Moderna Says mRNA Flu Vaccine Sailed Through Trial, Beating Standard Shot (arstechnica.com) 212
Moderna's mRNA-based seasonal flu vaccine proved 27% more effective at preventing influenza infections than standard flu shots in a Phase 3 trial involving nearly 41,000 people aged 50 and above, the firm said this week.
The company announced that mRNA-1010 had an overall vaccine efficacy that was 26.6% higher than conventional shots, rising to 27.4% higher in participants aged 65 and older during the six-month study period. The 2024-2025 flu season hospitalized an estimated 770,000 Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The company announced that mRNA-1010 had an overall vaccine efficacy that was 26.6% higher than conventional shots, rising to 27.4% higher in participants aged 65 and older during the six-month study period. The 2024-2025 flu season hospitalized an estimated 770,000 Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I did six shots of Moderna vaccine. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not dead. They probably think that I am dead now.
You're dead *to them*.
Re:I did six shots of Moderna vaccine. (Score:5, Insightful)
None according to my check ups. Those of us with a family history of heart disease tend to keep a very good eye on our heart health. And any small changes tend to show up on tests, especially something like the persistent inflammation of the heart. Inflammatory cardiomyopathy is a serious complication for us old farts with bad tickers and it's best to stay on top of it.
Inventing unfounded fears that isn't backed by data and more importantly, doesn't appear in my individual case, is paranoia at best and politically-driven fear mongering at worst. Please don't make human health a pawn in your warped political views.
Re: (Score:2)
citation required. Look very carefully at the claims I made. come back to me when your reading comprehension is beyond the link spam stage.
Re: (Score:3)
No you don't understand. You are wrong. Your medical tests are wrong. What you think you are doing right is wrong. We all know this for a fact because someone tweeted!
Re: (Score:2)
Inventing unfounded fears that isn't backed by data and more importantly,
Staggering. If you only knew the real data and how you were lied to for profit.
You are killing people with your FUD. How can you live with yourself? Is being evil just fine with you?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't speak for them, but I've never gotten COVID and thus my risk for the much more severe, more common COVID-related myocarditis is zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. But I think my immune system mioght have fought it off several times this year and I know several people that got really sick with a "bad flu" at a time where the flu should not be a thing. That would not have gone so well for me without those vaccinations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I did six shots of Moderna vaccine. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: I did six shots of Moderna vaccine. (Score:2)
It's possible that they've gotten other brands of the vaccine, too.
And as they're currently recommending 6 month boosters for people at high risk (might have been 3 months early on?), if you got the initial 2, then the at risk people would only have about 10-12 so far.
I've personally been trying to collect them all. I didn't get the J&J, but I've gotten the other three, plus the moderna updated one.
mRNA based flu shots were already tested in 2015 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we've dramatically ramped up our mRNA vaccine manufacturing capacity due to COVID - perhaps this time they will be more competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's yet another example of something that governments should be funding. The flu costs billions every year in lost productivity, and lost sales as people stay home. In the UK you can already get the flu shot for free, paid for out of taxation, because it's understood that the cost is less than the benefit to the economy and the tax take.
Re: (Score:2)
Did it have better persistence across different strains of influenza? Normal flu vaccines perform quite badly in that department.
Re: (Score:2)
It is plausible to assume that mRNA technology does, in theory, provide the option to more quickly adapt to new variants or to select target sequences that are known to be more common among the different strains. But as we have experienced already with the different Sars-Cov-2 variants, that does not mean it is feasi
But not in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, this won't be coming to the US any time soon. RFK Jr. has arbitrarily declared that future vaccines will only be approved if the control group in the trials got an inactive placebo. Why? No reason at all, it's just an absurd requirement he made up. The control group in this trial got a conventional flu vaccine instead of a placebo (which would have been unethical), so it doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, this won't be coming to the US any time soon. RFK Jr. has arbitrarily declared that future vaccines will only be approved if the control group in the trials got an inactive placebo. Why? No reason at all, it's just an absurd requirement he made up. The control group in this trial got a conventional flu vaccine instead of a placebo (which would have been unethical), so it doesn't count.
