13 ms·

>which is what Covid binds to. You mean the SARS-2 spike protein binds to the ACE receptors. mRNA vaccines create the spike protein so it's going to work in ex

>which is what Covid binds to. You mean the SARS-2 spike protein binds to the ACE receptors. mRNA vaccines create the spike protein so it's going to work in exactly the same way as natural infection. Recent research from Japan is showing that the spike protein from vaccination is not staying at the injection site it can get into the blood stream (and causes blood clots as are widely reported), crossing the blood brain barrier and affecting the heart. As a healthy 30 year old I would prefer to take my risk with covid than take these vaccines. I've done enough research to know what I'm talking about and the smartest people I know have reached the same conclusion.

munificent 5y ago
> As a healthy 30 year old I would prefer to take my risk with covid than take these vaccines. Unfortunate that you're also unilaterally forcing everyone you come into contact with to take that same risk if you are infected without realizing it.
- trhway 5y ago
  > everyone you come into contact with to take that same risk how come so if those "everyone" got vaccinated? I mean all the risk groups who has clearly higher risk from covid than vaccine should definitely go for vaccine. The rest - personal choice of risk. And as a healthy 49 years old, i'm taking my chance with covid and have no plans for vaccination (i was always laughing at anti-vaxxers, yet seeing all misinformation and propaganda (the stench of USSR strength propaganda is just overwhelming) around covid i think i'll pass this one)
  - PostThisTooFast 5y ago
    Then you're an asshole, because you make yourself a petri dish for virus mutation that could produce a much deadlier variant and cost us all dearly... again.
  - nrb 5y ago
    "everyone" currently excludes a large number of people who would otherwise like to be immunized for a variety of reasons (age, medical risks), and vaccines are not 100% effective
  - eganist 5y ago
    > (i was always laughing at anti-vaxxers, yet seeing all misinformation and propaganda (the smell of USSR strength propaganda is just overwhelming) around covid i think i'll pass this one) No, you weren't. A common false-flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag) attack involves presenting oneself as a member of an opposing viewpoint in order to find adherents for the desired viewpoint. The tell is your use of the words "misinformation" and "propaganda." People who tend to levy such claims also tend to share more of it: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/06/17/who-shares-most-fake-news-new-study-sheds-light https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/06/17/who-shares-most-fa... - "The paper, in the journal Human Communication Research, also found that people who lack trust in conventional media, and in one another, post misinformation more often." I was always pro-vax, and that hasn't changed with this vaccine.
    - trhway 5y ago
      >The tell is your use of the words "misinformation" and "propaganda." People who tend to levy such claims also tend to share more of it you said it yourself. It is kind of ironically not surprising that you levied the above mentioned claim and actually posted the misinformation and propaganda yourself - see below. >No, you weren't. you really don't know, yet you're making with complete confidence such a completely false blatantly contradicting facts[0] statement just because it suits your narrative >A common false-flag ... and helps you to advance your agenda. Thus your post is a clear example of misinformation and propaganda. Not sure that you're doing it intentionally, probably you're just caught up in that mob hysteria. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860543
      - mike_hearn 5y ago
        It's very amusing you were actually able to show yourself laughing at anti-vaxers right here on HN, thus winning the argument against eganist completely. You should probably have called that out more clearly. I guessed what might be in the link but it would have been good to quote it.
        5y ago
  - munificent 5y ago
    > how come so if those "everyone" got vaccinated? Well, for starters, the vaccine isn't available for anyone under the age of 12.
  - weaksauce 5y ago
    > And as a healthy 49 years old, i'm taking my chance with covid and have no plans for vaccination so you would rather be at between a 1 in 500 and a 1 in 250 risk of dying in your age group + a much higher risk than that of some long covid symptoms that are debilitating/unknown if they will ever get better vs. a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance you get something that might be bad but is likely survivable... I don't understand the anti-vaxxer "logic"
    - adamiscool8 5y ago
      Not OP but the chance of hospitalization in that age bracket is about 0.2% [0] There appears to be at least a 20% chance that post-vaccine someone of that age will feel rough enough to take medication [1]. People who are currently healthy choosing to avoid the risk of immediate short-term pain when presented with a small, remote gain seems like classic prospect theory! [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/covid-19-us-hospital-rate-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/covid-19-us-hosp... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html#18-systemic-reactions https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer...
      - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
        20% chance of feeling rough enough to take medication does not seem much higher than the human average. Without comparing to placebo it is meaningless.
        adamiscool8 5y ago
        They did compare it to placebo, plus, humans don’t compare to placebo they compare to their status quo condition.
      - weaksauce 5y ago
        you are conflating "rough enough to take a medication" with being "so sick you are in the hospital with covid." crazy comparison. I got my vaccine and the second shot hit me hard enough that I had to take some ibuprofen. Not a single regret and it wasn't that bad. you are comparing apples to oranges.
dkarras 5y ago
That... doesn't make sense. You WILL get exposed to this virus. Worst case, the virus will be able to do the same and more without any prior training for your immune system. If you said "I'll try not to get covid" I'd say "Impossible but godspeed" at least your logic would be sound.
- thenaturalist 5y ago
  Absolutely this. What are your "smartest" friends saying about the billions of dollars invested and spent by other really smart individuals in developing these vaccines in the first place? I bet world class biologists and investors aren't doing it for the fun. PS: If anyone is curious about the "real thing", I'd highly recommend you look up hospital documentaries on COVID IC units. There is one - unfortunately German only - called "Charité intensiv" which quite drastically showcases the extent of what you have to deal with when contracting COVID. Let me tell you it's quite a bit more than myocarditis.
  - anextio 5y ago
    This is a selection bias toward Covid patients who had to be hospitalized. Most Covid cases are mild and patients recover at home. The “extent of what you have to deal with” varies considerably.
eganist 5y ago
> I've done enough research to know what I'm talking about The standard practice is for those making the assertion to provide their references or data. Since you've done the research, can you please link any published and peer reviewed research establishing that the health risks from the vaccine are within two orders of magnitude of the health risks from the virus? Including morbidity, mortality, etc. > The smartest people I know have reached the same conclusion. Can you please reference them as well so I can read their published content?
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  Might be referring to this study: https://trialsitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Pfizer-report_Japanese-government.pdf https://trialsitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Pfizer-...
  - eganist 5y ago
    I mean, reading the discussion/conclusion via google translate, this seems to be a study on metabolism of the vaccine? Open to being fact-checked, but this doesn't seem related. In any case, the only statement I found on health effects in the discussion/conclusion was "No toxic findings indicating liver damage were found in the rat repeated-dose toxicity test ( M2.6.6.3 )." but I don't speak Japanese and I'm sure using Google Translate is a very ineffective way of parsing research.
    - 0-_-0 5y ago
      What I belive this might show (still trying to figure this out) is how the lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine are distributed in the body. Page 7 shows particularly high concentration in the ovaries for example. I think the idea of the vaccine should be that the intramuscular injection stays in the muscle and the spike proteins don't get into your blood, but this was never actually directly verified. What this study shows is that the vaccine lipid coating (and thus likely the spike proteins) get into your blood, which when binding to the ACE2 receptor can cause different kinds of damage. E.g. binding to platelets is what can cause clotting. I'm not sure about any of this yet, just started looking into it a few hours ago.
ancientorange 5y ago
>As a healthy 30 year old I would prefer to take my risk with covid than take these vaccines. As an exhausted 34 year old who spent the last year field-monitoring vaccine trials, I would love to see the sources that informed your position.
- zarq 5y ago
  > spent the last year field-monitoring vaccine trials As an adult that was vaccinated, thank you for doing your part to get us all here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mike_hearn 5y ago
  Alright. As an exhausted 37 year old, I'm going to stick my neck out and explain why I've chosen to put myself at the back of the queue for vaccines this time around. I'm sure the authorities will find some way to force me to take it at some point, but refusing these vaccines is a rational position. You may not agree with it, but it's based on rationality and logic. So here are my reasons. Firstly, I don't believe COVID related science is reliable. This isn't some conspiracy theory I picked up from YouTube. I developed this belief by actually reading a lot of scientific papers, or perhaps I should say "scientific" because it turned out that on close inspection almost all the papers I chose to study carefully were pseudo-scientific and sometimes fraudulent. I can count the ones that had no obvious errors or deceptive practices on the fingers of one hand. In no cases have there been any consequences for the perpetrators and in some cases the