6 ms·

Yeah, the anti-vax hockey player Josh Archibald recently caught COVID and developed myocarditis as a consequence. It's among the known sequelae. Your risk of m

Yeah, the anti-vax hockey player Josh Archibald recently caught COVID and developed myocarditis as a consequence. It's among the known sequelae. Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine. (One of many many sources: https://twitter.com/awong37/status/1444825498018795521 https://twitter.com/awong37/status/1444825498018795521)

angelzen 5y ago
Tangent note: I wonder if this tweet illustrates yet another way Twitter is driving us crazy. > Please, get vaccinated. > I will respect your decision, but I would also like to have you on the team the next 3 seasons. Here is the data, consider getting a vaccine.
twofornone 5y ago
>Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine It really bothers me that people are still touting such numbers around as obvious, indisputable facts given the poor quality of both covid and adverse effect statistical data. 1. What are the odds that you will experience symptoms if you get myocarditis? 2. What are the odds that vaccine induced myocarditis will be reported as such? There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence of people complaining about all manner of possible vaccine reactions to completely dismissive doctors, and filling out a VAERS report is time consuming and already overwhelmed medical practitioners are unlikely to spend 30+ minutes on a report. 3. Does vaccine (or covid) induced myocarditis have long term consequences, even if asymptomatic or mild? I've read repeatedly that myocarditis of any severity represents some degree of permanent damage but have not been able to conclusively verify this statement. 4. Why are we putting so much faith into the statements and research of pharmaceutical companies who stand to gain tens (hundreds?) of billions from vaccines+boosters, when we know that these same companies have been repeatedly sued in the past for dangerous/defective medications (and vaccines) as well as deliberately sociopathic business practices? We are talking about a massive conflict of interest from parties which have repeatedly demonstrated dishonesty in the past. And then with respect to VAERS self reporting, the average person has been convinced that the vaccine is safe and is not likely to connect strange symptoms weeks after vaccination with the vaccine, if they even know about VAERS or the European equivalent. There's far too much uncertainty in the positive data to support such a rigid social orthodoxy around expression of negative sentiment toward the vaccine.
- fspeech 5y ago
  The virus is very proinflammatory so it's not surprising that vaccines that simulate parts of the virus are also proinflammatory. There even appears to be a dose dependence: Moderna packs in a lot more than Pfizer-BNT. So there is a rational framework to think about this. What is bizarre is how people could in the same breath show a lot of fear of the vaccine but then brush off the risk from uncontrolled viral reproduction in one's body from an infection.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    There are at least three reasons that an injection is not the same. 1. The sudden viral load is orders of magnitude larger than typical exposure and given the complexity of the immune system, may produce a different response. Also recall that unlike traditional vaccines this mRNA hijacks your cellular machinery to produce an inflammatory protein - so comparing it to past vaccines in this respect is invalid. 2. Again because of the complexity of the immune system, its possible that a sudden, massive injection of spike protein mRNA will not activate the immune system in the same way that a gradual infection by the full virus. 3. From what I've read, the spike protein when manufactured from snipped mRNA is then expressed on cell surfaces, in contrast to a true viral infection which releases the full viral particles into the bloodstream. This could induce autoimmune reactions which would explain many of the documented side effects. My main point though is that many in the vocal pro-vaccine crowd are underestimating the borderline chaotic complexity of the finely tuned chemical soup that is our biology. And we are injecting an engineered substance which we know is biologically active in a novel way. It's hubris to casually presume that we got this right the first time. Edit: for the programmers, think of it as a very clever and involved hack. And hacks can have unintended side effects, especially when the system is poorly understood.
    - daveguy 5y ago
      > hijacks your cellular machinery No. It doesn't. This is completely ignorant misinformation. Your molecular machinery for creating proteins are doing so constantly. Introducing a bit of code that produces a protein that looks like the virus is in no way "hijacking" your molecular machinery. Your machinery happily chugs along with every other of the 10s of thousands of other proteins being produced at the same time. Nothing is hijacked.
blub 5y ago
If there's so many sources that the risk is 10-20x, then perhaps you can choose one which is not a tweet. One can't be expected to know what the credentials of some random doctor on twitter are and he doesn't reference any sources of his own.

