7 ms·

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.
- mattwilsonn888 4y ago
  Two people saying "trust me."
  - justinjlynn 4y ago
    It's a whole lot more than just two people saying "trust me". It's a hundred countries, thousands and thousands of organisations and experts, and millions and millions of others. All these people, orgs, countries and authoritarians and big pharma moguls who would just love to call each other out on the conspiracy and provide incontrovertible evidence of foul play -- if there were any. Seriously; what is it with people who think that half the world can keep a secret from the other half? Four people can barely keep a crime secret; when it gets to ten, it's just about impossible. Why is any of this different? I honestly just don't get it.
    - ztrww 4y ago
      Why do ypu need a conspiracy where incompetence would suffice (not saying that’s the case but nobody fully understanding what’s happening seems like a more reasonable explanation compared to “foul play”)? Also it’s not unreasonable to believe that many of the researchers understood that not all the side effects were known but still judged that deploying the vaccines is worth it because the benefits outweigh the risk by a magnitude or two (again it’s hard to say if they were right).
      - justinjlynn 4y ago
        Yes, the struggle between knowing enough to act correctly and not acting because we don't know enough to act is the trade-off we wrestle with at the heart of medicine. This is what it means to do no harm. Improper actions don't need to be the result of a conspiracy to result in disaster, no. However, what we do have to do, is work with the best information we have to make the best decision we can and act when we're confident we know enough. Where we don't make the right decision, in hindsight, we learn from it for the future. If our processes and systems, uncorrupted - as best we can tell, say that it's much, much more beneficial to perform a procedure or take a medication then we generally do that. That's how modern medicine, as we know it, has worked since it has been modern medicine. It's always a game of statistics and learning.
        RobertRoberts 4y ago
        Doctors still feed people green jello and white bread. And statistics is not applied in every hospital in America to prove this is shit food and not good for your health. Wide spread poor choices in industry backed by science is not only possible, it's frequent and common. To tell people to listen blindly and ignore all the evidence to the contrary _because_ of statics, popularity and consensus is the definition of anti-science.
        justinjlynn 4y ago
        Your supposition that I endorsed any of these positions you assert I did simply does not follow from my statements. I cannot respond to your rebuttal of an argument I did not make. Please, try to avoid non sequitur, if you wish to discuss our views and opinions confluently. However, to touch upon your point about the recent evidence-based medicine and hospital management movements - yes, they were once sorely lacking, with existing pre-modern medical practices handling quite a bit of load. However, the consensus is that evidence-based practices are already well established for high risk areas of practice and only increasing as time goes on elsewhere. It's important to note that modern versus pre-modern medicine isn't a hard line, but a continuum we're continually shifting to the left. It's very much more like the border between generations instead of the hard line between decades. In any case, new practices/devices/medicines/etc... are held to a much higher standard than legacy approaches. This is a very good thing as they are, generally speaking, much more powerful tools. We've figured out how to understand evidence and understand when we have enough to make good decisions and now we use it. We didn't always, but we're working towards replacing what came before but until then we're often forced to use it because we've nothing better or it hurts worse to do nothing. That's how most things are - that's how medicine is. > To tell people to listen blindly and ignore all the evidence to the contrary _because_ of statics, popularity and consensus is the definition of anti-science. The consensus of experts on the validity of the collection and interpretation of data, relying on the tools of statistical analysis of that data to make sound decisions about the applicability of that data as evidence, in relationship to deciding the answer to question at hand - relying of multiple points of view and power to cross check, reproduce experiments, and systematically eliminate biases - is exactly what science is. Is the process perfect? Absolutely not! Is it better than taking everything in and saying "well, both sides make good points so I guess we'll never know", "look at all this untrustworthy, untested data I don't know how to interpret but with which I agree so the mainstream opinion must be wrong" and "who trusts academics anyway"? You know, actual anti-science? Absolutely, yes.
    - georgia_peach 4y ago
      A very large proportion of the population spends 8-10 hours a day, 5-7 days a week, 3/4 to 11/12ths of the year, doing things they don't particularly enjoy, for money. Per Piketty & our dear senator from Vermont, less than 1% of world population controls over half of of the world's wealth. "Conspiracy" is just rhetoric. It's a word to shoo people away who aren't inclined to think things through. Replace "conspiracy" with "paycheck", and you've just explained how the world works. There are chemical plants, with hundreds of employees each, that have been poisoning communities for generations. And most of these employees live in the same communities they've been poisoning! And the situation persists! And you're rolling your eyes at us for doubting that the medical establishment--the 3rd leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer, with its whopping 19.7% of US GDP--couldn't hide their boo-boos (even if they tried!) behind esoteric epidemiologyese?
      - justinjlynn 4y ago
        > "Conspiracy" is just rhetoric. I believe that's at the heart of what we're discussing. There's an important distinction to be made between actual malice and simple ignorance. This is not a Russel Bliss/Times Beach situation, as you seemingly imply. This is many independent actors all working independently on many potential solutions, each of which stand to gain massive financial benefit for exposing malfeasance. I would not confuse that with "looking the other way for a paycheck". It's quite the opposite, in fact.
        georgia_peach 4y ago
        They aren't independent actors. If you spend any time in the journals, it's all funded by either the government or pharma. Mostly the government. And given regulatory capture, these entities might as well be one-in-the-same. Disagree with either, and kiss your grad students goodbye. There is also an unspoken professional hierarchy. It is simply understood that if you run contrary to the current 800-lb gorilla of the field, your career is going nowhere--look into what's been going on with the beta-amyloid hypothesis for the last 20 years, or recall Planck's remark that "science advances one funeral at a time". Or, to paraphrase Lewis Grizzard: "One boy, one whole brain. Two boys, half a brain. Three boys, no brain at all."
    - logicchains 4y ago
      >It's a hundred countries, thousands and thousands of organisations and experts, and millions and millions of others In most countries it's literally official policy to fire doctors if they question the vaccine or speak out against it.
      - justinjlynn 4y ago
        and yet, for all the countries which don't do that, none have presented independently verifiable incontrovertible evidence of a show-stopping problem the others have not presented or addressed. You know, the thing about silenced people is just that - they're actually silenced. You don't hear from them. So, all these people shouting about being silenced while also shouting about the vaccine not working or not being necessary and posting links to studies and case reports and nonsense? Yeah, they're not being silenced. It's just that the evidence they're posting just isn't good evidence. The studies they're posting just aren't good studies. The case reports they're posting, well, they're just that - single case reports. Case reports do not generalise to populations. That's all.
        logifail 4y ago
        Just out of interest, why should the burden of proof be the way round you've framed it? "independently verifiable incontrovertible evidence of a show-stopping problem" seems a fairly high bar. The risks from COVID have been fairly well understood for a while now, if you're young and healthy and have no comorbidities the risk of dying from it is quite simply vanishingly small: https://qcovid.org https://qcovid.org EDIT: so a hypothetical 19 year old unvaccinated me has a 1 in 1,000,000 risk of dying after catching COVID according to that University of Oxford model.
        justinjlynn 4y ago
        You do know there are far worse things than death, right? Permanent disability. Heart/lung conditions. Mental illness. Chronic fatigue. All from a young age. This simple focus on death rates misses the mark entirely and it acts like these consequences don't exist or increase the more times you are reinfected. It's sad, really. The burden of proof is on those who are arguing for a specific action or inaction to cause a specific result. So let be the weight of the clear and convincing evidence against the other - all of it.
    - agsamek 4y ago
      It is easy to forget the Snowden moment. Before him releasing the documents, most people in the HN group and in general public would call somebody suggesting such practices of the US goverment as maniac. Sorry - your argument just do not hold whatever the underlaying question is. Goverments and most probably the rich can keep the secrets from us, in particular when the topic is complex.
      - justinjlynn 4y ago
        Oh, no, lol - just about everyone thought the NSA was spying on citizens. We just didn't know exactly how or the precise scale of the operation. Bill Binney and cohorts/whistle blowers were very well known ages before then. Heck, Nixon couldn't even keep Watergate under wraps! Don't distort what "the average person would think" to launder your own opinion into something that a reader might think has more weight than "because I say".
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        "These people did something I don't like, therefore they are guilty of anything I suggest without evidence" does not seem like a reasonable argument in favor of your position
azinman2 4y ago
Every previous study I’ve read that’s looked at this states the opposite.
- logicchains 4y ago
  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z this study in Nature shows the risk of heart problems for young men is greater from the vaccine.
  - hokkos 4y ago
    At the top of the article : Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the Editors. A further editorial response will follow once all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.
  - korm 4y ago
    This study is written by biased authors [1], and they're simply measuring the emergency calls for cardiovascular events in different age groups over time. They literally don't know if the affected individuals were even vaccinated or if they had covid. We really can't infer that the risk from vaccination is higher from this study. [1] https://concerneddoctors.org/testimony-of-retsef-levi/ https://concerneddoctors.org/testimony-of-retsef-levi/
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    > this study in Nature No, that's been published in Scientific Reports not Nature. Scientific Reports has a vastly higher acceptance rate, engages in pay to play, and published a picture of Donald Trump hidden in baboon feces. You're relying on junk science.