scientific establishment came together to cover up what happened. At first I couldn't quite believe it and thought maybe there was some selection bias in the papers I was being exposed to, so I went back in the archives to review older papers from the world of public health (Zika, Swine Flu, AIDS). It turned out they were just as bad. I've written quite extensively about the problems in my prior comments here on HN [1], [2], [3], [4] and I also wrote a report that ended up being sent to the British Cabinet [5], so won't go into detail again, but suffice it to say I now have a large set of go-to examples for cases where scientists have been acting in ways scientists aren't meant to act. A very small number of these problems are now coming into the public eye. For example in recent weeks a whole lot of people were surprised to see the lab leak hypothesis go straight from "debunked conspiracy theory" to Biden ordering it to be investigated, apparently without any intermediate points. Fauci has admitted on record (in the New York Times) that he lied in order to manipulate people's behaviour at least twice (masks, HITs) and thus he's very likely to have done it more often. These aren't actually my go-to examples of academic fraud because I tend to focus on the UK, where things are just as bad, but I'm sure every country has equivalents at this point because the issues aren't specific to Fauci, they appear to be cultural within public health. A good example of this problem with vaccines specifically is the way the CDC is inflating their apparent effectiveness by changing the definition of COVID itself for vaccinated people [6]. That is, if someone took a test and presented the results twice in succession, and told one official they had been vaccinated and the other that they hadn't, the first could say they didn't have COVID and the second that they did. This sort of data manipulation is rampant, it's just one example. So the scientific estabishment is not produced reliable knowledge. Many people still disagree with this, but they are going to eventually lose that debate because the evidence of problems is overwhelmingly strong. Now, to vaccines. The risk of serious problems from taking these vaccines is low in absolute terms, clearly, as otherwise we'd be seeing mass die-offs by now given the very high speed and rates of vaccination. However, to make a rational decision you have to compare that to the risk of suffering serious problems from COVID. Even if the risk of both is low, if the risk of a cure is (for example) 50x higher than the risk of a disease, then the cure is worse and it's rational to take your chances with nature. For people in our age range this is especially important because the risk of suffering badly from COVID is negligible. There are far more dangerous things out there in our daily life. Average IFR estimates have converged on around 0.1% to 0.2%, which is already around the same area as seasonal flu, but those estimates must be multiplied by the chance of actually becoming infected in the first place and ideally age adjusted. I've been through multiple waves of COVID by now and not only never been infected, but nobody I know has caught it either. It seems quite plausible I will never catch it, vaccine or not. Many models were based on the assumption that nearly everyone will be infected sooner or later but those models fell apart under even the tiniest inspection, even before vaccines. And finally, it must be noted that the IFRs of 0.1-0.2% are based on a definition of death that is wrong and guaranteed to inflate the values (i.e. a virus that had been engineered to be entirely inert would still "cause" millions of deaths given how COVID deaths are defined). All this added together means the risk of COVID to people like us is extremely low. And the risk of the vaccine? Well, unfortunately we don't really know that. Knowing the risk relative to the risk of COVID for 30 year olds requires a level of data robustness and trustworthiness science has been unable to provide. For example VAERs is not a comprehensive database of all reactions, because reporting rates are much lower than 100% and it's unclear what the current highly politicized atmosphere is doing to reporting rates (probably suppressing them). What we do know is that there are simple and (by now) well understood mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines could create severe reactions. The spike protein is, let's be clear about this, a toxin. If you were injected with sufficient amounts of mRNA vaccine for long enough you would die. Normally we're exposed to a dose of a virus that has spike proteins and causes production to start, but the virus gets stuck in the lungs and finds it hard to escape. Also, the dose may well be quite small. With the mRNA vaccines they're meant to stay in the shoulder muscle and eventually drain to a lymph node, but it seems that in some cases the person doing the injection may nick an artery by accident and end up injecting the vaccine straight into the bloodstream. Note that this is not meant to happen and studies into what does happen if this occurs have been occurring after the mass rollout of the vaccines. It appears the lipid nanoparticles also capable of crossing the blood brain barrier, where they may cause brain cells to start expressing spike protein and be destroyed - again, no studies of this have been done because both the mRNA adjustment technique and, more