Medical care is quickly becoming illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But not in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
So the US Secretary of Health effectively wants to lower the threshold for approving treatments from “it’s better than existing medicine” down to “it’s better than nothing”?
In fact it’s worse: he wants to lower the threshold to be “it’s better than nothing but apart from that we haven’t compared it to anything (because we aren’t allowed to).”
Just wow. Go science!
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter? Aren't you willing to accept the advice of a 14 year long heroin addict for expertise health advice?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He's relying on the double blind studies for effectiveness. New drugs go through the double blind test - where you ha
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, one could also ask about the lack of requirements for double-blind studies for things like homeopathy and for the alternatives to vaccinations he promotes.
Re:But not in the US (Score:5, Informative)
A double blind study means neither the patient nor the doctor knows whether they're in the treatment group or the control group. It has nothing to do with what is used as the control. When there's an existing safe, effective vaccine, you always use that for the control group. It would be unethical not to. It's still a double blind study, because the patient still doesn't know whether they're getting the new vaccine or the old one. And it makes the resulting data stronger, not weaker. It tells you whether the new vaccine is more effective than the old vaccine, not just whether it's more effective than no vaccine at all.
When there's no existing vaccine, then you use an unrelated vaccine as the control. That's essential. If you used an inactive placebo as the control, and a patient felt tired and achy the day after getting the shot, they could be pretty sure they were in the treatment group. That knowledge could affect their behavior and bias the results. So instead you use an unrelated vaccine with similar side effects as the control, so the patient can't infer which group they're in from side effects. This is standard practice.
But RFK has arbitrarily declared that won't be accepted. Instead you must use an inactive placebo, even though that gives worse quality data.
Re:But not in the US (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But not in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, it is UNETHICAL to use a placebo control in any clinical trial of an investigational product for which the existing standard of care already includes a product on the market.
In plain English, it is entirely unethical to give participants a placebo to test the efficacy of a new flu vaccine when we already have existing vaccines on the market. Doing so denies participants in the study from accessing effective treatment. If you have to test against a placebo, it will be impossible to recruit participants, because nobody will take the chance to receive placebo when they could just go to the pharmacy and get vaccinated.
There are only two possible explanations for such a position: either gross ignorance of basic scientific and ethical principles for conducting medical research in humans, or deliberate malicious intent to stop all research of investigational drugs. It doesn't actually matter which one is the reason. Both are entirely unacceptable.
The fact that a huge segment of the American population does not understand even the most basic scientific principles is the reason why many people will die needlessly.
Re:But not in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
vaccines will only be approved if the control group in the trials got an inactive placebo. Why? No reason at all, it's just an absurd requirement he made up.
I wouldn't be so sure that it was RFK's idea, but the effect is to stifle research. People working on new drugs and vaccines will be less willing to carry out tests subject to this restriction because it means knowingly putting the lives of the placebo group at risk. That makes it rather unethical I'd say. Compare this to a situation where the is no "current" treatment available to test against; the placebo group in that case face just the same risk as they would if the trial didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, this won't be coming to the US any time soon.
I'm guessing in about 3.5 years. :-)
Coincident? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Magneto (Score:3)
Does this one perform better in that aspect?
Re: (Score:2)
My 5g service still sucks.
Re: Magneto (Score:2)
Re: Magneto (Score:2)
I have had J&J, Modena, Pfizer. My 5G phone still doesn't exceed 200 kbps at home. Often less. But of course it's constantly switching between 2, 4 and 5G.
Re: Magneto (Score:2)
I have had J&J, Modena, Pfizer. My 5G phone still doesn't exceed 200 kbps at home. Often less.
Yes but... (Score:2)
I want one (Score:2)
The tradidional flu vaccine is ok (have had shots every time for 20 years now), but it is time for a more capable successor. Seems this one is it. Good.
Safety Profile? (Score:2)
Re:Lol, you gullible retards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect Putin was surptised that an attack this primitive and obvious works at all. But the MAGAs are really the most abysmally stupid and easiest to manipulate fucks, ever.
