6 ms·

>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

>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.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - twofornone 5y ago
      You may not like the connotation of the word but if "hijack" can be used to refer to taking over something and repurposing it for yourself, then yes, this is a "hijacking". Especially when viruses are commonly described in the same way, since the mechanism and outcome is the same: an entity other than the human cell is controlling the output of the organelles. In any case this is a pedantic argument and changes absolutely nothing about any of my points, nor is it misinformation.
threeseed 5y ago
> Why are we putting so much faith into the statements and research of pharmaceutical companies Nobody is. Regulators are largely looking at facts on the ground before making decisions. But since the vaccines are proven to be safe given hundreds of millions of doses there is a lot more willingness to trust them.
- twofornone 5y ago
  >Regulators are largely looking at facts on the ground before making decisions. My point is that the "facts on the ground" are extremely noisy and in large part coming from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. This proof is overstated, ignoring the fact that there hasn't been enough time to detect mid-long term effects, its own can of worms. All of this doubly so given the chilling effect of the stigma associated with what has seemingly been decided to be "misinformation". Clinicians, researchers, nurses are less willing to stick their necks out to criticize the research/data, and so the problem is dangerously self-reinforcing. These are the same circles that gave us the opioid crisis. And suddenly we've all forgotten about regulatory capture? None of these criticisms deserve this rabid bullying. This is supposed to be science, not religious dogma. Edit: and let's not forget that these pharmaceutical companies are legally not liable for any adverse effects. Informed consent requires freedom of discussion.
mox1 5y ago
We have 50+ years of history on vaccines, billions of doses, etc. That history of research says this: If "symptoms" don't show up within 6 weeks, they don't really show up at all. That is to say, with ALL other vaccines in existence, issues have shown up within 6 weeks. Here is an article which explains it, but this is like common knowledge amongst epidemiologists: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-are-highly-unlikely-to-cause-side-effects-long-after-getting-the-shot- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-...
- twofornone 5y ago
  Comparing mRNA technology to conventional vaccines is borderline disingenuous. I don't think we've ever vaccinated people with live pathogens (or at least not deactivated), and we certainly have never repurposed our own cells to manufacture an inflammatory protein which then migrates to cell surfaces. Autoimmune disorders in particular are not necessarily going to appear in 6 weeks. Especially when the data is so noisy and there's a clear, career risking stigma against reporting anything.

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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - twofornone 5y ago
    You may not like the connotation of the word but if "hijack" can be used to refer to taking over something and repurposing it for yourself, then yes, this is a "hijacking". Especially when viruses are commonly described in the same way, since the mechanism and outcome is the same: an entity other than the human cell is controlling the output of the organelles. In any case this is a pedantic argument and changes absolutely nothing about any of my points, nor is it misinformation.

threeseed 5y ago

> Why are we putting so much faith into the statements and research of pharmaceutical companies Nobody is. Regulators are largely looking at facts on the ground before making decisions. But since the vaccines are proven to be safe given hundreds of millions of doses there is a lot more willingness to trust them.

twofornone 5y ago
>Regulators are largely looking at facts on the ground before making decisions. My point is that the "facts on the ground" are extremely noisy and in large part coming from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. This proof is overstated, ignoring the fact that there hasn't been enough time to detect mid-long term effects, its own can of worms. All of this doubly so given the chilling effect of the stigma associated with what has seemingly been decided to be "misinformation". Clinicians, researchers, nurses are less willing to stick their necks out to criticize the research/data, and so the problem is dangerously self-reinforcing. These are the same circles that gave us the opioid crisis. And suddenly we've all forgotten about regulatory capture? None of these criticisms deserve this rabid bullying. This is supposed to be science, not religious dogma. Edit: and let's not forget that these pharmaceutical companies are legally not liable for any adverse effects. Informed consent requires freedom of discussion.

mox1 5y ago

We have 50+ years of history on vaccines, billions of doses, etc. That history of research says this: If "symptoms" don't show up within 6 weeks, they don't really show up at all. That is to say, with ALL other vaccines in existence, issues have shown up within 6 weeks. Here is an article which explains it, but this is like common knowledge amongst epidemiologists: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-are-highly-unlikely-to-cause-side-effects-long-after-getting-the-shot- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-...

twofornone 5y ago
Comparing mRNA technology to conventional vaccines is borderline disingenuous. I don't think we've ever vaccinated people with live pathogens (or at least not deactivated), and we certainly have never repurposed our own cells to manufacture an inflammatory protein which then migrates to cell surfaces. Autoimmune disorders in particular are not necessarily going to appear in 6 weeks. Especially when the data is so noisy and there's a clear, career risking stigma against reporting anything.