angelzen 5y ago

Tangent note: I wonder if this tweet illustrates yet another way Twitter is driving us crazy. > Please, get vaccinated. > I will respect your decision, but I would also like to have you on the team the next 3 seasons. Here is the data, consider getting a vaccine.

twofornone 5y ago

>Your risk of myocarditis from COVID is 10x-20x your risk of myocarditis from a vaccine It really bothers me that people are still touting such numbers around as obvious, indisputable facts given the poor quality of both covid and adverse effect statistical data. 1. What are the odds that you will experience symptoms if you get myocarditis? 2. What are the odds that vaccine induced myocarditis will be reported as such? There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence of people complaining about all manner of possible vaccine reactions to completely dismissive doctors, and filling out a VAERS report is time consuming and already overwhelmed medical practitioners are unlikely to spend 30+ minutes on a report. 3. Does vaccine (or covid) induced myocarditis have long term consequences, even if asymptomatic or mild? I've read repeatedly that myocarditis of any severity represents some degree of permanent damage but have not been able to conclusively verify this statement. 4. Why are we putting so much faith into the statements and research of pharmaceutical companies who stand to gain tens (hundreds?) of billions from vaccines+boosters, when we know that these same companies have been repeatedly sued in the past for dangerous/defective medications (and vaccines) as well as deliberately sociopathic business practices? We are talking about a massive conflict of interest from parties which have repeatedly demonstrated dishonesty in the past. And then with respect to VAERS self reporting, the average person has been convinced that the vaccine is safe and is not likely to connect strange symptoms weeks after vaccination with the vaccine, if they even know about VAERS or the European equivalent. There's far too much uncertainty in the positive data to support such a rigid social orthodoxy around expression of negative sentiment toward the vaccine.

fspeech 5y ago
The virus is very proinflammatory so it's not surprising that vaccines that simulate parts of the virus are also proinflammatory. There even appears to be a dose dependence: Moderna packs in a lot more than Pfizer-BNT. So there is a rational framework to think about this. What is bizarre is how people could in the same breath show a lot of fear of the vaccine but then brush off the risk from uncontrolled viral reproduction in one's body from an infection.
- twofornone 5y ago
  There are at least three reasons that an injection is not the same. 1. The sudden viral load is orders of magnitude larger than typical exposure and given the complexity of the immune system, may produce a different response. Also recall that unlike traditional vaccines this mRNA hijacks your cellular machinery to produce an inflammatory protein - so comparing it to past vaccines in this respect is invalid. 2. Again because of the complexity of the immune system, its possible that a sudden, massive injection of spike protein mRNA will not activate the immune system in the same way that a gradual infection by the full virus. 3. From what I've read, the spike protein when manufactured from snipped mRNA is then expressed on cell surfaces, in contrast to a true viral infection which releases the full viral particles into the bloodstream. This could induce autoimmune reactions which would explain many of the documented side effects. My main point though is that many in the vocal pro-vaccine crowd are underestimating the borderline chaotic complexity of the finely tuned chemical soup that is our biology. And we are injecting an engineered substance which we know is biologically active in a novel way. It's hubris to casually presume that we got this right the first time. Edit: for the programmers, think of it as a very clever and involved hack. And hacks can have unintended side effects, especially when the system is poorly understood.
  - daveguy 5y ago
    > hijacks your cellular machinery No. It doesn't. This is completely ignorant misinformation. Your molecular machinery for creating proteins are doing so constantly. Introducing a bit of code that produces a protein that looks like the virus is in no way "hijacking" your molecular machinery. Your machinery happily chugs along with every other of the 10s of thousands of other proteins being produced at the same time. Nothing is hijacked.

blub 5y ago

If there's so many sources that the risk is 10-20x, then perhaps you can choose one which is not a tweet. One can't be expected to know what the credentials of some random doctor on twitter are and he doesn't reference any sources of his own.