them to healthy people, even children and doubly so for COVID vaccines that have been mandated by law. The cost/benefit ratio must similarly be overwhelmingly good and that means that a vaccine must protected from disease risks that are magnitudes greater than the risk from the vaccine. Now here you are basically saying "it's okay, COVID does it too". No it isn't. It's a completely different moral question if you get a condition from a naturally spreading virus vs if you get it from a medically product, especially if you were coerced to get it.
- peteradio 4y ago
  There is no crime for common discussion. The ethical crime is not disclosing to pharmaceutical recipients the risks they entail. (i.e. pretending they aren't actually the trial subject)

Arnt 4y ago

You misunderstood. The crime is to imply that it means something bad which isn't actually the case. The most common cases can described as "vaccine has effect x" implying that x is bad, or "vaccine has bad effect x" implying that covid doesn't. The crime is a special case of lying by omission.

origin_path 4y ago
If you want to argue that COVID causes widespread menstrual disruption then go ahead. Show the evidence. You would have to show problems with this study, because the unvaccinated cohort (of whom we may presume some caught COVID) had cycle length changes in which the CIs contain zero i.e. they didn't change. My girlfriend has quite a few female friends who reported massive cycle disruptions after their vaccinations - not a day or two but where it disappeared for months on end, or where bleeding became uncontrollably frequent. It's the main reason she opted not to take it (+their general ineffectiveness). These symptoms appeared after vaccination exclusively. At no point did anyone report this happening after COVID even though plenty of them had had it, which given their age range is expected, because COVID was already very mild in that age group. It's also worth recalling that the very existence of this phenomenon disproves specific claims about the vaccines that were supposedly beyond question (that they stayed at the injection site). The CDC later silently deleted this claim from their website because it became untenable. Clearly, the people who you claim were "lying by omission" were in reality trying to flag that the authorities didn't understand their own experimental tech. Just like with so many other topics.
- Arnt 4y ago
  No, I don't want to argue that. Disruption from covid not a bad assumption: The vaccines use small fragments of the virus, after all, so the virus contains every fragment used in a vaccine. But I wouldn't argue it. I also wouldn't argue that it does NOT cause any disruption. If one of those fragments cause menstrual disruption, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the rest of the virus undoes whatever the fragment does. Not something I'd want to argue and not something one should silently imply.
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    I don't believe the MRNA vaccines work as you state. The study picked people using 9 different vaccines though so presumably at least one of them is as you state.
  - vaxxfan 4y ago
    2 years in and you don't know how the COVID vaccines work. You want to talk about crimes? I can just laugh.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    The virus does not get injected into your muscle... Generally you get it through mouth or nose, its a totally different receiver mechanism.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    I understand why you think that, and it's true enough for most classical vaccines. But, the mRNA vaccines are different in at least five ways from the actual virus: 1. The spike protein it creates is structurally slightly different; they edited its structure to stop it collapsing in the absence of the rest of the virus. 2. The mRNA that codes for the spike is 'optimized' in ways nature either can't or won't do. In theory the optimized versions and viral versions are equivalent except for potency. 3. The mRNA is obfuscated to hide it from the immune system, which would otherwise immediately destroy it as being too dangerous to allow. This involves pseudouridine substitutions. It's a part of what makes the tech experimental. 4. The mRNA is protected by "lipid nanoparticles". This tech is totally different to what the virus does, and has caused unexpected toxicity problems in the past. In fact it's why mRNA based drugs never launched and why the COVID vaccines were the first outing for the tech despite it being under development for many years. They thought the toxicity wouldn't matter because the nanoparticles only become problematic on repeat dosings which, as everyone knows, vaccines don't require (doh). 5. The vaccine enters the body via a very different pathway, one which is far more likely to result in accidental injection straight into the bloodstream. For normal viral replication it often gets stuck in the nose, mouth, throat or lungs and can't reach e.g. the heart or the reproductive organs.
legostormtroopr 4y ago
Are you implying that a change in menstrual cycle isn’t “bad”? Because half the population would disagree. A 4 day late period could for some women suggest an unwanted pregnancy, and in a jurisdiction without access to reproductive services that could be a massive stress event.
- Arnt 4y ago
  I'm not implying that, no. Rather that one should not imply that covid causes no disturbance, without having checked.
- lazide 4y ago
  It’s not uncommon for cycle length to vary that long for any number of reasons, including stress.
blitzar 4y ago
Seatbelts cause massive bruising when you are in a head on collision at high speed. Airbags can fracture bones in the face, damage eyes or even result in a concussion at suitably high collision speeds.
vaxxfan 4y ago
You whole comment is so much backside covering considering that this is just one in a long line of claims that were literally called conspiracy theories/misinformation/anti-vax and therefore censored into oblivion. And again it turns out to be true. > "vaccine has bad effect x" implying that covid doesn't. This is crazy! First off, everything and the kitchen sink is associated with COVID via Long COVID. Literally, 200+ counting symptoms can so be said to be "caused" by COVID. So according to your principle the COVID vaccines has card blanche to cause massive damage! Vaccines have a good reputation because they used to be the safest medical products available on the market. Their safety profile must be impeccable because we give them to healthy people, even children and doubly so for COVID vaccines that have been mandated by law. The cost/benefit ratio must similarly be overwhelmingly good and that means that a vaccine must protected from disease risks that are magnitudes greater than the risk from the vaccine. Now here you are basically saying "it's okay, COVID does it too". No it isn't. It's a completely different moral question if you get a condition from a naturally spreading virus vs if you get it from a medically product, especially if you were coerced to get it.
peteradio 4y ago
There is no crime for common discussion. The ethical crime is not disclosing to pharmaceutical recipients the risks they entail. (i.e. pretending they aren't actually the trial subject)