The main problem with any % use here is, IIRC, they do not report every case. They've delivered millions of doses by now, which the above link does not reflect. I think the numbers in the tweet are more correct, e.g., 1 in 10000. That's just in the short term though, I personally expect long term effects will be present and they won't be checked.
DNA has a low chance to become permanent, for things like the Astrazeneca vaccine. RNA, like with Moderna/Pfizer, can only be temporary in production - it's unstable and not maintained like DNA in our genome. DNA usually requires specific machinery for genome insertion to be successful, but a very tiny percent has been found to have genome integration (working with lab cells) without it. The concept of injecting RNA has been studied in animal trials for a while, and some clinical trials, and appears to be fine. However, past RNA differed in that it was not trying to act as a vaccine and involve the immune system, and I think uses much smaller doses.
As you said, no one knows because they haven't looked. Including into looking at whether the immune system will respond by destroying cells infected with the Moderna RNA. There was a lot of that happening in real COVID patients. In general this sounds risky for severe disorders relating to immunity, and depending on how strong it is, it sounds conceptually similar to autoimmunity. I hypothesize you risk killing your own cells at random, and how risky this is will depend on how many cells get infected with a dose. There will be plenty of risky cell types to have. Random cell loss in the liver will lead to cell destruction, inflammation, maybe tissue scarring, which is a causative determinant for hepatocellular carcinoma. One of several examples that come to mind as possible long term effects. Were it to happen in the wrong cell in the heart - I speculate without any cardiology training - that risks acute function collapse?
If true, posting the finding in numerical terms, or a bar graph or something, would be a great thing to spread around. Assuming it's not something widely available and known, might force the judge or someone close to comment on it, under the eye of the public. Changing public perception, making it difficult for them to hide behind lies, is the first step.
No... Actually, they have an increased risk of suicide afterwards. And they have dependency/addiction to go along with them, plus other severe health effects. "The FDA has warned that antidepressant use in children and adolescents is linked with an increased risk of suicidal ideation." https://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/do-ssri-antidepressants-increase-suicide-risk-in-children-with-depression-and-anxiety
Notice their next sentence is, somehow, "but it's not all bad!". The shilling goes deep, and going against a big force like those supporting SSRIs takes courage. Which considerable scientists have actually shown and reported on the dark history of selling this drug to the public with bad science and overlooking numerous dangers... but there is a shill army. So anyone needing a quote about how great SSRIs are can draw on such "experts" when needed.
Was it a few years ago when AOC said experts say we have 13 years left stop stop carbon emissions or we're all dead? It's odd because after the GND AOC does not seem very active on climate. I mean it's a world ending emergency with a near impossible task right? How come she's involved in Democrat political theater instead of this?
Yeah they got wrecked and this would not be the first time they'll hide from it by bringing up some unrelated BS and then pretend nothing else happened. Their principal case got rekt, so, they'll do something like bring in Trump's niece to complain about his psychology in made up stories in an unrelated matter, then moan loudly for weeks and pretend this is the best case for impeachment and their getting rekt never happened.
edit: oh and they want to drag it out, use political theater, take focus off what Biden is doing and his suspicious EOs
I guess it slightly helps with Dems who were watching impeachment and still watched the defense. Like I mentioned many of these incidents to my lefty-loyalist parents and they couldn't believe it was real, but were too lazy to look and check. Sadly though, even seeing it they most will probably cognitive dissonance their way out of it. Still though, the left exposed themselves to have new lows. It's not going to bring us any major results, probably. I wouldn't call it any victory, but it's a thing worth noting.
I mean, most conservatives that switched over didn't become conservative for that reason. So it suggests remaining leftists have some type of very fundamental defect.
And another reason why they won't change is they probably won't show the defense on most networks. I imagine if they do that they'll edit the unedited clips to the original edited one and make hilarious jokes, in their own minds, lampooning the silly, guilty Republicans.
I thought he seemed reasonable at times (this must be true because he's switched his opinion back and forth so much). He was sort of seeming overly cautious and useless, like a medical interpreter to help understand policy rather than someone with strategy. He used to defend Trump from exaggerated claims and be focused on the virus at the beginning, and then seemed to develop an agenda and contradict himself. He should be disqualified from any credibility when he said he deliberately lied about masks. Even if you believe is most recent statement, it unavoidably means he is a liar who can't be trusted.
One of the earlier signs for me was him randomly (in vague, unscientific terms) discrediting HCQ and saying Remdesivir looks so great. As a scientist, the terms he was using were jarringly odd; it's just not neutral, mentioning limitations, and not data based (unless cherry picking small bits of data of interest). I believe he had stock in the company producing it. Does anyone know (tried to search and it was "fact checked" as false, but, most fact checking websites are hardcore partisan)? He said the US should share it with the world. How'd that work out? Man are his takes so bad when you check them a few months later. It's seriously comical, how can he have such a high post?
Eh, guess I'll support, but I haven't been able to stomach Daily Wire much since the election. Supporting alternatives is almost as important as people canceling Disney, because it stops them from monopolizing opportunities for actors, advertisers, etc, under left-wing fascism.
Used to be subscribed to Shapiro and Klavan. Before the election they were making random doomer predictions, at least Klavan, IIRC. In the early days past the 4am continued counting they gave up without hesitation. Then they say, but don't worry, we're going to rebuild the culture, subscribe to the daily wire! That was when I unsubbed. Anyway, striking fast with Gina is a smart move, if they don't write something terrible.
How is he a Fox blowhard? He has no position there besides giving interviews, which he does on most networks? He even agrees to go on MSNBC (to argue his case), at least he did around 4 years ago - not sure if he repeated his voluntary appearances just to get abused.
Complain about Jordan all you want but I don't recall a time he stood against Trump, and he's always appeared far away from RINOs. For someone like him, even if he wanted to betray us he'd likely have a hard time getting back in the uniparty graces; he's probably considered a Trump team guy targeted for destruction by them. He's done a good job when he has had the chance to ask questions and communicate our case. You may want more but what he does seems very valuable to me, in the current environment.
step 1: Deny, conspiracy theorist ad hominem step 2: can't deny any more, silence step 3: topic shunned from all conversations, pretend to not know the relevance of step 1's topic step 4: switch to a new lie and repeat
Wish I did. I think actual FBI is going to treat us all as terrorists anyway. I don't think arguing the case for taking whatever action you meant should be legitimate grounds for FBI involvement without going into actual steps towards an attempt. But who knows they have no standards. But in any case, I was wondering if the post I'd been responding to was FBI, trying to incite into actions that won't be effective for us. They'd probably like to encourage claims of "combat" and so on, in vague ways, hoping it leads to a poorly organized and reckless attempts to be used to justify imprisoning us.
Anyway, I'm not talking about what individual posters here are doing, and asking for something leading to them being identified. Just discussing in plain conceptual terms of strategy and motivations. I think the strategy is to take over layers of society, especially locally and getting our own law groups, platforms, etc. It's a huge effort, but possible because we're the majority and not shitlibs. Again, not overt action at the beginning, but success puts us in positions to take big actions.
I don't see how you consider that what an FBI agent would be promoting, versus something that, from what I can envision, will harm our cause. Given this thread started with the implicit accusation that people weren't following the correct course, I'd expect some justification and reasoning to persuade people to change. But I'll stick to my opinion if yours is verboten, no other choice. But, should the worst case scenarios unfold and SHTF, i.e. secession and conflict, this will be a moot point.
Also yes, but there was supposedly a stronger effect in adolscents.