I suppose it's not unexpected in that pregnant women have to avoid most vaccinations for the same reason.
What is shocking is that "trusted news" claimed this wasn't true just last year. You'd think the vaccine cured cancer with just how perfect the news portrayed it to be.
Without delving into conspiracy theory it does certainly seem like 2020-2021 was the greatest period of sponsored, deliberate, misinformation spread by previously trustable sources in history. The level of irresponsibility with such an important thing to society (vaccines) will likely forever drive people away from taking them. The irony of all this is the misinformation peddlers seem to have actually been the news with their by-the-minute update on "debunking anti-vaccine claims". Certainly many anti-vaccine claims are far-fetched. But, the less far-fetched ones seem to be coming true by the day.
Will we see vaccine providers and news agencies in court for deliberately misleading the public? Signs point to unlikely. Maybe it'll make an interesting documentary our grandchildren will watch, though.
>Will we see vaccine providers and news agencies in court for deliberately misleading the public? Signs point to unlikely. Maybe it'll make an interesting documentary our grandchildren will watch, though.
With the way censorship is going, our grandchildren will be reading the "corrected" version of this, at best.
> The method (eSupplement) states the study was conduce between February and October 2020. That surprises me because the vaccinations being studied were not available to the public for that entire period. The first dose outside a clinical trial was given in Queens, New York on December 14 that year. Before this, they were only available as part of trials which excluded lactating individuals.
> The Supplement section of the letter states that the study was conducted from February to October 2020. The year reported was an error; the study was conducted in 2021. The Journal is in the process of correcting this error.
To me, the concerns this raises have less to do with breastfeeding infants and more to do with biodistribution of the mRNA after vaccination -- in theory it's not "supposed" to be found anywhere other than the muscle tissue around the injection site.
> The authors conclude that the very low levels found suggest that mRNA COVID vaccination is safe during breastfeeding, and this is in line with the findings of other safety in breastfeeding studies,
It would be nice to have a quote from the research article.
> Assuming this mRNA was active vaccine, how much milk would we need to make a dose? For a 100 mg dose of Moderna, about 50 bathtubs. For a 30 mg dose of Pfizer, only 15. Or for a pediatric dose (10mg), only 5 bathtubs.
Other user>> if it work via ingestion we would not need to inject them (i would be damn glad for it :) :) )
You've clearly been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed, regardless of what you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we have no choice but to ban such accounts and I've banned this one.
Is this surprising? A lot of medicines pass to breast milk and are not recommended n that cases. I'm not sure if someone has tried with mRNA before.
> This study investigated whether the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA can be detected in the expressed breast milk (EBM) of lactating individuals receiving the vaccination within 6 months after delivery.
Perhaps my English is bad, but IIUC the abstract makes the question if there is mRNA from the vaccine after 6 months, but it does not answer it. I can't find a good article about that https://www.google.com/search?q=mrna+vaccine+degradation+rat... but my guess is a few days. I'll be very surprised it survives a month inside the body.
It's surprising because at the time the mRNA vaccines were recommended to pregnant women (with next to zero testing), health authorities issued extensive assurances that the mRNA would remain localized to the injection site. Reuters even ran a fact-check article about it: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
"there is no evidence of such and such" should be followed by "are we actually looking for it?" I am sick of the dishonest rhetoric in the last several years, what a waste of confidence.
What is shocking is that "trusted news" claimed this wasn't true just last year. You'd think the vaccine cured cancer with just how perfect the news portrayed it to be.
Without delving into conspiracy theory it does certainly seem like 2020-2021 was the greatest period of sponsored, deliberate, misinformation spread by previously trustable sources in history. The level of irresponsibility with such an important thing to society (vaccines) will likely forever drive people away from taking them. The irony of all this is the misinformation peddlers seem to have actually been the news with their by-the-minute update on "debunking anti-vaccine claims". Certainly many anti-vaccine claims are far-fetched. But, the less far-fetched ones seem to be coming true by the day.
Will we see vaccine providers and news agencies in court for deliberately misleading the public? Signs point to unlikely. Maybe it'll make an interesting documentary our grandchildren will watch, though.