Anti-vax politics is the ultimate self-own (Score:2)
It's a waste of human life when people get into that garbage pseudo-science. But how much was their life really worth to the rest of us in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
After many years of people saying that I will die from the vaccine, I am still alive. To me the anti-vax shit is just a cheap way to kill Americans. From Putin, from anti-Americans.
And from a ton opf useful idiots that really understand absolutely nothing.
Re: Lol, you gullible retards (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.factcheck.org/2024... [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Lol, you gullible retards (Score:5, Funny)
Found RFK Jr’s slashdot account!
Re:Lol, you gullible retards (Score:4, Funny)
If you believe this, you deserve whatever happens to you.
You mean get increased immune response and make it less likely to catch or suffer complications from influenza like we deserve for getting our shots? Yeah I hope we get what we deserve too.
I hope you get every shot
So do I, but every so often some work related complications mean I miss a season here or there.
Re:Lol, you gullible retards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If the new shot was 27% more effective than the old one, and the old one was 26% effective, the math works out like this:
26% + (27% of 26%) = 33%
The percentages aren't added together, they are multiplied together.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have other, underlying medical condictions
I had no underlying medical condition and was fit and played sport multiple times a year when I ended up in hospital for a week with Influenza.
As the saying goes 9 out of 10 people catch a cold and think they have the flu. The 10th person never mistakes the flu for anything else again. That is especially true for type A
If you're like me, you haven't had the flu since you last got a flu vaccine in 1990.
Wow. Please tell me you didn't just try and imply that you have protection from the shot you got back in 1990? The flu vaccine only covers a small subset of viruses from a big group which is
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you get every shot and booster your enlarged hearts desire.
Why thank you for the kind words. My mum says I have a big heart too!
I always keep up to date with my flu and Covid shots. Never had Covid and it has been a long time since I had a cold.
Re: (Score:2)
An mRNA vaccine for the flu wouldn't necessarily have the same side-effects as the covid-19 mRNA vaccines. No spike proteins to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll pass on the clot shot, thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how it works (Score:3)
But even ignoring the kids all those people become breeding grounds for new variants that go right past the vaccines you've got and kill you.
You can't have a peeing section in the pool.
Re: (Score:2)
Die in peace
From a flu? Not unless you are already nearly dead from multiple other conditions.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the vaccine that got pushed into the school children required list when the CDC's own data said it was over 5x as likely to kill children as the disease? Yeah, he's an idiot for not completely trusting them without doing any research himself.
Citation needed.
Re: I'll pass on the clot shot, thanks. (Score:5, Informative)
Pro tip: if someone starts a sentence with "we are being told" or "they are telling us," what follows is almost certainly foolish.
Yes, do your own research. No, don't do your research on Facebook. Learn statistics.
It's always been up to parents (Score:2)
The required vaccines for children to enter public school never included a C19 vaccine. It varies by state, but the required vaccines can include: Polio, Chickenpox, MMR, DTaP, HepB, HepA, Influenza, HPV.
And here's a infographic [immunize.org] if you need a picture to understand the COVID-19 vaccine requirements better.
From 2019 to 2025, there have been no federal, state, or municipal mandates to vaccinate school children. Whatever outrage you have about vaccination of children is unfounded and living rent free in your he
Your revisionism is shocking (Score:5, Informative)
No. you're incorrect. The requirement in California never took practical effect for school children. It was contingent on FDA approval for age ranges of K-6 and 7-12 before going into full effect. It was not until the start of the 2023 school year when the FDA approval for covid-19 vaccine for ages 12 and up was announce, prior to that it was available only under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and not mandated in California public schools.
Children in California public schools, depending on their vaccination status, were required to wear a mask or attend remotely. They were NOT required to vaccinate in order to attend public school in California. As such a requirement would violate the California State Constitution and probably violate some Federal statute or Dept of Education requirement (that's more complicated to look up)
So keep digging for your bullshit. I already looked this up and you're dead wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You use facebook for your fucking news?
That's a completely fucking false claim.
Further, vaccination is about herd immunity. That's why there are mandates for them for school children.
Herd immunity requires a certain percentage of the population be vaccinated for a pathogen before its spread stops.
Not vaccinating a kid because they're not going to die from the fucking disease is ignoring the thousand people that may die from them as part of the downstream chain of exposure.
