Alyksett

Members
  • Content count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Alyksett

  • Rank
    Trials Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

376 profile views
  1. "A clear advantage of mRNA vaccines is that, unlike DNA vaccines, they do not need to enter the nucleus to express the antigen." (All the main vaccines are mRNA) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcibr2009737 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna.html Small correction here, mRNA is copied from DNA and used to create proteins, I think you're thinking of a regular DNA vaccine, which does enter the nucleus. Using an mRNA in the vaccine skips this step of transcription and it is quickly broken down after it is used. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/where-mrna-vaccines-and-spike-proteins-go mRNA vaccines are new, and it is the first of it's kind but we've known about RNA for decades and is pretty thoroughly understood. And for what it's worth, I think the main reason the media is focused on squashing Ivermectin is because, at least in the US, we've had bad experiences with alternative medications (Hydroxychloroquine) and Ivermectin seems like another one of these alternatives, at least to them. The spikes in poisonings from it are a bit disconcerting though, even though these people took the wrong type.
  2. Or how someone can shy away from the conclusions of an organization that has almost 6 billion dollars of tools and capabilities whos sole purpose is to investigate drugs and medications to ensure their efficacy and safety, but would rather err on the side of unresearched alternatives. I'm not implying anyone here is like that but there are millions out there. Even if I knew someone who is a virologist/scientist and said the vaccine isn't safe I still would take it, because the opinion of thousands of scientists + billions in tools > 1 expert. It sets a lot of bad precedents to mandate a vax so I would never be in favor of doing so, and even if not everyone gets it then it's whatever, but I wish people would just get the jab lol
  3. You have to pay? How does testing work in the UK/EU? In the US (At least where I live) I can get tested whenever/wherever I want for free and have a few different types of test to choose from. Ironic!
  4. In terms of EV's I'd probably disagree, Tesla has made them too sexy and awesome for people to not want IMO. In terms of production they're not very environmentally friendly but most consumers don't actually care about how environmental their purchases are. The biggest concern would be the amount of Lithium available but never bet against humans doing whatever they can to make the world how they want it lol, it'll find a way Covid could have been started in a lab and leaked accidentally, not at all unrealistic. Just important to distinguish it as a lab leak instead of a bio-weapon. 9/11 could have been known, but I bet if the NSA/CIA were to treat every potential threat with the upmost concern then there would be a whole lot of problems, I'd say they probably just made a bad call. Bitcoin prediction is pretty fair and Elon thing is pretty fair but he wont change professional positions. I think Nuclear is absolutely the future. There have been a few catastrophic incidents due to blatant disregard for safety and negligence so that has the public scared of it, but once we get through the high upfront costs and make people understand that it's actually amazing (See: Thorium reactors), then in no time we'll be probably 90% nuclear energy based. Just gotta show people how dope it really is
  5. haha understandable!
  6. Yeah me neither, oh well!
  7. My posts were removed because I was spamming I guess!
  8. To be fair, they did mention the dosage right in the abstract, 150µg/kg. It was conducted in 2011 so Covid wasn't around. It's just a study examining the sperm counts. I'm not sure what you mean by percentages, as they said that every one of the participants experienced varying amounts of a decreased sperm count with specific numbers cited in the tables/charts. It's a single study with a small sample size, so it doesn't mean the end of the world, but it's just surprising that people will brush off the most stringent method of safety when it comes to vaccines and at the same time be okay with taking something that has so little research done on it's efficacy. I can only imagine if a single study came out that said getting the Pfizer jab potentially lowers sperm count to the level this study suggests (And others, cited in the paper)-- and then the level of backlash that would follow. The worst actual link that has come from any of the vaccines has been singe to double digit cases per million.