9 ms·

Synthetic mRNA based vaccine induces heart damage is not a binary concept (i.e. you either have it or not), but depends on the amount of cardiac cells attacked

Synthetic mRNA based vaccine induces heart damage is not a binary concept (i.e. you either have it or not), but depends on the amount of cardiac cells attacked and destroyed by the immune system due to exposing the spike protein. People develop problems many weeks after vaccination, here are exemplary case reports (excluded from the FDA funded garbage study): * "18 days after his second dose": https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/pace.14486 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/pace.14486 * "chest pain one week after second dose": https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/internalmedicine/advpub/0/advpub_8711-21/_pdf/-char/ja https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/internalmedicine/advpub... * "chest pain 2 weeks after mRNA vaccination": https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2109975 https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2109975

vletal 4y ago
Is the amount of spike protein in the body during an actual infection larger? I.e. is it not still better to get vaccinatet rather than infected?
- WanderPanda 4y ago
  From what I understand this is correct for the first dose. You still have few antibodies bwcause your immune system is learning about the invading new protein. In this case it seems plausible/obvious that the vaccine should be better for your body than the real infection because it can not replicate itself in an uncontrolled way. During the second dose however, you have a immune system that is extremely armed to fight this particular protein. When you inject the second dose, a huge battle breaks out immediately. This situation can not come about naturally because we don‘t inject massive amounts of covid but rather inhale small amounts that can be easily fought off at the border by the now highly armed immune system. I don‘t know how this could break havoc on heart cells but probably due to some collateral damage when the injected proteins reach the bloodstream. This is an absolute layman’s understanding of things so please correct me if I‘m wrong. But I haven‘t seen this issue discussed/refuted by experts, yet.
  - zelphirkalt 4y ago
    Anti-bodt levels drop after some months though, according to what I have heard on news and read online fwiw, and that is when the second dose is recommended.
  - Thlom 4y ago
    That might explain why I felt nothing after the first does, felt like I was dying after the second dose and nothing after the third and after getting infected. Interesting. I know here in Norway the second and third doses have not been pushed on young men due to the heart issue. As I understand it health officials are not sure the boosters are better than getting infected for young men. Same reason why children are not getting the vaccine at all, for the vast majority of children covid is benign and the vaccine might carry risks on it's own.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    You are incorrect. The immune response to contracting actual symptomatic COVID will be much higher than any vaccination. You get symptoms largely due to your immune response (up until you start getting actual directly damaging multisystem COVID and you're hospitalized). Symptoms are a good enough proxy to viral loads affecting your immune system, which pretty much proves your argument is flawed.
- bsaul 4y ago
  not a biologist by any mean, but i think location is very important, especially for an air transmitted disease like covid : mouth / nose / lungs are all part of the "outside" of your body, aka the mucosa. That's probably where the largest part of the infection takes place in the case of a natural covid infection. Vaccines otoh enters your bloodstream and may result in infection everywhere in your body, touching many places that wouldn't be by a natural contamination process. (disclaimer : please correct me if i'm wrong, and in all case never take medical advices from random people online)
  - hijodelsol 4y ago
    This is not really true, vaccines first and foremost enter cells at the point of injection (intramuscular) through fusion of the lipid nano particles with the cell membrane, not via the ACE2 or TMPRSS route as the live virus. The immune response then depends on the migration of antigen presenting cells to the mostly peripheral lymph nodes where the full immune response is mounted including germinal centers. This has little to do with blood borne propagation. The virus on the other hand has multiple ways of entry into cells, ACE2 dependent, the endosomal route, syncytia formation and others that are still discussed. What is not up for debate though is that SARS-CoV-2 regularly infects other organs, including the kidney [1] and the liver were it does damage. It has also been shown to persist in organs like the intestine for more than a year in its live form. Due to the (super-)antigenic nature of the virus and the subsequent systemic inflammatory response the rate of post-Covid myocarditis also by far exceeds the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination in all age groups and cases tend to be more severe with the virus. It will be important to develop mucosal vaccines because current vaccines only elicit a very limited and short-lived IgA response and IgA antibodies, thanks to their shape, confer protection without excessive inflammation and offer protection against infection. But your description of the spread of the virus and the vaccine is just not accurate. 1: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31759-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
