Vaccine thread

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

If I recall correctly, and if it's the same study, I believe it was Yukon's government that did it, and they got told sternly by big booze to quit it, so they did.

 

 

I don't have data to back this up, but alcohol is a chronic/slow-acting toxin that can cause cancer as one of its outcomes, so the sudden absence of it from the market probably won't appreciably be noticed in reduced cancer figures, but its increased intake during a period like a pandemic would likely result in a downstream "wave" of "new" cases.  At least, that's what the logic would suggest.

Thanks, I knew you would have some smarts on it.

 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

However, no hangover, no damage to the liver, and non of that pesky cancer...

 

None of the cancer that we know of... for now.  I don't think there have been any longitudinal studies of imbibing THC drinks to confirm or deny the prevalence of cancer as an outcome.

[The Arrogant Worms]

‘He’s Made Science Political’: FDA Member Bashes Florida Surgeon General After Call to Halt Covid Vaccines

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/hes-made-science-political-fda-member-bashes-florida-surgeon-general-after-call-to-halt-covid-vaccines/

[bishopshodan]

3 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

None of the cancer that we know of... for now.  I don't think there have been any longitudinal studies of imbibing THC drinks to confirm or deny the prevalence of cancer as an outcome.

i would lay my bet thst it's gonna be a country mile better than alc.

 

Mary Jane, from what I have read, is rarely directly connected to much. But as you point out, since it has been illegal for so long, it hasnt had enough long studies.

Edited January 5 by bishopshodan

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Thanks, I knew you would have some smarts on it.

 

 

Nah, I'm not capable of having smarts.  I just happen to be (cursed? ) with a sometimes functioning memory.

Here's the article I remembered when you mentioned the study: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-alcohol-warning-labels-study-results-1.5556344

[Satchmo]

3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

This is an amazing and potentially true statement about a drug. A drug that has very little positive influence on us, if any. 

 

My saying 'It's in any governments' best interest to prevent civil war.'   was an exaggeration.   Not that describing it that way was very funny, but at least a little.

 

My point was that there was no way they were going to shut down liquor stores or pot shops.   People would have absolutely flipped and in those days they were already pretty close to flipping.

 

If you are proposing a new Prohibition, I'm against it.   If you are proposing education on the perils of alcohol, I'm for  it.  If you are proposing firmer crackdowns on drunk drivers, I'm all for it.

[bishopshodan]

6 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Nah, I'm not capable of having smarts.  I just happen to be (cursed? ) with a sometimes functioning memory.

Here's the article I remembered when you mentioned the study: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-alcohol-warning-labels-study-results-1.5556344

Wow, i thought it was a bit longer ago. 2017. not 2011 like I mentioned.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

Wow, i thought it was a bit longer ago. 2017. not 2011 like I mentioned.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the initial study proposal was made early 2010s, proof of concept proposed mid-2010s, and the actual study actioned in 2017.  It sometimes does take that long for research to proceed through the various hoops (including getting peer reviews for approvals to the proposals, and certifications like ethics).

[bishopshodan]

3 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

My saying 'It's in any governments' best interest to prevent civil war.'   was an exaggeration.   Not that describing it that way was very funny, but at least a little.

 

My point was that there was no way they were going to shut down liquor stores or pot shops.   People would have absolutely flipped and in those days they were already pretty close to flipping.

 

If you are proposing a new Prohibition, I'm against it.   If you are proposing education on the perils of alcohol, I'm for  it.  If you are proposing firmer crackdowns on drunk drivers, I'm all for it.

God no.

 

i support legalising all drugs. With lots of tax that goes into education and healthcare

 

My point was more about....if we think the world might end due to a virus, unless we do all we can....would we still say "cutting us off from our fav drug is too much to ask, let's roll the dice on the whole existing thing"

[bishopshodan]

Just now, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the initial study proposal was made early 2010s, proof of concept proposed mid-2010s, and the actual study actioned in 2017.  It sometimes does take that long for research to proceed through the various hoops (including getting peer reviews for approvals to the proposals, and certifications like ethics).

That could be it. I remember when I was part of the BC Private Liquor Store Association, they were talking about it. 

[The Arrogant Worms]

19 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

That could be it. I remember when I was part of the BC Private Liquor Store Association, they were talking about it. 

I worked the very 1st day in the 1st private beer/wine store on Vancouver Island in Duncan at the Village Green Inn.

 Was 88-89 I think?

 

I was by myself because no one thought it would be busy.

 

I think it was the day we had the most sales the store ever had.  It was crazy and softball season to boot.

Edited January 5 by The Arrogant Worms

[Gurn]

45 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Wow, i thought it was a bit longer ago. 2017. not 2011 like I mentioned.

Cannabis does effect the memory, does it not? Short term anyway.

I think so, iirc.

[bishopshodan]

12 minutes ago, Gurn said:

Cannabis does effect the memory, does it not? Short term anyway.

I think so, iirc.

 

Well played, sir. 

[WeneedLumme]

5 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

None of the cancer that we know of... for now.  I don't think there have been any longitudinal studies of imbibing THC drinks to confirm or deny the prevalence of cancer as an outcome.

I am sure there haven't been any long term studies regarding THC drinks, but it has been smoked and eaten for a very long time with no indications of any increased prevalence of cancer. It just doesn't seem to be carcinogenic, however you consume it.