importantly, the lipid nanoparticles, are quite new. The trials were not completed, etc. The few studies that do exist are mostly in animals. At any rate, it can cause cells to be destroyed in places respiratory viruses would normally find hard to reach. [7] [8] Is it possible vaccines are a lot more dangerous than we're being told? Yes, absolutely. No doubt at all. The standard retort to this is that it's a "conspiracy theory" but so what? Public health research is absolutely overrun with conspiracies, many of them aren't even well covered up. Certain specific subfields are nothing but conspiracies (looking at you, epidemiology). Lab leak hypothesis was described as a conspiracy theory, which thanks to China's evidence destruction it actually is by this point, but it's also almost certainly true. I hate to think about how many conspiracies there must be that don't get detected. The sort of people who try to deflect arguments by claiming they're "conspiracy theories" have come to look dumb and naive, because the things supposed "conspiracy theorists" say keep turning out to be true. Meanwhile the people who sacrificed every high minded principle to protect scientists from criticism are discovering they've been played. Fundamentally, if someone is going to inject me with an extremely complicated substance that's specifically designed to make my body produce a toxin, after the normal safety studies have been bypassed, I want to double check what they're doing. If I can't because their work is filled with errors, it's perfectly understandable to conclude that maybe I'll put my faith in Mother Nature instead. Other people who have more trust in institutional competence can decide differently, and that's fine. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27231636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27231636 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26769138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26769138 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27245283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27245283 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26836661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26836661 [5] https://plan99.net/~mike/epidemiology.pdf https://plan99.net/~mike/epidemiology.pdf [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27366386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27366386 [7] https://trialsitenews.com/the-covid-19-spike-protein-may-be-a-potentially-unsafe-toxic-endothelial-pathogen/ https://trialsitenews.com/the-covid-19-spike-protein-may-be-... [8] https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/06/03/covid19-the-spike-protein-and-blood-clotting/ https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/06/03/covid19-the-spike-p...
type0 5y ago
> Recent research from Japan is showing that the spike protein from vaccination is not staying at the injection site it can get into the blood stream (and causes blood clots as are widely reported), crossing the blood brain barrier and affecting the heart. Please dr Cross, where's the link to these studies?
zacharyvoase 5y ago
I got covid last year, and this year got vaccinated, and if I repeated the scenario 1 million times I'd take the vaccine over the infection 1 million times.
hourislate 5y ago
You're not wrong, there have been some cases where Astra and JJ caused some blood clotting. From what I read somewhere (can't find the link), the thought is that spreading out the two shots might be helpful. I thought it was Canada that was considering doing this but might be wrong. They were thinking of giving the first shot and then waiting 2 months too give the second shot to younger people. I wish I could find the article. I got the 2nd shot of Pfizer recently (14 days apart) and considering the first shot did nothing, the second shot wiped me out for 24 hours. I wasn't sick just real tired and had a terrible headache. Just sat around all day and had to take it easy. I was thinking if the spike protein was enough to do this to me, I can imagine having to deal with the viral load on top of it and I'm healthy and consider myself fit. So if you catch Covid you're going to deal with both the spike protein and the virus all at once. Better deal with one at a time and get the vaccine so if you do catch the virus at least your body has fought half the battle and can deal with it instead of not knowing what to do while the Viral load goes crazy. I was one of those folks who felt like I could handle it, my wife convinced me to get the shot and I'm glad I did.
- tim333 5y ago
  I wonder if 14 days is a bit quick in terms of being wiped out after the second jab. I've had one jab - prob going to leave it longer.
caconym_ 5y ago
> and causes blood clots as are widely reported How did I manage to miss these "widely reported" clotting issues with the mRNA vaccines? Are you thinking of the extremely low-incidence clotting issues reported with the AZ and JJ vaccines, neither of which is an mRNA vaccine? It may be worth mentioning that the CDC has specifically stated that TTS (the specific clotting disorder seen with the other vaccines) has not been seen with the mRNA vaccines: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/jjupdate.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/jj... So where's this wide reporting of blood clots resulting from mRNA vaccines? Or, if that was not your intended meaning, could you clarify?