    - bsaul 4y ago
      thanks for the clarification. I think to have read that vaccine was in fact observed spreading much further than expected, reaching organs everywhere. Since you seem knowledgeable, can you confirm ?
- jseban 4y ago
  > Is the amount of spike protein in the body during an actual infection larger? I.e. is it not still better to get vaccinatet rather than infected? The question is rather: Is it a good idea to get a second vaccine dose although you have already been both infected and vaccinated?
- Arn_Thor 4y ago
  It absolutely is. There are some outlier cases (e.g “should I get the third jab even when I’ve had Covid?”) but overall it is clear the severity of all known vaccine side effects is a fraction of the severity of Covid and complications, after the likelihood of either are factored in.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    That's not at all clear. Amongst people me and my girlfriend know it's the opposite. The effects of the vaccines were worse than that of COVID, both in terms of frequency and severity. Actually the focus on my heart problems is weird and frustrating. I have a close friend who had a heart attack after taking the shots (it was never reported!) but by far the most common problems we've heard about affect women and their reproductive systems. Broken periods and the like. The frequency of this is massive compared to heart issues, but is being completely ignored. Official stats on this are all useless for the reasons you can see in the first comment - deaths and injuries that are obviously vaccine related are constantly excluded. After insisting that someone previously healthy dropping dead two days after a vaccination is a mere coincidence, they report that there are miraculously almost no vaccine deaths or injuries and COVID is definitely worse. The entire medical and research system pushed vaccines on pain of them losing their licenses and careers, so you definitely can't take what they say at face value.
    - Arn_Thor 4y ago
      You're dismissing the data that is available in favour of speculation and anecdotes. That may be emotionally satisfying on some level, but it's no way to reach an understanding of the world.
      - native_samples 4y ago
        Trusting data only makes sense if it's trustworthy. This data isn't for all sorts of reasons. The lack of concordance with observable reality is only one of those reasons.
justinjlynn 4y ago
Population level studies (including risk studies) will reduce complex conditions to specific modelled criteria in order to try to ensure validity. This is especially true when you're dealing with complex health conditions which exist on a spectrum (i.e. heart/circulatory system damage). It is extremely important to note that individual case reports are meant to highlight exceptional cases explicitly and to provide the medical community with a starting point for population level studies. It is irresponsible to present individual case reports as, in any way, representative of risks for the average individual. This leads to extremely distorted estimates of risks - especially in laymen. Is it possible some will experience effects like those described? Yes, of course. Anything is possible. However, we have to look to well controlled population level studies to get context as to just how likely negative impacts are, for the average person. The answer to that? It's extremely, extremely unlikely - i.e. so much less likely than it is likely to be caused by eschewing the vaccination and getting the disease. This is at the very heart of how the medical community and regulators either approve or reject vaccine candidates and medical practices/procedures. In short, please stop misleading people by editorialising, re-framing, and presenting data/case reports improperly and without proper context so as to lead people to faulty conclusions.
- legalcorrection 4y ago
  That’s not true for younger people. The risk of the vaccine is probably higher than the risk of the virus for them. Search elsewhere in this thread.
  - justinjlynn 4y ago
    What I have stated is true with regards to studies, their construction, and case reports - in general. As to your statements about the risk of vaccination versus the risks of infection without, in younger people, you are also, sadly mistaken. In short, your conclusions are likely not based on an independent evaluation of the evidence but evaluation of evidence preselected to support your particular conclusion. Search elsewhere for an explanation of why this is true.
    - 4y ago

