4 ms·

I do not quite know what to make out of it, as I lack the technical competence in that area and I got the link from anti-vaxx circles, but unlike most bs from t

I do not quite know what to make out of it, as I lack the technical competence in that area and I got the link from anti-vaxx circles, but unlike most bs from there, this seems to have more substance. It seems like a reputable journal and organisation stands behind the research. (American heart organisation) And from what I understand, with a quite drastic conclusion: "These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk" So more than twice the chance of getting a heart attack, if vaccinated by mRNA? That seems significant and would make me choose a different vaccine, if true. What I initially suspected, when I heard of heart attacks as a side effect, is that when people are scared of the vaccine(and many are) - then the stress of getting the shot might result in an actual condition. But here it seems specifically mRNA vaccines related. So I would be thankful for more insightful comments.

webdoodle 5y ago
Even Google can't hide the complications anymore. Google Trends shows a drastic increase in people searching for "suddenly collapsed".
- jgrahamc 5y ago
  No, it doesn't. https://imgur.com/WAQYwyZ https://imgur.com/WAQYwyZ
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    No idea if what the poster was saying means anything, but your image seems to be only from Portugal. This search does seem to show an increase, which of course could be due to any number of things, including covid itself: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Suddenly%20collapsed https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Suddenly...
detaro 5y ago
> organisation stands behind the research So much that they link their "This article has an expression of concern" at the top? https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/reader/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/reader/10.1161/CIR.000000000... See also previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29336140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29336140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29298178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29298178
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Ah thanks, it shows this is not my area, as I understood "expression of concern" as this might be a important paper for heart related health.
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    Note that this is not a paper. The AHA just published all the abstracts of a recent conference. This is not my area, but in other areas the peer review of this kind of things is very weak. I wrote a more detailed and accurate comment in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29421510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29421510
dekhn 5y ago
relative risk. the baseline is a tiny number and 2X a tiny number is still tiny.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  But the effective risk would still be doubled? So if I would have a (unknown) heart condition before, this would worry me. But I do not and now I do not trust the numbers anymore anyway.

webdoodle 5y ago

Even Google can't hide the complications anymore. Google Trends shows a drastic increase in people searching for "suddenly collapsed".

jgrahamc 5y ago
No, it doesn't. https://imgur.com/WAQYwyZ https://imgur.com/WAQYwyZ
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  No idea if what the poster was saying means anything, but your image seems to be only from Portugal. This search does seem to show an increase, which of course could be due to any number of things, including covid itself: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Suddenly%20collapsed https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Suddenly...

detaro 5y ago

> organisation stands behind the research So much that they link their "This article has an expression of concern" at the top? https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/reader/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/reader/10.1161/CIR.000000000... See also previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29336140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29336140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29298178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29298178

hutzlibu 5y ago
Ah thanks, it shows this is not my area, as I understood "expression of concern" as this might be a important paper for heart related health.
- gus_massa 5y ago
  Note that this is not a paper. The AHA just published all the abstracts of a recent conference. This is not my area, but in other areas the peer review of this kind of things is very weak. I wrote a more detailed and accurate comment in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29421510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29421510

dekhn 5y ago

relative risk. the baseline is a tiny number and 2X a tiny number is still tiny.

hutzlibu 5y ago
But the effective risk would still be doubled? So if I would have a (unknown) heart condition before, this would worry me. But I do not and now I do not trust the numbers anymore anyway.