Immunogenicity of lipid nanoparticles and its impact on the efficacy of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics - Experimental & Molecula...
Drugs consisting of mRNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles (LNP), such as the vaccines developed for COVID-19, are poised to have a massive impact in future therapy, but researchers are still learning about their interactions with the immune system. Hyuk...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/06/mrna-jabs-modena-pfizer-quarter-unintended-response/
25% experience an unintended response
I know it's a long read but this is what everyone should know about lipid nanoparticles and the adverse reactions.
It's not spoke proteins or some other thing added, it's well know lipid nanoparticles cause a lot of adverse reactions.
Anything else people bring up is to make conservatives look stupid by association.
Focus on LNP and PEG.
Polyethylene glycol is PEG
LNP is lipid nanoparticles PEG is polyethylene glycol
https://covid19tracker.ca/vaccinationtracker.html
101,617,113 doses administered means 508 Canadians were killed based on the rate of anaphylaxis death.
That's from just one side effect.
Except that if you follow the footnotes you'll see that the link in #16 is broken, presumably because the CDC page has been moved since the article was submitted for publication. The current CDC item on "Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 Vaccination" lists several studies, none of which report a fatality: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
Footnote #46 does not mention "fatal" either, just "At the time of this writing, the rates of anaphylaxis are calculated at 5.0 cases per million for the Pfizer-BioNTech and 2.8 cases per million for the Moderna vaccine": https://www.jacionline.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0091-6749%2821%2900565-0
Nature is not known for hyperbole and a huge miss by them like that is not normal. The fact that link 16 is broken is troublesome. The authors would've needed to back up the citation with evidence to be published. Why is the evidence broken?
You should take it up with Nature and see if they stand behind that statement.
You would have found it if you'd done your reading.
Because HTML does not fix broken links. If the paper links to a CDC page on Sept 23 and the CDC reorganizes their site on the 24th then the link is broken.
You can use webarchive.org to see the link on July 13 2023. No mention of fatalities, just "5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered"
Why would I take it up with Nature when I can read the original papers? Nature isn't going to redo the studies, they just report "so-and-so says this happened". Not all of their articles are peer-reviewed.
The reference is missing who knows what it said
You're wrong twice.
First: only one link is broken, but the original web page is available from webarchive.org. I provided you with the link but you have obviously not read it so here it is again: https://web.archive.org/web/20230831235349/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html. It mentions nothing 'fatal'.
Second: you're completely ignoring the second link, which works, and which also says nothing about 'fatal'.
Alternatively have you approached Nature to tell them a link is missing and apparently they need to update their document. Id be curious to know their response to that
Ignore chode. You are arguing with a prick. literally and figuratively
Fully vaccinated boomer, soon to get suddenly’d
The impostor claims to be able to tell the future folks.
Please keep linking to the post where we call your boyfriend a frothing at the mouth retard and you an idiot
Well dont let us down, get your booster