munificent 5y ago

> As a healthy 30 year old I would prefer to take my risk with covid than take these vaccines. Unfortunate that you're also unilaterally forcing everyone you come into contact with to take that same risk if you are infected without realizing it.

trhway 5y ago
> everyone you come into contact with to take that same risk how come so if those "everyone" got vaccinated? I mean all the risk groups who has clearly higher risk from covid than vaccine should definitely go for vaccine. The rest - personal choice of risk. And as a healthy 49 years old, i'm taking my chance with covid and have no plans for vaccination (i was always laughing at anti-vaxxers, yet seeing all misinformation and propaganda (the stench of USSR strength propaganda is just overwhelming) around covid i think i'll pass this one)
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  Then you're an asshole, because you make yourself a petri dish for virus mutation that could produce a much deadlier variant and cost us all dearly... again.
- nrb 5y ago
  "everyone" currently excludes a large number of people who would otherwise like to be immunized for a variety of reasons (age, medical risks), and vaccines are not 100% effective
- eganist 5y ago
  > (i was always laughing at anti-vaxxers, yet seeing all misinformation and propaganda (the smell of USSR strength propaganda is just overwhelming) around covid i think i'll pass this one) No, you weren't. A common false-flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag) attack involves presenting oneself as a member of an opposing viewpoint in order to find adherents for the desired viewpoint. The tell is your use of the words "misinformation" and "propaganda." People who tend to levy such claims also tend to share more of it: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/06/17/who-shares-most-fake-news-new-study-sheds-light https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/06/17/who-shares-most-fa... - "The paper, in the journal Human Communication Research, also found that people who lack trust in conventional media, and in one another, post misinformation more often." I was always pro-vax, and that hasn't changed with this vaccine.
  - trhway 5y ago
    >The tell is your use of the words "misinformation" and "propaganda." People who tend to levy such claims also tend to share more of it you said it yourself. It is kind of ironically not surprising that you levied the above mentioned claim and actually posted the misinformation and propaganda yourself - see below. >No, you weren't. you really don't know, yet you're making with complete confidence such a completely false blatantly contradicting facts[0] statement just because it suits your narrative >A common false-flag ... and helps you to advance your agenda. Thus your post is a clear example of misinformation and propaganda. Not sure that you're doing it intentionally, probably you're just caught up in that mob hysteria. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860543
    - mike_hearn 5y ago
      It's very amusing you were actually able to show yourself laughing at anti-vaxers right here on HN, thus winning the argument against eganist completely. You should probably have called that out more clearly. I guessed what might be in the link but it would have been good to quote it.
      - 5y ago
- munificent 5y ago
  > how come so if those "everyone" got vaccinated? Well, for starters, the vaccine isn't available for anyone under the age of 12.
- weaksauce 5y ago
  > And as a healthy 49 years old, i'm taking my chance with covid and have no plans for vaccination so you would rather be at between a 1 in 500 and a 1 in 250 risk of dying in your age group + a much higher risk than that of some long covid symptoms that are debilitating/unknown if they will ever get better vs. a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance you get something that might be bad but is likely survivable... I don't understand the anti-vaxxer "logic"
  - adamiscool8 5y ago
    Not OP but the chance of hospitalization in that age bracket is about 0.2% [0] There appears to be at least a 20% chance that post-vaccine someone of that age will feel rough enough to take medication [1]. People who are currently healthy choosing to avoid the risk of immediate short-term pain when presented with a small, remote gain seems like classic prospect theory! [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/covid-19-us-hospital-rate-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/covid-19-us-hosp... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html#18-systemic-reactions https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer...
    - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
      20% chance of feeling rough enough to take medication does not seem much higher than the human average. Without comparing to placebo it is meaningless.
      - adamiscool8 5y ago
        They did compare it to placebo, plus, humans don’t compare to placebo they compare to their status quo condition.
    - weaksauce 5y ago
      you are conflating "rough enough to take a medication" with being "so sick you are in the hospital with covid." crazy comparison. I got my vaccine and the second shot hit me hard enough that I had to take some ibuprofen. Not a single regret and it wasn't that bad. you are comparing apples to oranges.

