Unfortunately, I dislike thunderbird with a passion. In my anecdotal experience, its search is terrible - not to mention that there are two of it: a search option in the top panel that misses about 50% of relevant messages, and a very featureful search option buried within the menu bar that misses about 20% of relevant messages. Out of necessity, I've trained myself to just reboot to Windows any time I really need to find a particular email that I know I have somewhere. I also don't particularly like Thunderbird's UI, but that is something I'm able to compromise on.
Not meant to be a rant, but rather: please, someone, is this really the best we have?
Search is still as bad as it ever was, unfortunately it remains the most feature complete alternative (and free).
And of course, Microsoft makes it impossible to use their services with it. Or so difficult you just give up after it breaks for the 5th time in a month.
Most everyone has moved to webmail implementations, since it's good enough. I think even folks with the tech know-how to self-host a webmail client have done so. Personally, I use RoundCube.
I'm in the same boat. I've even installed Thunderbird and synced a mail account just to be able to find a specific mail that neither webmail nor the Android app were able to find.
I thought (but don't have a source for this right now) that an additional factor was that the vaccine must accidentally have entered the bloodstream, as opposed to only the muscle (i.e. incorrect administration). This isn't mentioned by the article, so was this not the case?
That's a theory that I've seen quite often online, but as far as I could tell there is no evidence at all for it. I also haven't seen this argued from any official sources.
It's a plausible-sounding explanation, that has no data behind it as far as I can tell.
The larger question seems to be the biodistribution of the vaccine in general, not necessarily via bloodstream. From the first study: "We speculate that, following the vaccine administration, lipid nanoparticles containing the vaccine mRNA are carried to mammary glands via hematogenous and/or lymphatic routes."
No, hadn't seen that one! The 2021 consensus seems to be that the amounts detected are so minuscule that there is no cause for concern. I wonder if that's the whole story. I also wonder why there aren't more studies on this.
In the linked report, the organ distribution of the LNPs is given in a table that spans two pages (pages 16-17 of the PDF corresponding to pages 6-7 in the report's internal numbering). After 48 hours, only 24.6% of the lipids from the LNPs in the rodents' doses had remained at the injection site. The liver ended up with 16.2% and the spleen with slightly in excess of 1%. The remainder (nearly 60%) was widely distributed. The table has values for specific organs and tissues.
>Only <1% of the injected mRNA vaccine got into the ovaries, adrenal glands, heart, brain, and other tissues at 48-hour.
>Most of the vaccine remained in the injection site and went into the liver, “suggesting these LNPs may be eliminated mostly via hepatic [liver] clearance route,” Prof. Al-Ahmad wrote.
>the dose the Japanese study used is very high when controlled for weight; that is, 18–35-times higher than what is injected into humans.
>The Japanese biodistribution study results are consistent with Pfizer’s that was submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in February 2021.
>Pfizer also found that the LNP-encapsulated mRNA vaccine was mainly metabolized in the liver and did not enter other tissues easily. They also noted no effects on fertility or ovarian functions.
>For the Moderna mRNA vaccine, the EMA assessment report has previously released its biodistribution data that also finds no cause for concern.
And then the author points out the absence of evidence regarding fertility risks:
>Even if the mRNA vaccines did enter the ovaries in tiny amounts, there’s no evidence that ovarian cells can translate the mRNA into spike proteins. Even if ovarian cells somehow managed to manufacture some spike proteins, there’s no evidence that this can harm the ovaries. Maybe the spike proteins expressed on ovarian cells degrade within hours or days and disappear in a few days. Animal studies have shown that cells that take up the mRNA vaccine only express the mRNA-encoded proteins on its surface for about 48 hours, which then quickly decline to zero in a few days. Thus, multiple stringent biochemical conditions and steps must be met to even allow for the tiniest possibility of mRNA vaccine harming the ovaries or other tissues.
I'm noticing a lot of "may be" / "consistent with" / etc. language in the lines you're quoting. If I'd received an mRNA covid shot, I might find it very comforting, but there's not much there of substance to grab onto.
Quick reactions:
* Less than 1% is not zero. Cells that express mod-spike are destroyed. How much autoimmune-mediated cell death in which locations in your or my body would be enough to kick off a chain of events that leads to a discernable real-world injury or death?
* Al-Ahmad's statement contrasts strongly with the Japanese Pfizer biodistribution study results: 24.6 + 16.2 = less than half at 48 hours.
