The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(09-22-2025 12:40 PM)CLASS Wrote:  REDS 80-76 3 HOME V PIRATES, 3 ROAD V BREWERS

METS 80-76 3 ROAD V CUBS, 3 ROAD V MARLINS

ARIZ 79-77 3 HOME DODGERS, 3 ROAD V PADRES

REDS have tie breaker versus both.

Great news, not sure what this has to do with covid. :)

(09-22-2025 12:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-22-2025 12:40 PM)CLASS Wrote:  REDS 80-76 3 HOME V PIRATES, 3 ROAD V BREWERS

METS 80-76 3 ROAD V CUBS, 3 ROAD V MARLINS

ARIZ 79-77 3 HOME DODGERS, 3 ROAD V PADRES

REDS have tie breaker versus both.

Great news, not sure what this has to do with covid. :)

I think he was just trying to goose it to the top - you know see if we can make it to 200 pages.

South Korean 8.4 million population study finds 27% increase in one year cancer rates after the jabs.

Quote:Abstract:

The oncogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothetically proposed, but real-world data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination are insufficient. Therefore, this large-scale population-based retrospective study in Seoul, South Korea, aimed to estimate the cumulative incidences and subsequent risks of overall cancers 1 year after COVID-19 vaccination. Data from 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023 were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance database. The participants were categorized into two groups based on their COVID-19 vaccination status. The risks for overall cancer were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and data were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The HRs of thyroid (HR, 1.351; 95% CI, 1.206–1.514), gastric (HR, 1.335; 95% CI, 1.130–1.576), colorectal (HR, 1.283; 95% CI, 1.122–1.468), lung (HR, 1.533; 95% CI, 1.254–1.874), breast (HR, 1.197; 95% CI, 1.069–1.340), and prostate (HR, 1.687; 95% CI, 1.348–2.111) cancers significantly increased at 1 year post-vaccination. In terms of vaccine type, cDNA vaccines were associated with the increased risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers; mRNA vaccines were linked to the increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers; and heterologous vaccination was related to the increased risks of thyroid and breast cancers. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination.

https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/a...25-00831-w

Study of 1.3 Million Women Links COVID Vaccines to Pregnancy Risk

The rate of successful conception — a pregnancy leading to live birth nine months later — for women who received the COVID-19 vaccine was “substantially lower” than for unvaccinated women, according to a new peer-reviewed study published last week in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defen...ancy-risk/

Imagine that - a messenger RNA injection that stimulates the body to create spike proteins (indefinitely I might add) might cause unintended protein chains to be expressed and result in unpredictable immune system response reactions.

This is exactly why one of he the inventors of MRNA technology was one of the very loudest voices AGAINST MRNA technology as a solution.

And, of course, he was shouted down as an unscientific kook...

I'm not here to argue. That was just an abstract you linked, which is fine, but it doesn't explain why it settled on including the individuals that it did.

In the South Korean cohort of 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023, we finally included 595,007 and 2,380,028 individuals after the 1:4 propensity score matching (PSM). For the vaccinated population, 355,896 and 711,792 individuals were included in the non-booster and booster groups, after the 1:2 PSM. The measured outcomes were cumulative incidences and corresponding risks of cancers at one year after COVID-19 vaccination, which was also stratified by the types of vaccine, sex and age (Additional File 1).

Trump apparently got his covid booster today. The right wing politicians might be exploiting anti-vaccine disinformation to win over the gullible but they're still protecting themselves

Here we go. “Disinformation” card being played.

Journal club was one of my favorite parts of medical education, where someone would pick a recent article they thought was worthy of presenting, and the rest of us in attendance would challenge that.

My biggest gripe the entire time was the vaccine mandates on young, healthy individuals.

People lost their jobs and were ostracized for not injecting a new vaccine when it was clear they were at a very, very low risk of having a serious complication with covid. Freedom of choice and common sense went out the window.

We were told that children were at risk, we were told that we needed to get the jab to protect others because once you get the jab you can't be infected, etc. There was no critical thinking at all. I'm not against the vaccination, if you're at risk or want the jab, go for it. I'm fairly young and very healthy, I felt the risk of an unknown vaccine was greater to me than the risk of covid, and turns out I was 100% right.

But during the covid hysteria I was an evil, selfish person for not getting vaccinated, and had I not been self-employed there's a good chance I would have been looking for a new career. Several people in this thread were the ones throwing stones.

(10-10-2025 08:18 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Trump apparently got his covid booster today. The right wing politicians might be exploiting anti-vaccine disinformation to win over the gullible but they're still protecting themselves

Following the CDC that still recommends for people over 65. And lets face it that is the only reason. Because if he hadn't there would just be more "anti-science" attacks from the same people who attack everything he does.

But honestly Trump is 79 - sure considering there is no upside to jabs, the downsides are logically higher. But we really don't need to be that concerned with 75+ year olds receiving potentially harmful gene therapy.