dkarras 5y ago

That... doesn't make sense. You WILL get exposed to this virus. Worst case, the virus will be able to do the same and more without any prior training for your immune system. If you said "I'll try not to get covid" I'd say "Impossible but godspeed" at least your logic would be sound.

thenaturalist 5y ago
Absolutely this. What are your "smartest" friends saying about the billions of dollars invested and spent by other really smart individuals in developing these vaccines in the first place? I bet world class biologists and investors aren't doing it for the fun. PS: If anyone is curious about the "real thing", I'd highly recommend you look up hospital documentaries on COVID IC units. There is one - unfortunately German only - called "Charité intensiv" which quite drastically showcases the extent of what you have to deal with when contracting COVID. Let me tell you it's quite a bit more than myocarditis.
- anextio 5y ago
  This is a selection bias toward Covid patients who had to be hospitalized. Most Covid cases are mild and patients recover at home. The “extent of what you have to deal with” varies considerably.

eganist 5y ago

> I've done enough research to know what I'm talking about The standard practice is for those making the assertion to provide their references or data. Since you've done the research, can you please link any published and peer reviewed research establishing that the health risks from the vaccine are within two orders of magnitude of the health risks from the virus? Including morbidity, mortality, etc. > The smartest people I know have reached the same conclusion. Can you please reference them as well so I can read their published content?

0-_-0 5y ago
Might be referring to this study: https://trialsitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Pfizer-report_Japanese-government.pdf https://trialsitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Pfizer-...
- eganist 5y ago
  I mean, reading the discussion/conclusion via google translate, this seems to be a study on metabolism of the vaccine? Open to being fact-checked, but this doesn't seem related. In any case, the only statement I found on health effects in the discussion/conclusion was "No toxic findings indicating liver damage were found in the rat repeated-dose toxicity test ( M2.6.6.3 )." but I don't speak Japanese and I'm sure using Google Translate is a very ineffective way of parsing research.
  - 0-_-0 5y ago
    What I belive this might show (still trying to figure this out) is how the lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine are distributed in the body. Page 7 shows particularly high concentration in the ovaries for example. I think the idea of the vaccine should be that the intramuscular injection stays in the muscle and the spike proteins don't get into your blood, but this was never actually directly verified. What this study shows is that the vaccine lipid coating (and thus likely the spike proteins) get into your blood, which when binding to the ACE2 receptor can cause different kinds of damage. E.g. binding to platelets is what can cause clotting. I'm not sure about any of this yet, just started looking into it a few hours ago.

ancientorange 5y ago

>As a healthy 30 year old I would prefer to take my risk with covid than take these vaccines. As an exhausted 34 year old who spent the last year field-monitoring vaccine trials, I would love to see the sources that informed your position.

