Damn JLC is unhinged.

He's very unwell.

Lettuce be real tea.

We only interdasted in discussing titles of studies we like. If we like title - good study. If we don't like title - bad study.

#PharmaBad
#ScienceBad
#UnlessScienceSaysPharmaBad
#ThenScienceGud

In shambles

In shambles

My prediction came true.

Read the paper yet?

Thoughts regarding the lack of blinding?

Thoughts regarding treating each behavioural outcome as independent?

Just lol at ANOVA

In conclusion, our study presents evidence that the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine impacts the WNT pathway and BDNF levels in rats, with particularly pronounced effects observed in males. These male-specific outcomes, including autism-like behaviors, reduced neuronal counts, and impaired motor performance, emphasize the potential neurodevelopmental implications of the vaccine, aligning with existing literature on the roles of the WNT pathway and BDNF signaling in neurodevelopmental disorders.

It's imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans. Further rigorous clinical studies are required to confirm these observations in human populations and to ascertain the exact mechanisms at play.

Given the public health significance of understanding the effects of COVID-19 vaccination, especially during pregnancy, comprehensive studies are vital. These should weigh the benefits and potential risks of vaccination, focusing on ensuring optimal neurodevelopmental outcomes. Our findings underscore the importance of continued research in this domain to guarantee the safety and well-being of all individuals, especially those who are pregnant and their offspring.

In summary, this study provides valuable insights into the effects of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine on the WNT pathway and BDNF levels, particularly in relation to neurodevelopmental outcomes. The observed male-specific vulnerability and the convergence with existing literature support the involvement of these molecular pathways in neurodevelopmental disorders. However, further research is warranted to validate these findings in human populations and to unravel the complex mechanisms underlying the observed effects. The ultimate goal is to ensure the safety and well-being of individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccination, particularly during pregnancy, while minimizing potential risks to neurodevelopment.

I'll go with this...

That's cool.

Not everyone wants like to take intellectual risks.

Design and analysis are very flawed, imo. But, I can see why y'all are willing to ignore those issues

Only the rushed studies by Pfizer done in weeks where they threw out control groups are of any good. We hear you, brother.

Wanna post up the paper and discuss the issues you've identified?

Or is this just a deflection from the current paper that is clearly multivariate but treated independently?

To discuss what? That this study should have further research? You are suggesting that because this study was reported on by someone named Alex, that these scientists are in Turkey and that they came to conclusions that make you unhappy, so therefor it's completely invalid?

How odd.

I'll stick with the conclusions these scientists came to, that this warrants further study. I get it, you hate further study. You only like studies that drop control subjects when conducted by big pharm and they don't like where the results are heading. That is the only kind of study you seem to have any faith in. Me, this one showed convincing results, but with rats and not humans, and I'd like to see more. Not sure why that bothers you so very much, but it is what it is.

I meant discussing the details of the study.

When studies that counter the narrative are presented, y'all get right in on the details (like use of regression and not liking "validation"). But when studies (or blog posts of hot takes on a study), that support the narrative are presented, whatever the authors concluded is good to go.

#Objective
#GoodFaith
#IntellectuallyHonest
#OpenDiscussion


#JustLol

I'll go with this...

You mean like how you are perfectly fine with many of the junk studies ran to justify the vaccines? Where they threw out control groups? How they didn't even test to see if it stopped people from transmitting? Wait, no, you never comment about that. You just make blanket statements like, "You Hate Any study that doesn't have the results you wannnnnt!!! #Lol #ImObjective #SoSmart #HashtagArgumentsAlwaysWin #HashtagVictory" without actually commenting on the very specific things people are taking umbrage with.

Meanwhile, while pretending you are objective, you routinely **** on every single even slightly negative study run that is even remotely critical of the vaccines, only 100% of the time. What are the odds? Every single study that depicts the vaccines as great, ALL good! Every study that is remotely critical? JUNK BY A BLOGGER NAMED ALEX!

Because, you know, whoops, in this thread (and post above) you're playing the "ITS A BLOG POST! BLOG POST! YOU LISTEN TO BLOGGERS!" when I myself with my own two eyes see the blog post quite clearlylinks the study, so the idea it's just some nothing blog post and no more is objectively incorrect to keep saying. Yet here you are, doing just that.

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

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

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

According to who? did Phfizer fund the study?

Damn JLC is unhinged.

I haven't even analysed the study yet, but from the git-go, you need to appreciate the difference between the prenatal brain, where the potential for neurodevelopmental aberration is absolutely enormous, versus a fully developed human brain (I'm assuming everyone here is over 25 years old) which to my knowledge, isn't even susceptible to a neurodevelopmentalaberration.


Not a good comparison even from that, OP. And I'm skeptical of the very idea of "autistic rats" too. I would have thought autism is a nuanced condition which kind of needs the complexity of human behaviours to manifest in any clinically significant sense of the term.

Ok, so we can look past that term and just focus on these findings.


“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.”

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.

Ignoring the correlated errors (residuals) in multivariate outcomes such as these is almostp hacking, imo.

Only the rushed studies by Pfizer done in weeks where they threw out control groups are of any good. We hear you, brother.

"The Shapiro–Wilk test was utilized to assess the normality of data distribution. "

Why do people do this when it's the distribution of residuals that is the assumption?

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.

I can't tell if JLC is a troll, or if he is legitimately stupid.

I can't tell if JLC is a troll, or if he is legitimately stupid.

I Heart Covid!