upvote

points

by boplicity20 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby 1234letshaveatw20 hours ago|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby biophysboy19 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You should elaborate on your secret knowledge of COVIDs origin. I was not aware this was completely settled knowledge.
reply
upvoteby 1234letshaveatw19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Its a "consensus"
reply
upvoteby biophysboy19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Is it? There are a lot of edgy contrarians that are very overconfident - doesnt seem like a global consensus to me
reply
upvoteby koshergweilo18 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They are very overconfident, to the point of losing their own money. There was the case of the rootclaim debate where Peter Miller successfully convinced two paid unbiased experts that COVID was not created in a lab and won $100,000

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...

reply
upvoteby biophysboy18 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Lineage A was first found in a Wuhan neighborhood right next to the wet market (closer to the wet market than 97% of Wuhan’s population). Again, it would be a bizarre coincidence if a lab leak pandemic was first detected at a wet market. But it would be an even more bizarre coincidence if a lab leak pandemic separated into two strains, and both were first detected at a wet market!

To the extent that there can ever be a "smoking gun" in this debate, this is it for me. Given the mutation rate of covid, the lab leak requires that two lineages transferred to the same area a week apart by mere accident.

reply
upvoteby koshergweilo15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah that and the "You would never choose <certain mutation> if you were designing COVID in a lab" were the kill-shots in the lab leak theory for me. I was pretty open-minded to the idea until a few hours into the debate. Bear in mind though, I don't think it actually matters too much anymore
reply
upvoteby soperj19 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> We included data from 21 studies (5 randomized trials and 16 observational studies) reporting on 149 685 women. The pooled rate of miscarriage among women who received a COVID-19 vaccine was 9% (n = 14 749/123 185, 95% CI 0.05–0.14). Compared to those who received a placebo or no vaccination, women who received a COVID-19 vaccine did not have a higher risk of miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.89–1.28, I2 35.8%) and had comparable rates for ongoing pregnancy or live birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.03, I2 10.72%).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/

reply
upvoteby 1234letshaveatw19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I guess his text was incorrect
reply
upvoteby drop_star19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
He stated that the FDA had found "no red flags" regarding pregnant women

A "Red Flag" (or Safety Signal) is an actual, observed increase in adverse events in real-world data.

What he was discussing in the text was a theoretical risk.

A "Theoretical Risk" is a hypothetical concern based on known biological mechanisms (e.g., "high fevers can cause miscarriages, so a vaccine-induced fever might do the same").

reply
upvoteby Angostura19 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Just for context all the major studies I’m aware of show heightened risk of miscarriage from Covid vaccines.

…unlike the risk from catching Covid itself

reply
upvoteby boplicity19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Do you think that Fox News was right when they said COVID shots cause an 87% miscarriage rate? Or is it a completely misleading and ludicrous claim?
reply
upvoteby Angostura17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Apologies, I re- read my comment. It’s missing a rather important “no”

Should have said “no heightened risk”. Looks like it’s impossible to edit or delete now.

reply