zarq 5y ago
> spent the last year field-monitoring vaccine trials As an adult that was vaccinated, thank you for doing your part to get us all here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mike_hearn 5y ago
Alright. As an exhausted 37 year old, I'm going to stick my neck out and explain why I've chosen to put myself at the back of the queue for vaccines this time around. I'm sure the authorities will find some way to force me to take it at some point, but refusing these vaccines is a rational position. You may not agree with it, but it's based on rationality and logic. So here are my reasons. Firstly, I don't believe COVID related science is reliable. This isn't some conspiracy theory I picked up from YouTube. I developed this belief by actually reading a lot of scientific papers, or perhaps I should say "scientific" because it turned out that on close inspection almost all the papers I chose to study carefully were pseudo-scientific and sometimes fraudulent. I can count the ones that had no obvious errors or deceptive practices on the fingers of one hand. In no cases have there been any consequences for the perpetrators and in some cases the scientific establishment came together to cover up what happened. At first I couldn't quite believe it and thought maybe there was some selection bias in the papers I was being exposed to, so I went back in the archives to review older papers from the world of public health (Zika, Swine Flu, AIDS). It turned out they were just as bad. I've written quite extensively about the problems in my prior comments here on HN [1], [2], [3], [4] and I also wrote a report that ended up being sent to the British Cabinet [5], so won't go into detail again, but suffice it to say I now have a large set of go-to examples for cases where scientists have been acting in ways scientists aren't meant to act. A very small number of these problems are now coming into the public eye. For example in recent weeks a whole lot of people were surprised to see the lab leak hypothesis go straight from "debunked conspiracy theory" to Biden ordering it to be investigated, apparently without any intermediate points. Fauci has admitted on record (in the New York Times) that he lied in order to manipulate people's behaviour at least twice (masks, HITs) and thus he's very likely to have done it more often. These aren't actually my go-to examples of academic fraud because I tend to focus on the UK, where things are just as bad, but I'm sure every country has equivalents at this point because the issues aren't specific to Fauci, they appear to be cultural within public health. A good example of this problem with vaccines specifically is the way the CDC is inflating their apparent effectiveness by changing the definition of COVID itself for vaccinated people [6]. That is, if someone took a test and presented the results twice in succession, and told one official they had been vaccinated and the other that they hadn't, the first could say they didn't have COVID and the second that they did. This sort of data manipulation is rampant, it's just one example. So the scientific estabishment is not produced reliable knowledge. Many people still disagree with this, but they are going to eventually lose that debate because the evidence of problems is overwhelmingly strong. Now, to vaccines. The risk of serious problems from taking these vaccines is low in absolute terms, clearly, as otherwise we'd be seeing mass die-offs by now given the very high speed and rates of vaccination. However, to make a rational decision you have to compare that to the risk of suffering serious problems from COVID. Even if the risk of both is low, if the risk of a cure is (for example) 50x higher than the risk of a disease, then the cure is worse and it's rational to take your chances with nature. For people in our age range this is especially important because the risk of suffering badly from COVID is negligible. There are far more dangerous things out there in our daily life. Average IFR estimates have converged on around 0.1% to 0.2%, which is already around the same area as seasonal flu, but those estimates must be multiplied by the chance of actually becoming infected in the first place and ideally age adjusted. I've been through multiple waves of COVID by now and not only never been infected, but nobody I know has caught it either. It seems quite plausible I will never catch it, vaccine or not. Many models were based on the assumption that nearly everyone will be infected sooner or later but those models fell apart under even the tiniest inspection, even before vaccines. And finally, it must be noted that the IFRs of 0.1-0.2% are based on a definition of death that is wrong and guaranteed to inflate the values (i.e. a virus that had been engineered to be entirely inert would still "cause" millions of deaths given how COVID deaths are defined). All this added together means the risk of COVID to people like us is extremely low. And the risk of the vaccine? Well, unfortunately we don't really know that. Knowing the risk relative to the risk of COVID for 30 year olds requires a level of data robustness and trustworthiness science has been unable to provide. For example VAERs is not a comprehensive database of all reactions, because reporting rates are much lower than 100% and it's unclear what the current highly politicized atmosphere is doing to reporting rates (probably suppressing them). What we do know is that there are simple and (by now) well understood mechanisms by which mRNA vaccines could create severe reactions. The spike protein is, let's be clear about this, a toxin. If you were injected with sufficient amounts of mRNA vaccine for long enough you would die. Normally we're exposed to a dose of a virus that has spike proteins and causes production to start, but the virus gets stuck in the lungs and finds it hard to escape. Also, the dose may well be quite small. With the mRNA vaccines they're meant to stay in the shoulder muscle and eventually drain to a lymph node, but it seems that in some cases the person doing the injection may nick an artery by accident and end up injecting the vaccine straight into the bloodstream. Note that this is not meant to happen and studies into what does happen if this occurs have been occurring after the mass rollout of the vaccines. It appears the lipid nanoparticles also capable of crossing the blood brain barrier, where they may cause brain cells to start expressing spike protein and be destroyed - again, no studies of this have been done because both the mRNA adjustment technique and, more importantly, the lipid nanoparticles, are quite new. The trials were not completed, etc. The few studies that do exist are mostly in animals. At any rate, it can cause cells to be destroyed in places respiratory viruses would normally find hard to reach. [7] [8] Is it possible vaccines are a lot more dangerous than we're being told? Yes, absolutely. No doubt at all. The standard retort to this is that it's a "conspiracy theory" but so what? Public health research is absolutely overrun with conspiracies, many of them aren't even well covered up. Certain specific subfields are nothing but conspiracies (looking at you, epidemiology). Lab leak hypothesis was described as a conspiracy theory, which thanks to China's evidence destruction it actually is by this point, but it's also almost certainly true. I hate to think about how many conspiracies there must be that don't get detected. The sort of people who try to deflect arguments by claiming they're "conspiracy theories" have come to look dumb and naive, because the things supposed "conspiracy theorists" say keep turning out to be true. Meanwhile the people who sacrificed every high minded principle to protect scientists from criticism are discovering they've been played. Fundamentally, if someone is going to inject me with an extremely complicated substance that's specifically designed to make my body produce a toxin, after the normal safety studies have been bypassed, I want to double check what they're doing. If I can't because their work is filled with errors, it's perfectly understandable to conclude that maybe I'll put my faith in Mother Nature instead. Other people who have more trust in institutional competence can decide differently, and that's fine. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27231636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27231636 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26769138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26769138 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27245283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27245283 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26836661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26836661 [5] https://plan99.net/~mike/epidemiology.pdf https://plan99.net/~mike/epidemiology.pdf [6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27366386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27366386 [7] https://trialsitenews.com/the-covid-19-spike-protein-may-be-a-potentially-unsafe-toxic-endothelial-pathogen/ https://trialsitenews.com/the-covid-19-spike-protein-may-be-... [8] https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/06/03/covid19-the-spike-protein-and-blood-clotting/ https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/06/03/covid19-the-spike-p...