Ho
Re:I'll pass on the clot shot, thanks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately though, the risk was tiny for the vaccine or the actual virus. Even for the most affected demographic (young males)- it was around your risk of dying of being struck by lightning.
Anyway, I'd like to thank you for volunteering to remove yourself from the fucking pool. We really do have too much semi-sentient pond scum masquerading as humans.
Re:I'll pass on the clot shot, thanks. (Score:5, Informative)
Most people with myocarditis have an uncomplicated, self-limited and mild course while making a full recovery. In mild cases, they might not even notice they have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Myocarditis is just inflammation as a natural part of the immune system being active.
No, myocarditis is inflammation of the myocardium, which is very much not a normal part of the immune system being active- unless something is causing in inflammatory reaction within your myocardium.
It can even be caused by the common cold.
Very rarely- and it's because the cold has attacked your myocardium.
It's not really surprising that vaccines cause myocarditis, since vaccines activate the immune system. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.10 [jacc.org]... [jacc.org]
It's not surprising because the disease that is being targeted also rarely targets the myocardium, like rhinovirus.
You seem to be trying to say that "immune system activation and myocarditis go hand in hand."
That is not correct.
Most people with myocarditis have an uncomplicated, self-limited and mild course while making a full recovery.
This is true.
In mild cases, they might not even notice they have it.
Al
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be trying to say that "immune system activation and myocarditis go hand in hand."
Yes, that's right.
Re: I'll pass on the clot shot, thanks. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'll pass on the clot shot, thanks. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy your myocarditis.
Scientists identify mechanism causing deadly blood clots after COVID-19 vaccines [news-medical.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:if I get vaccinated I shouldn't get sick (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, vaccines don't work well against fast-mutating viruses like COVID and Flu.
I mean, they don't work "as well", but they most definitely work.
The Flu vaccine every year is usually between 40-60% effective at preventing disease. It is sometimes as low as 30 though.
Get your fucking flu vaccine. Save an old person's life, you shit bag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The first mRNA vaccines were something like 95% percent effective against the contemporarily dominant COVID strain (Delta). So there's a big of data for you. Also, just because a virus is fast-mutating doesn't mean a vaccine can't work against it. When a virus mutates, not every section of its genome undergoes change – and vaccines can target the parts that don't change, like the spike protein that COVID uses to enter human cells. Even when the targeted region mutates, vaccines can retain some effecti
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, neither covid nor influenza were or are good vaccine candidates. It's a shame you got modded to oblivion for saying so.
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Your link refers to a study in 2022 but covid vaccines became available in early 2020, about a year after the virus hit. I don't see where the study takes that into account, and the vaccines do appear to have effectively reduced mortality. You can see from this site that deaths spiked twice prior to the vaccines and dropped off sharply thereafter.
https://ourworldindata.org/cov... [ourworldindata.org]
And then there are the long term effects;
Nearly One in Five American Adults Who Have Had COVID-19 Still Have “Long COVID
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Bobby Jr. and his entourage...
Re: (Score:2)
>> Is RFK telling the truth or is Big Pharma?
Bobby Jr is a pathetic nutjob who is attempting to illegally destroy HHS.
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/... [axios.com]
Aside from that, I don't think a scandal sheet like "RealClearInvestigations" has any credibility whatsoever.
Re:I'm impressed with their tenacity (Score:5, Informative)
You've pulled some interesting data and constructed your own narrative around it, but it leaves out a lot of the science behind public health.
You come to the conclusion that it's largely a virus that affects people 50 and above. Well, yes, those are the people who died from it. But the rest aren't unaffected: it's still a fucking brutal disease at any age ("discomfited" does *not* describe it); the causes and effects of long COVID are just now being unraveled; they may have been cared for by a person who was taken out by the virus; and by the way, why is it unwarranted panic in your book when it's only 50+ers who are being mowed down by this thing? In 2021, 100,000 people PER WEEK were dying from COVID at one point. That's a lot of parents, grandparents, employees... people.