Because that is really how we should look at it. MRNA isn't vaccination, it is by definition experimental genetic modification.

The long term effects of this global experiment are still far from beign completely known. But I would put money on data tied to negative unintended consequences continuing to emerge. And my greatest fear is that we start hearing words used like "transgenerational". We already know with certainty that the the "vaccines" MRNA effects are passed through in utero. To me that is the potential horror, I could give a sh*t what Trump does,

Pretty sure Trump also got one of the early monoclonal antibodies after he tested positive, he didn't just survive it by himself.

And I appreciate your worry about the messenger RNA vaccines, Eastside. I tend to lean towards worst case, then work back from that. I don't share your worry about messenger RNA affecting the cell's source code more than a similar viral infection would, but we don't know what we don't know. Maybe a random retroviral reverse transcriptase is doing things.

Quote:“Here we have shown that during the pandemic, risks of myocarditis and inflammatory illnesses were low for children and young people, and that they were less after COVID-19 vaccination than after COVID-19 infection.”

Basically, there was an increased risk of these issues after getting the COVID vaccine (though that increased risk was only for a brief period of time)... the increased risk was higher when children contracted COVID than when children got the vaccine.

And again...these risks were small in both cases.

Quote:Over a period of six months, researchers estimate that COVID-19 infections led to 2.24 extra cases of myocarditis or pericarditis per 100,000 children, while vaccinations led to 0.85 extra cases per 100,000.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/co...ce=twitter[/quote]

(10-09-2025 11:19 PM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  I'm not here to argue. That was just an abstract you linked, which is fine, but it doesn't explain why it settled on including the individuals that it did.

In the South Korean cohort of 8,407,849 individuals between 2021 and 2023, we finally included 595,007 and 2,380,028 individuals after the 1:4 propensity score matching (PSM). For the vaccinated population, 355,896 and 711,792 individuals were included in the non-booster and booster groups, after the 1:2 PSM. The measured outcomes were cumulative incidences and corresponding risks of cancers at one year after COVID-19 vaccination, which was also stratified by the types of vaccine, sex and age (Additional File 1).

Gonna share a story that I hope actually resonates;

I had a family member get diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year. That same week, my research group was awarded an internal grant to study a drug we use in animal models to improve immunotherapies against pancreatic cancer. The reason we sought internal funding, simply, was because our same group had funding canceled for self-replicating RNA delivery platforms to improve immunotherapies. We are very fortunate to have institutional support that can finance these projects. Schools like UC, simply, do not have the resources.

This family member was a die hard MAGAite. The type who believed the vaccines were microchipped, the type that believes Ivermectin was the cure to Covid, frankly - the type of guy you see in this thread. Now, this family member also, sadly, succumbed to the cancer rapidly. Within a month, they were checked into hospice. Family members have been asking since for updates, promising treatments, clinical trials, etc.

And meanwhile, we haven't spent a dime of the internal grant on the project yet. Worse - some of the most promising anti-cancer therapies have seen their funding slashed due to paranoia related to immunotherapies. And the National Cancer Institute's budget for FY26 is set to decrease from $7.2B to $4.5B.

I think back to how these posters reacted to your descriptions of patient care during the pandemic and am reminded of it yet again now. Eventually we all face our own mortality and will beg for answers that can't be answered.

(10-16-2025 02:43 PM)Eastside_TheWhite Wrote:  

(10-10-2025 08:18 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Trump apparently got his covid booster today. The right wing politicians might be exploiting anti-vaccine disinformation to win over the gullible but they're still protecting themselves

But honestly Trump is 79 - sure considering there is no upside to jabs, the downsides are logically higher. But we really don't need to be that concerned with 75+ year olds receiving potentially harmful gene therapy.

Because that is really how we should look at it. MRNA isn't vaccination, it is by definition experimental genetic modification.

mRNA vaccines are indeed vaccines, they are not gene therapies (at least in the traditional sense), and everything else you describe here is just standard concerns you can use to describe any and all medicines. Evidence of reverse transcription via mRNA vaccines would, ironically, be a major medical/research advancement itself, that could likely lend itself to further cures.

Yet, the result of your trepidation is - strictly - billions of dollars in cancer funding being cut by RFK. That's why it is anti-science.

One of the most attractive parts of a unified healthcare system is the datasets. Mark, your linked study didn't prove anything in the US, but it makes a compelling case that the vaccines included in the study were not more dangerous to children than the virus.

There was a good 60 minutes piece this weekend about the impact of federal funding cuts on scientific research. For all the bad things happening in the country today, it simply has not registered with people how much the current administration has dismantled life saving research and care for absolutely no benefit whatsoever. Taking a hammer to one of America's best facets because of political paranoia and outright lunatics.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/researchers...ranscript/

Schools like UC are hurt most by this. UC would still be a commuter school in an Arby's parking lot if this level of federal support existed for the past two decades.