type0 5y ago

> Recent research from Japan is showing that the spike protein from vaccination is not staying at the injection site it can get into the blood stream (and causes blood clots as are widely reported), crossing the blood brain barrier and affecting the heart. Please dr Cross, where's the link to these studies?

zacharyvoase 5y ago

I got covid last year, and this year got vaccinated, and if I repeated the scenario 1 million times I'd take the vaccine over the infection 1 million times.

hourislate 5y ago

You're not wrong, there have been some cases where Astra and JJ caused some blood clotting. From what I read somewhere (can't find the link), the thought is that spreading out the two shots might be helpful. I thought it was Canada that was considering doing this but might be wrong. They were thinking of giving the first shot and then waiting 2 months too give the second shot to younger people. I wish I could find the article. I got the 2nd shot of Pfizer recently (14 days apart) and considering the first shot did nothing, the second shot wiped me out for 24 hours. I wasn't sick just real tired and had a terrible headache. Just sat around all day and had to take it easy. I was thinking if the spike protein was enough to do this to me, I can imagine having to deal with the viral load on top of it and I'm healthy and consider myself fit. So if you catch Covid you're going to deal with both the spike protein and the virus all at once. Better deal with one at a time and get the vaccine so if you do catch the virus at least your body has fought half the battle and can deal with it instead of not knowing what to do while the Viral load goes crazy. I was one of those folks who felt like I could handle it, my wife convinced me to get the shot and I'm glad I did.

tim333 5y ago
I wonder if 14 days is a bit quick in terms of being wiped out after the second jab. I've had one jab - prob going to leave it longer.

caconym_ 5y ago

> and causes blood clots as are widely reported How did I manage to miss these "widely reported" clotting issues with the mRNA vaccines? Are you thinking of the extremely low-incidence clotting issues reported with the AZ and JJ vaccines, neither of which is an mRNA vaccine? It may be worth mentioning that the CDC has specifically stated that TTS (the specific clotting disorder seen with the other vaccines) has not been seen with the mRNA vaccines: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/jjupdate.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/jj... So where's this wide reporting of blood clots resulting from mRNA vaccines? Or, if that was not your intended meaning, could you clarify?