https://open.substack.com/pub/alexbe..._campaign=post


The babies of pregnant rats given Pfizer’s mRNA Covid shot had sharply lower levels of a protein crucial for learning and memory, Turkish researchers have reported.

The male rat offspring also displayed behaviors that correlate to autism in humans, including reduced sociability and repetitive behaviors, the researchers reported. (Female rats did not show similar behaviors; but males generally have higher rates of autism.) The peer-reviewed journal Neurochemical Research published the findings, from four researchers at a medical university in Istanbul.

The study coved only about 40 rats, and it does not prove the vaccines cause autism or similar brain changes in the children of vaccinated pregnant women.

But it does show - again - that the jabs can cause powerful inflammatory and autoimmune responses with unknown consequences, and that their long-term risks have barely been studied.

The Turkish researchers did not sugarcoat their findings, writing:

Notably, male rats exhibited pronounced autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility.
—
(Luckily Pfizer did a ton of work to make sure this wouldn’t be problem in humans. Oh, they didn’t? Hey, everyone makes mistakes.)

The findings will raise even more questions about whether pregnant women should receive mRNA Covid jabs, an issue that has been controversial for three years.

Pregnant women were excluded in 2020 from the big clinical trials that led to the approval of the shots, but ever since regulators and obstetricians have strongly encouraged them to take the shots. The reason is that pregnancy causes weight gain and blood pressure changes that increase Covid risk.

Still, many women, especially healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies, have a very low baseline risk from Covid and have avoided the jabs.

The obvious failure of the jabs against Omicron has only increased that reluctance. Almost no pregnant women are now getting mRNA boosters.

Yet the Centers for Disease Control and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology continue to recommend the shots for pregnant women.
(An aside: because the mRNAs frequently cause menstrual cycle changes, some mRNA skeptics believe the jabs cause miscarriage and stillbirth. But a large study from Norway in 2022 showed definitively they do not. An even bigger dataset from Britain proves women who receive the shots do not have a higher risk of stillbirth or preterm or low-birthweight babies, though it does not cover miscarriage.)

However, the potential autism and brain changes the Turkish researchers found are much harder to track and diagnose than obvious problems like low birthweight or pre-term birth.

Linking them to vaccines given years before will would require large-scale epidemiologic studies, along with expensive basic research to determine potential mechanisms of action.

As the Turkish researchers concluded:

Further research is warranted to validate these findings in human populations and to unravel the complex mechanisms underlying the observed effects.

But neither governments nor vaccine companies have shown any inclination to do that work. And so even if autism diagnoses notably rise in the next few years, proving the mRNAs are responsible will be next to impossible.
An outcome that’ll work out fine for everyone involved - except kids with autism and their families.

Interestingly, vaccinated human mom's had/have better outcomes than unvaccinated.

Alex (and his followers) like(s) to skip that stuff.

This is really the takeaway. Like, we looked - this isn't good, humans are not rats but we should check this out.

Meanwhile, expect the usual suspects to get angry, demand you are saying it must cause autism in humans (you didn't) or even post WWE gifs of wrestlers laughing at you.

You know, getting angry at actual science working, because they are too invested in a single narrative they were brainwashed into believing. Or paid shills. Something like that.

Great post…. JLC getting absolutely furious every time I do it is only one of the benefits of sharing these articles. As you mention, the main thing is the ability to share science and have other things for people to consider.

















Now watch how mad he gets at this post.

Nah, not really.

But describing Alex as a scientist is pretty awesome.

Anyone who doesn't buy into the carefully crafted rhetoric to satisfy a base must surely be a paid shill. Can't really converse on the topic, so we'll create an ad strawminem.

Just lol

My guess:

Rats? Lmao

We have millions of human test subjects. The new normal will be interesting

I wonder why he leaves this kinda stuff out of his blog?

Effect of COVID-19 vaccination and booster on maternal–fetal outcomes: a retrospective cohort study

"Findings

Vaccinated people were more likely to conceive later in the pandemic, have commercial insurance, be older, live in areas with lower household composition vulnerability, and have a higher BMI than unvaccinated people. Boosted people were more likely to have more days since receiving the second COVID-19 vaccine dose, conceive earlier in the pandemic, have commercial insurance, be older, and live in areas with lower household composition vulnerability than vaccinated unboosted people. Vaccinated pregnant people had lower rates of COVID-19 during pregnancy (4·0%) compared with unvaccinated matched people (5·3%; p<0·0001). COVID-19 rates were even lower in boosted people (3·2%) compared with vaccinated unboosted matched people (5·6%; p<0·0001). Vaccinated people were also less likely to have a preterm birth (7·9%; p<0·0001), stillbirth (0·3%; p<0·0002), or very low birthweight neonate (1·0%; p<0·0001) compared with unvaccinated matched people (preterm birth 9·4%; stillbirth 0·6%; very low birthweight 1·5%). Boosted people were less likely to have a stillbirth (0·3%; p<0·025) and have no differences in rates of preterm birth (7·6%; p=0·090) or very low birthweight neonates (0·8%; p=0·092) compared with vaccinated unboosted matched people (stillbirth 0·5%; preterm birth 8·4%; very low birthweight 1·1%).