vletal 4y ago

Is the amount of spike protein in the body during an actual infection larger? I.e. is it not still better to get vaccinatet rather than infected?

WanderPanda 4y ago
From what I understand this is correct for the first dose. You still have few antibodies bwcause your immune system is learning about the invading new protein. In this case it seems plausible/obvious that the vaccine should be better for your body than the real infection because it can not replicate itself in an uncontrolled way. During the second dose however, you have a immune system that is extremely armed to fight this particular protein. When you inject the second dose, a huge battle breaks out immediately. This situation can not come about naturally because we don‘t inject massive amounts of covid but rather inhale small amounts that can be easily fought off at the border by the now highly armed immune system. I don‘t know how this could break havoc on heart cells but probably due to some collateral damage when the injected proteins reach the bloodstream. This is an absolute layman’s understanding of things so please correct me if I‘m wrong. But I haven‘t seen this issue discussed/refuted by experts, yet.
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  Anti-bodt levels drop after some months though, according to what I have heard on news and read online fwiw, and that is when the second dose is recommended.
- Thlom 4y ago
  That might explain why I felt nothing after the first does, felt like I was dying after the second dose and nothing after the third and after getting infected. Interesting. I know here in Norway the second and third doses have not been pushed on young men due to the heart issue. As I understand it health officials are not sure the boosters are better than getting infected for young men. Same reason why children are not getting the vaccine at all, for the vast majority of children covid is benign and the vaccine might carry risks on it's own.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  You are incorrect. The immune response to contracting actual symptomatic COVID will be much higher than any vaccination. You get symptoms largely due to your immune response (up until you start getting actual directly damaging multisystem COVID and you're hospitalized). Symptoms are a good enough proxy to viral loads affecting your immune system, which pretty much proves your argument is flawed.
bsaul 4y ago
not a biologist by any mean, but i think location is very important, especially for an air transmitted disease like covid : mouth / nose / lungs are all part of the "outside" of your body, aka the mucosa. That's probably where the largest part of the infection takes place in the case of a natural covid infection. Vaccines otoh enters your bloodstream and may result in infection everywhere in your body, touching many places that wouldn't be by a natural contamination process. (disclaimer : please correct me if i'm wrong, and in all case never take medical advices from random people online)
- hijodelsol 4y ago
  This is not really true, vaccines first and foremost enter cells at the point of injection (intramuscular) through fusion of the lipid nano particles with the cell membrane, not via the ACE2 or TMPRSS route as the live virus. The immune response then depends on the migration of antigen presenting cells to the mostly peripheral lymph nodes where the full immune response is mounted including germinal centers. This has little to do with blood borne propagation. The virus on the other hand has multiple ways of entry into cells, ACE2 dependent, the endosomal route, syncytia formation and others that are still discussed. What is not up for debate though is that SARS-CoV-2 regularly infects other organs, including the kidney [1] and the liver were it does damage. It has also been shown to persist in organs like the intestine for more than a year in its live form. Due to the (super-)antigenic nature of the virus and the subsequent systemic inflammatory response the rate of post-Covid myocarditis also by far exceeds the incidence of myocarditis after vaccination in all age groups and cases tend to be more severe with the virus. It will be important to develop mucosal vaccines because current vaccines only elicit a very limited and short-lived IgA response and IgA antibodies, thanks to their shape, confer protection without excessive inflammation and offer protection against infection. But your description of the spread of the virus and the vaccine is just not accurate. 1: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31759-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - bsaul 4y ago
    thanks for the clarification. I think to have read that vaccine was in fact observed spreading much further than expected, reaching organs everywhere. Since you seem knowledgeable, can you confirm ?
jseban 4y ago
> Is the amount of spike protein in the body during an actual infection larger? I.e. is it not still better to get vaccinatet rather than infected? The question is rather: Is it a good idea to get a second vaccine dose although you have already been both infected and vaccinated?
Arn_Thor 4y ago
It absolutely is. There are some outlier cases (e.g “should I get the third jab even when I’ve had Covid?”) but overall it is clear the severity of all known vaccine side effects is a fraction of the severity of Covid and complications, after the likelihood of either are factored in.
- native_samples 4y ago
  That's not at all clear. Amongst people me and my girlfriend know it's the opposite. The effects of the vaccines were worse than that of COVID, both in terms of frequency and severity. Actually the focus on my heart problems is weird and frustrating. I have a close friend who had a heart attack after taking the shots (it was never reported!) but by far the most common problems we've heard about affect women and their reproductive systems. Broken periods and the like. The frequency of this is massive compared to heart issues, but is being completely ignored. Official stats on this are all useless for the reasons you can see in the first comment - deaths and injuries that are obviously vaccine related are constantly excluded. After insisting that someone previously healthy dropping dead two days after a vaccination is a mere coincidence, they report that there are miraculously almost no vaccine deaths or injuries and COVID is definitely worse. The entire medical and research system pushed vaccines on pain of them losing their licenses and careers, so you definitely can't take what they say at face value.
  - Arn_Thor 4y ago
    You're dismissing the data that is available in favour of speculation and anecdotes. That may be emotionally satisfying on some level, but it's no way to reach an understanding of the world.
    - native_samples 4y ago
      Trusting data only makes sense if it's trustworthy. This data isn't for all sorts of reasons. The lack of concordance with observable reality is only one of those reasons.

justinjlynn 4y ago

Population level studies (including risk studies) will reduce complex conditions to specific modelled criteria in order to try to ensure validity. This is especially true when you're dealing with complex health conditions which exist on a spectrum (i.e. heart/circulatory system damage). It is extremely important to note that individual case reports are meant to highlight exceptional cases explicitly and to provide the medical community with a starting point for population level studies. It is irresponsible to present individual case reports as, in any way, representative of risks for the average individual. This leads to extremely distorted estimates of risks - especially in laymen. Is it possible some will experience effects like those described? Yes, of course. Anything is possible. However, we have to look to well controlled population level studies to get context as to just how likely negative impacts are, for the average person. The answer to that? It's extremely, extremely unlikely - i.e. so much less likely than it is likely to be caused by eschewing the vaccination and getting the disease. This is at the very heart of how the medical community and regulators either approve or reject vaccine candidates and medical practices/procedures. In short, please stop misleading people by editorialising, re-framing, and presenting data/case reports improperly and without proper context so as to lead people to faulty conclusions.

legalcorrection 4y ago
That’s not true for younger people. The risk of the vaccine is probably higher than the risk of the virus for them. Search elsewhere in this thread.
- justinjlynn 4y ago
  What I have stated is true with regards to studies, their construction, and case reports - in general. As to your statements about the risk of vaccination versus the risks of infection without, in younger people, you are also, sadly mistaken. In short, your conclusions are likely not based on an independent evaluation of the evidence but evaluation of evidence preselected to support your particular conclusion. Search elsewhere for an explanation of why this is true.
  - 4y ago