Edited January 5 by WeneedLumme

[bolt]

On 1/4/2024 at 9:33 PM, WeneedLumme said:

I am sure there haven't been any long term studies regarding THC drinks, but it has been smoked and eaten for a very long time with no indications of any increased prevalence of cancer. It just doesn't seem to be carcinogenic, however you consume it.

You're probably right I should trust the Canucks forum experts.  It was stupid of me to question the vaccine after my loved one was diagnosed with early stage cancer which is usually found in people twice her age after 3 months from the second jab.  I should be banned for even suggesting that the jab may be responsible given the time frame.

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, bolt said:

You're probably right I should trust the Canucks forum experts.  It was stupid of me to question the vaccine after my loved one was diagnosed with early stage cancer which is usually found in people twice her age after 3 months from the second jab.  I should be banned for even suggesting that the jab may be responsible given the time frame.

 

Well you did ask.

 

Not sure why you are thinking that there's any relationship to a vaccine, given how many other things are linked to cancer? 

[WeneedLumme]

1 minute ago, bolt said:

You're probably right I should trust the Canucks forum experts.  It was stupid of me to question the vaccine after my loved one was diagnosed with early stage cancer which is usually found in people twice her age after 3 months from the second jab.  I should be banned for even suggesting that the jab may be responsible given the time frame.

 

What a stupid response. I understand that people like you who are very weak at math and sciences are inherently vulnerable to being sucked in by conspiracy theories.

 

I am sure that you are doing the best you can with the limited resources available to you. But here's a hint for you: correlation does not equal causation.

[bolt]

20 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

 

What a stupid response. I understand that people like you who are very weak at math and sciences are inherently vulnerable to being sucked in by conspiracy theories.

 

I am sure that you are doing the best you can with the limited resources available to you. But here's a hint for you: correlation does not equal causation.

There is data that shows cancer is sharply up since the vaccine rollout.  My loved one is diagnosed with cancer, I have many friends who have been recently diagnosed.  Yeah stupid of me of me to make a correlation thought. Just mock anyone who questions it and lump them as a conspiracy theorist.  The vaccine is clearly safe and effective.

Edited January 6 by bolt

[StrayDog]

2 minutes ago, bolt said:

There is data that shows cancer is sharply up since the vaccine rollout.  My loved one is diagnosed with cancer, I have many friends who have been recently diagnosed.  Yeah stupid of me of me to make a correlation thought. Just mock anyone who questions it and lump them as a conspiracy theorist.  

You do know that cancer can be developing for years in someone before it's detected, right? Cancer is not a sudden thing. The fact that anyone develops cancer a few months after the vaccine means it's pretty improbable the cancer grew that quickly. I don't necessarily think you're a conspiracy theorist, but as others have pointed out it's been easier to diagnose cancer and so easier detection means more people will show up with it. 

[Alflives]

42 minutes ago, bolt said:

You're probably right I should trust the Canucks forum experts.  It was stupid of me to question the vaccine after my loved one was diagnosed with early stage cancer which is usually found in people twice her age after 3 months from the second jab.  I should be banned for even suggesting that the jab may be responsible given the time frame.

So your initial thought to a person being diagnosed with cancer is it’s cause was from a vaccine? Interesting. 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, bolt said:

There is data that shows cancer is sharply up since the vaccine rollout.  My loved one is diagnosed with cancer, I have many friends who have been recently diagnosed.  Yeah stupid of me of me to make a correlation thought. Just mock anyone who questions it and lump them as a conspiracy theorist.  The vaccine is clearly safe and effective.

 

but what is your evidence for an actual link?

 

Sometimes there are weird pockets of diseases. E.g. SK has a weirdly high number of MS cases. No one knows why. 

[bishopshodan]

2 hours ago, bolt said:

You're probably right I should trust the Canucks forum experts.  It was stupid of me to question the vaccine after my loved one was diagnosed with early stage cancer which is usually found in people twice her age after 3 months from the second jab.  I should be banned for even suggesting that the jab may be responsible given the time frame.

I'm sorry about your loved one.

 

I'm confused though. The post you quoted was talking about THC drinks, not the vaccine.

 

Just dont want people fearing thc beverges as a cancer risk, I havent heard/read that. 

[WeneedLumme]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

So your initial thought to a person being diagnosed with cancer is it’s cause was from a vaccine? Interesting. 

Cancers typically take years or decades to develop. I have to believe that anybody who claims to believe that a vaccination caused a tumour within a few months is either a simpleton or willfully ignorant.

[The Arrogant Worms]

My nephew died of cancer at 14 some 30 years ago.  He actually had it when he was young and beat it but it came back.   Must have been the covid jab.

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/key-cause-of-long-covid-fatigue-revealed-in-new-study/ar-AA1myIqx?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=74328c2954fe418fb7dc8881873dee1b&ei=66

If you are among the many people who have been infected with COVID-19 and subsequently felt more tired than usual, there may now be an explanation for that.

A recent study published in Nature Communications has shed light on the debilitating post-exertional malaise experienced by long COVID patients.

This study, involving 25 patients, reveals that long COVID significantly impacts skeletal muscle structure, leading to reduced exercise capacity and exacerbating fatigue and pain after physical activity.

The research highlights how chronic conditions following acute infections like COVID-19, known as post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), manifest in a range of symptoms, including limited exercise tolerance and post-exertional malaise. The study involved rigorous testing, including blood and skeletal muscle biopsies before and after exercise, to understand the biological factors contributing to these symptoms.