* I'd love to see the study redone, with a larger number of test animals, at various dosage levels, including human-equivalent. Why did Pfizer use high dosages? Why are high dosages often used in animal studies of new pharmaceutical and other products?
* Where are the EU Pfizer biodistribution study results? WIll someone have to leak them or sue Pfizer or the EU to force their disclosure in the same way that Pfizer tried to delay releasing data in tranches over a period of months rather than in 75 years? Come to think of it, why would Pfizer (and the FDA) want to prevent the public from seeing such information for 75 years. Kinda suspicious.
* Pfizer has been wrong a lot and many things they said would never happen turn out to happen. Remember that the mRNA has been confirmed in breast milk of recently-vaccinated lactating women. This claim also doesn't match the Japanese Pfizer rodent biodistribution results.
* Are the Moderna covid vaccine biodistribution study results public? If so, I'd love to see a link (same for the EU Pfizer biodistribution study). I can't find any sign that such a study was even carried out. In the EMA assessment report from Jan 2021 (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/spi...), they reference a previous rodent biodistribution study conducted by Moderna for mRNA-1647 (which is for CMV aka Cytomegalovirus, not covid) and the sort of detailed breakdown of biodistribution given in the Japanese Pfizer doc isn't included.
* Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Along with the pronounced spike in all-cause mortality in most nations which saw high penetration of mRNA and adenovirus-vector shots, we've seen a pronounced drop in birthrates. And in some nations, e.g. Scotland, there have been acknowledged increases in neonatal deaths. The authorities there report that the deaths are not due to covid and, without investigating the possibility, not due to maternal vaccination, either (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23028843.covid-scotland-...). shrug In England, neonatal deaths are being intentionally misclassified as stillbirths (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/16/nhs-logging-baby...). Totally coincidentally, English coroners aren't allowed to investigate stillbirths but can investigate neonatal deaths. What's causing the increased all-cause mortality, drop in birth rates, and tip-of-the-iceberg reports of neonatal deaths? Climate change? Negative cerebral emanations? I look forward to observing the evolving scientific consensus on this and other issues.
And all for a virus that is a minuscule threat to most healthy people who are not extremely old. And none of these vaccines prevent infection or transmission, so trusting The Science and getting jabbed won't prevent me from getting and spreading it to others. And two-and-done has been discarded, many are on their 5th shot now, and the idea is that this should be at least an annual or perhaps twice-yearly ritual. So I'd be expected to keep getting them and their successors in perpetuity or until I suffered a severe adverse event (like dying in my sleep).
It's a tough sell, frankly.
I've seen experts and physicians go from lavishing praise on covid vaccines and demanding everyone roll up their arms immediately to acknowledging the importance of bodily autonomy and informed consent and the reality that informed consent is not really possible when individuals are being lied to about both the benefits and the risks.
Recently in the news: Kerryn Phelps (a medical doctor, former Australian MP, former head of the Australian Medical Association, current member of OzSAGE, etc.):
Are you referring to aspiration vs intravenous injection? I am not a medical doctor, but John Campbell and his presentation of data from Denmark convinced me to ask for aspirated admission of my dose(s). Can't find the presentation rn, unfortunately, but some similar considerations are mentioned here [1]
Oh, I saw a video in 2021 in which a retired doctor/uni. prof. explained AZ complications (it was someone from the UK) were most likely/could be related to how nurses handled the needle and where they stung it. Like, he was concerned about the lack of instructions given to vaccinating squad. I blacked this info out because it was too much of a yet another thing I had to watch for at the time on top of others but for my first booster I had a chat with the nurse about the dosage of the booster and... yeah... better check these kind of things out yourselves, things can go wrong really fast (and mark your legs and operation instructions on your body before going under the scalpel :).
very old dr told me he noticed the techs who gave him his shots failed to follow the best practice he was taught, which is to withdraw the plunger to see if you pull out any blood. If you draw any blood you have hit an artery and need to start over.
His vax people just stuck it in and plunged, no testing.
I’m not in this field at all, but having read a lot of research papers at the time it is my understanding that many countries have revised this recommendation (some even before Covid). It takes additional time, causes significant additional discomfort to patients, requires more training of whoever is administering the vaccines, and does not provide significant benefit. Similarly, it’s no longer commonplace to wipe the arm with alcohol before an injection, yet that was always considered best practice in the not-too-distant past.
when you start asking online commenters to disprove a theory you probably read from another online commenter you may want to re-evaluate how you're consuming information
You could take out the "probably" and replace with "maybe" - just have a look at this very page of comments and it shouldn't take you long to find wildly inaccurate statements or anecdotal -> conclusion type theories.