Further, just being under 50 is no guarantee that you'd survive an infection; it's not even an assurance that you'll get past it without long-term effects. Let's also remember that during the bad years of the pandemic, it wasn't 2025. We didn't have five years of epidemiological data to look back on, and it was anybody's guess where this thing was going; it could have mutated into a form that was more widely deadly. We simply didn't know and the historical models weren't much use against a novel virus like this one. Of course people were panicked.
A big piece of the societal concern for COVID was the inability of the US health care system to respond to a sudden capacity-busting spike in hospitalizations - remember "Bend the Curve"? Hospitals were quickly overwhelmed by COVID cases. With no vaccine and no treatment early in the pandemic, they simply didn't have any way to keep medical service providers safe from also being infected. With the flu, of course, we have vaccines and actual treatments for the disease; none of this was a thing before the COVID vaccines, placing many more people at much more risk.
You make the assertion that the vaccines were rushed into people's arms. I'm going to assume you're referring to the mRNA vaccines here since they were the early heroes of the pandemic. Research on mRNA vaccines had been underway for a long, long time by the time COVID made its appearance. It may have seemed as though this new, untested technology was given a very short test run, but in fact they were the result of 15+ years of research into the underlying technology. It just so happens that the research came to fruition at precisely the right moment. And you'll remember that the other vaccines, based on more traditional methods (inactivated virus, for example) were considerably less effective; some of them were in fact withdrawn due to being ineffective. China's initial vaccine is a particular example of this.
In the testing stages, the mRNA vaccines showed outstanding effectiveness – somewhere between 90-95% effective at preventing serious disease. That is phenomenally successful. Lots of vaccines that we routinely administer don't approach these numbers. If a group of researchers were conducting, say, a cancer trial where they were testing new treatments and *this* kind of result came out halfway through the trial - they'd stop the trial, verify the results, and if they panned out, you had better believe the treatment would be in IV drip bags ASAP. This is breakthrough medical science territory and let's just be grateful that it happened.
I will completely agree with some of your critique and add some of my own. Chaos and intentional malfeasance at the federal level resulted in bungled messaging and outright misinformation, creating a unnecessary societal divide. Strategic mistakes were made at all levels of government, exposing the weakness of our system to deal with such a once-every-century disease event.
Where I disagree with you is what seems to be your conclusion: that COVID wasn't as much of a problem as people made it sound; that if youw ere under 50, you didn't have much to worry about; the insinuation that the vaccines were rushed and may have caused more harm than good. This ventures into the standard antivaxxer arguments, which you helpfully note is not your intent, but nonetheless there is considerable semantic overlap between you and them.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with all your points.
It's possible I might have missed these, but they're also major considerations with COVID:
1. It causes scarring of tissue, especially heart tissue. That's why COVID sufferers often had severe blood clots in their bloodstream. Scarring of the heart increases risk of heart attacks, but there's obviously not much data on by how much, from COVID. Yet.
2. It causes brain damage in all who have been infected. Again, we have very little idea of how much, but from what I've read, there may
Re: (Score:2)
> That's bold, considering the last flu vaccine round had a NEGATIVE 26.9% efficacy.
#followthescience / Yes, you read it right, if you were vaccinated you had a 27% HIGHER chance of getting the flu.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten [medrxiv.org]... [medrxiv.org]
Does the study tell you how the vaccinated and vaccinated groups where formed?
Re: I'm impressed with their tenacity (Score:2)
I hope your realise that preprints on medrxiv have not yet been peer reviewed. Any crank can publish any rubbish on there.
Re:I'm impressed with their tenacity (Score:5, Insightful)
That's bold, considering the last flu vaccine round had a NEGATIVE 26.9% efficacy.
Oh, funny how the study you cited only looked at one specific vaccine and it also says:
And If we look at the average efficacy of the 2024-2025 vaccines it is >30% (see https://www.cdc.gov/flu-vaccin... [cdc.gov]).
COVID panic was largely bullshit. It was a highly communicable but otherwise not-very-virulent corona virus strain that mainly affected older and vulnerable people. Thus the term..."vulnerable". At the end, the IFR for COVID19 was basically a bad flu*. Cry all you want, argue the actual data.
