https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-14915995/pfizer-covid-vaccine-eye-changes-damage-risk.html?ito=social-facebook

Wake up people

So is too much jackin' off.

You've been warned.

I know since you are a liberal lunatic you have had like 6 boosters

Good luck with that

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-14915995/pfizer-covid-vaccine-eye-changes-damage-risk.html?ito=social-facebook

Wake up people

---

We need to start with you. When are you going to stop posting h o r s e s h i t ?

A few things to weigh:
No control group. This is the fatal design limitation. It was a before-and-after observational study with no separate unvaccinated comparison group, so it cannot establish that vaccination caused the changes, and other factors occurring between the two exams could have influenced the results. Two and a half months is plenty of time for a COVID infection, seasonal effects, or just measurement conditions to move these numbers. Mirage News
The eyes aren't independent. The study measured both eyes of each participant, so the 128 "eyes" are not 128 independent data points. Treating them as such inflates apparent statistical power unless properly clustered a common flaw in small ophthalmology studies. Mirage News
The magnitude argues against the scary interpretation, not for it. Corneal endothelial cells don't regenerate, and normal age-related loss runs about 0.6% per year. An 8% "loss" in ten weeks would be equivalent to roughly 13 years of aging compressed into two months. A change that large, if it were a real permanent cell die-off, would be a clinically dramatic event and no participant had any vision problem. That mismatch is a strong tell that you're looking at measurement variability between two specular-microscopy sessions (test-retest variation of several percent is well documented, depending on sampling site, image quality, and the counting algorithm) or a transient effect, not permanent damage.
The values stayed normal. ~2,378 cells/mm is comfortably within the healthy adult range (roughly 2,0003,000). Corneal decompensation risk only appears when density falls toward ~5001,000. Likewise a 528542 m thickness shift is within normal diurnal fluctuation from hydration and time of day.
The catastrophic conditions are speculation, not findings. Bullous keratopathy, corneal decompensation, and permanent vision loss weren't observed those are downstream possibilities the article stacks into the lede. The authors emphasized monitoring high-risk groups prior eye surgery, corneal grafts, low endothelial counts and did not recommend against vaccination. The Daily Mail's "may increase the risk of eye damage, leading to vision loss" is a leap the study doesn't support. MedPath
So the honest read: a small, uncontrolled study found short-term measurements that shifted slightly within the normal range, with a plausibly non-causal or transient explanation, and a sensible clinical footnote about watching vulnerable subgroups. That's a modest hypothesis-generating result. The headline treats it as evidence of a vaccine that damages eyes, which it isn't.

Good call. Every sperm is sacred, regardless of your eyesight.

Buried another dude with turbo cancer. So young

I'm glad we now live in a country where those scared of Covid can continue to get vaccinations and those who aren't can refrain.

Me and my family remain pure bloods. And that has served us perfectly well.