You could do that, but HN guidelines ask us to assume, and post in, good faith.
Blindly assuming/implying someone didn't get their source from some kind of trustworthy place and then giving them grief for it is not a good faith comment. And it discourages people from asking questions in the future.
OP seems genuinely curious and open to whatever answers they might get. Why be a dick to them?
PF4 was already considered the culprit for a while, but formerly it was thought that negatively loaded DNA activated it.
Incorrect administration is still a risk, but not systemic / wide enough for the clotting cases I guess. And, you'd (1) expect cases to go down over time and (2) see them in mRNA vaccines as well.
So, no, PF4's been consensus for a while, this study gives a probable theory on why PF4 gets activated.
It can and should happen for any intra-muscular vaccination in similar (very low) rates - it's a medical error when the vaccine is administered (accidentally hitting a small vein inside the muscle), not some property of the vaccine itself.
But what would you do if Dr Johnson was surprised, and you yourself were shouting, i.e.:
Dr Johnson kicked a large rock and said, as his foot rebounded: “I refute it thus?”!
AFAICS, the only way to render this faithfully is the way I just did. In other words, you really do need the punctuation both of the outer sentence and the inner sentence. By extension, the only logical approach for the original sentence would be:
Dr Johnson kicked a large rock and said, as his foot rebounded: “I refute it thus.”.
On a different note, might I use this moment to complain about American books not closing quotations, if they continue on onto a new paragraph, and then opening them again? I.e.:
The quotation thing is irritating if you treat them like matched parentheses, but if you allow the opening and closing quotes to have different meanings, there is a logical interpretation. The opening quote is required syntax for the beginning of any quoted paragraph, so that the reader is reminded that we're still in an extended quote. The closing quote means "this person is finished speaking, and the next quote may be assumed to be a different person." The advantage is the streamlining of longer exchanges:
John spoke to Paul. John said: "I have two things to say.
"One of the things is this."
"What's the other?"
"The other thing is this."
Even in the purest programming languages, we're happy to design special-case idioms that sacrifice perfect orthogonality for better human factors, provided there's an unambiguous parse. Scheme provides (define <identifier> <expression>) - utterly elementary. Yet defining functions by binding identifiers to anonymous lambdas is so annoying that an unneccesary and inconsistent second syntax is provided, (define (<identifier <args...>) <expression>).
Eh? Standard American and British usage is the same with regard to quotes that span multiple paragraphs. Given that it's understood that speakers can alternate without each quote being attributed, e.g.:
Bob said: "Any opinion on this, John?"
John said: "I have two things to say."
"What are they?"
"One of these things is this.
"The other thing is this."
– how would you punctuate that? If you close each paragraph with a quote, then there's no way to tell who's speaking except to label each paragraph:
Bob said: "Any opinion on this, John?"
John said: "I have two things to say."
Bob asked: "What are they?"
John answered: "One of these things is this."
John continued: "The other thing is this."
And if you don't open each quoted paragraph with a quote, it's very hard to tell which paragraphs are quoted:
I was under the impression that the EU privacy laws (GDPR etc) applied to EU citizens regardless of location. If that impression is correct, then isn't it the case that nothing meaningful, privacy-wise, will change for the author even after this change to their account, as long as they remain a German citizen?
No, that's not correct. As an EU citizen living abroad, using non-EU based services, the GDPR will not apply. It would also be impossible to enforce something like that.
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact ..."
Not sure I understand the paper (not my field); are they saying that extrapolating from a mortality measure predicts that mortality is inevitable? If so... isn't that just a way of confirming the obvious, viz. that higher quantiles of a logistic distribution are closer to 1? Finding a cutoff age at a - quite large, it seems - number of 120-150 years is cool and all, but I don't see how this informs us about anything other than mortality measures predicting eventual mortality?
It seems while the initial reading is that this is an inevitable process, the more sapient technological perspective would be that they've discovered a key mechanism that can now be investigated and adjusted for improved results.
The key factor of humans getting to where we are (both good and bad), is our ability to see something that is, then figure out why it is how it is, and then change that structure/process/sequence to rearrange it to meet our goals.
> It seems while the initial reading is that this is an inevitable process, the more sapient technological perspective would be that they've discovered a key mechanism that can now be investigated and adjusted for improved results.
I think this research is as much about to estimating the maximum age of an organism if all causes of premature death are removed. i.e. to get longer than that you need to fix aging itself not disease