That statement kind of ignores everything not specific to COVID-19. For example, a lot of people died because of COVID-19 but not from it because hospitals were full of COVID-19 infected who couldn't breathe on their own which made treatment of other health problems problematic. Those deaths and other deaths related to COVID-19 doesn't show up in the IFR but strangely enough the US had 1.2 million more deaths than expected during that period which is why using excess mortality is a much better indicator of how serious a virus infection spreading through the populace was.
the COVID vaccines were rushed, not nearly tested enough, and have resulted in some very questionable ongoing heart and other issues in younger people that had NOTHING to fear from COVID. Given the high effort in deliberately confounding the outcomes during the Biden administration, it's unlikely we'll ever know the truth.
Seems you are unaware that those who were vaccinated were less likely to have heart attacks, strokes and even dying than those who was unvaccinated and got infected. If younger people had nothing to fear from COVID-19, why wasn't the IFR 0 for them?
I'd have had much more confidence in the entire COVID event had one side not made all the decisions for everyone and insisted no debate was allowed. OPENLY discussing the causes, the treatments, and what we did/didn't know would have been preferable to the "STFU we know what's good for you" nearly-totalitarian approach. Hell, here in MN there was an almost-palpable disappointment we didn't get to use the corpse-storage-buildings the state rushed to rent.
Do you take issue with my tone? Tough shit. Anyone daring to question the Holy COVID doctrine was aggressively silenced for YEARS while the mandarins in charge RUINED lives flexing their emergency doctrines and now will evade any consequence for their awful decision making. Yeah, that bothers me.
Have you considered to look for information outside the US binary politics and attention-whore media? There's a whole world outside the US. I also have to question your statement that people was silenced for questioning the COVID response. There was a lot of sheer stupidity and lies dressed up as debate, the assortment of celebrity grifters hocking miracle cures to the gullible and an incredible amount of mindbogglingly stupid conspiracy theories going around - none of that is questioning and AFAIK no one has ever been silenced for asking questions based on factual reality but you can prove me wrong by giving examples.
I also have to ask, who showed "almost-palpable disappointment"? You got any specifics?
But nobody under 30 should have been even faintly discomfited, even people under 50 really shouldn't have given much of a shit.
But they were which should tell you something.
Re: (Score:3)
That's bold, considering the last flu vaccine round had a NEGATIVE 26.9% efficacy. #followthescience Yes, you read it right, if you were vaccinated you had a 27% HIGHER chance of getting the flu. https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
A fascinating study indeed, but unfortunately the results were inconclusive, since the control group (unvaccinated) was not identical to the experiment group (vaccinated).
A study needs to randomly select who is in the control group and who is in the experiment group. This needs to be drilled into anybody putting together a study. You can't have people self-select whether they are experiment or control.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think that this approach works. It contributes more to the polarization effect. It is one of those funny feedback loops that are present when you stick a lot of people together. It is pretty hopeless at this point. Take care.
Re: (Score:2)
Since none of that is true, no need for any studies.
But yes, it's not fun to die a painful death as your blood clots and your lungs fill with fluids because you didn't get vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you cite any sources? Bitchute links don’t count.
Re:Side effect is brain worms. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's actually the other way around: brain worms cause our leaders to avoid vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Anecdote != Data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is how risk management works: You take a large evil and replace it with a significantly smaller one. Why is that hard to understand?
Re: All companies do the same (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you are abysmally stupid. Which you clearly are. This is a highly regulated reporting, and if they were to lie here, people would go to prison. If anything, these numbers will be a bit understated to be on the safe side.
Yes, I get that this situation is already much too complex for you to grasp. Pathetic.
your not wrong... (Score:2)
This comprehensive pH assessment of commercially available beverages in the United States found that most are potentially erosive to the dentition.
Most (93%, 354 of 379) beverages had a pH of less than 4.0, and 7% (25 of 379) had a pH of 4.0 or more. Relative beverage erosivity zones based on studies of apatite solubility in acid indicated that 39% (149 of 379) of the beverages tested in this study were considered extremely erosive (pH
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002817715010508
There's quite a few other studies saying the same thing about pH and commonly available drinks. But imagine the lawsuits if this went to court? All the beverage compa