Interpretation
COVID-19 vaccination protects against adverse maternal–fetal outcomes, with booster doses conferring additional protection. Pregnant people should be high priority for vaccination and stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccination schedule.


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...093-6/fulltext

Just wanna openly and objectively discuss science, right?

Just lol

Wait, so Alex Berenwhoever -- he's one of the Turkish scientists who did this study?! I misread (actually did not bother reading at all) but it's shocking to me that his guy reporting on the story is actually one of the scientists in Turkey who did the study itself. That is a bold claim you just made, Mr. JLC.

I guess you're right. Now this story is meaningless and should be ignored. You win again! Oh darn, if *only* this Alex guy had just been a reporter and only been reporting on a study conducted by other people who actually were scientists. If only! Why, if that were the case, your attempting to discredit this study based onthe person who is only reporting on it, that would have failed quite miserably.

If i meet a Turkish rat in the club this weekend, i will run the other way.

No, Berenson is a fiction writer with no STEM background/training who capitalized on covid. Can't blame an entrepreneur for seeing and seizing an opportunity. But, we can definitely lol at devotees to their spin and rhetorical tactics

Note it was Alex's substack that was posted. Not the actual work.

Pre-digested food seems to be a favourite of new researchers.

I sure hope the Turks didn't use regression - cuz that's bad, very bad

Presumably this rat model of autism is thoroughly "validated"

And he posts something that has nothing to do with autism(or anything else from the study I shared)…but hey, it shows that more boosted people had insurance in the study so I guess we can put it in here because…..well, who needs a reason when you’re just here to troll anyway. He absolutely LOVES Berenson threads for some reason. Drawn to it like a moth to a flame, or a beavercel to a vial of comirnaty.

You didn't share a study.

The way y'all refuse to acknowledge bias is solid entertainment.

Vaccines cause autism, again


The paper that Alex spins is poor.

The number of extrapolations made on the basis of 8 rats per group is concerning.

The conclusions just aren't supported by the data.

It's "autism-like" because autism isn't really a thing in rats, and I'm not even sure it's fair to say that it was "autism-like" because the observed differences were still within the typical range of rat behavior.

One critical flaw is that the authors didn't scale down the dose for rats, they gave them an adult human dose. Note that the average rat weighs less than a pound. No explanation is offered in the article as to why the authors went with a dose that would be given to an adult human.

It also does not appear to be blinded.

But, we can overlook such flaws when titles and conclusions support the narrative

Such lulz

The work here? He linked it in the substack.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...3-04089-2#Tab4Which I post, having not really even read or digested because - I don't really care, not like some of you people so wrapped up with a narrative. Although, I guess we should look it over, if nothing, for some reason if his Alex guy who substack reported on it misinterpreted the conclusion, that would be something to harp on him about.

Edit: did read it now. What's the problem, again? Mostly male rats seem stupefied here, not a good thing and they are very clear this is animal study only and want more research. Why the gifs?

So my dad who went out to get cigarettes is actually the mRNA Covid vaccine :/

Kinda all that needs to be said.

Interested in open and honest discussion and dialogue tho.


Just lol

Again, because he’s just here to troll which is why he deserves little to no response. He knows studies and sources are always linked in the articles. He knows there are valid concerns which suggest we need further investigation. But instead of discussion he just wants to troll by deflecting(hey guys look at this unrelated study), building strawmen(omg you’re saying all vaccines cause autism!), character attacks(he’s just a reporter!) and other tried and true techniques.


While it is pretty hilarious to see him get so worked up, it’s just an added benefit to the primary goal of discussing interesting studies.

Why you ignore discussion of the paper that was the focus of the Alex's hot takes?"In our investigation, we utilized a two-way ANOVA to discern any sex-specific neurobehavioral changes induced by the prenatal administration of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine. Our analysis showed that the group by sex interaction was not statistically significant for the sociability test (F = 3.479; p = 0.068), social novelty (F = 0.666; p = 0.418), sociability index (F = 1.424; p = 0.239), or novelty index (F = 4.056; p = 0.050), suggesting that the vaccine’s effects on these social behaviors were not differentially modulated by sex."

Two-way ANOVA is based on linear regression. Who supervised it? Who made the algorithm? Not a concern in this one? Why?

These analyses are flawed, but I assume it's the title that matters most.

If there are human studies linking covid vaccines to autism, please share

And we're all certain you would be very open-minded with them and not find flaws in every corner. Much like you have never once criticized the vaccines over anything, nor the way in which big Pharm used massive propaganda to coerce people into taking them. They are truly perfect in all ways, not a single thing about them is deficient in any way.

Ahhhh.

So it's my fault y'all don't share any

Open and honest discussions ftw


Just lol

He’s shared “studies” which were little more than internet surveys with zero validation that asked questions like “have you had a headache recently” and concluded that over 20% of people who get covid suffer from symptoms two years later. Again, he doesn’t care how a study is conducted, only that it fits his narrative.

How validated are mouse autism-like behaviours?

At least try, mane

>J.L.C. has entered the thread

Human study isn't looking too good here either, is it?

Which human study/studies?

Brutal if true

N of 1 general inference does seem to be popular in the realm of well-paid analysis of data and risk...







...without the use of regression





(cuz n of 1)



Just lol