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.

mattwilsonn888 4y ago
Two people saying "trust me."
- justinjlynn 4y ago
  It's a whole lot more than just two people saying "trust me". It's a hundred countries, thousands and thousands of organisations and experts, and millions and millions of others. All these people, orgs, countries and authoritarians and big pharma moguls who would just love to call each other out on the conspiracy and provide incontrovertible evidence of foul play -- if there were any. Seriously; what is it with people who think that half the world can keep a secret from the other half? Four people can barely keep a crime secret; when it gets to ten, it's just about impossible. Why is any of this different? I honestly just don't get it.
  - ztrww 4y ago
    Why do ypu need a conspiracy where incompetence would suffice (not saying that’s the case but nobody fully understanding what’s happening seems like a more reasonable explanation compared to “foul play”)? Also it’s not unreasonable to believe that many of the researchers understood that not all the side effects were known but still judged that deploying the vaccines is worth it because the benefits outweigh the risk by a magnitude or two (again it’s hard to say if they were right).
    - justinjlynn 4y ago
      Yes, the struggle between knowing enough to act correctly and not acting because we don't know enough to act is the trade-off we wrestle with at the heart of medicine. This is what it means to do no harm. Improper actions don't need to be the result of a conspiracy to result in disaster, no. However, what we do have to do, is work with the best information we have to make the best decision we can and act when we're confident we know enough. Where we don't make the right decision, in hindsight, we learn from it for the future. If our processes and systems, uncorrupted - as best we can tell, say that it's much, much more beneficial to perform a procedure or take a medication then we generally do that. That's how modern medicine, as we know it, has worked since it has been modern medicine. It's always a game of statistics and learning.
      - RobertRoberts 4y ago
        Doctors still feed people green jello and white bread. And statistics is not applied in every hospital in America to prove this is shit food and not good for your health. Wide spread poor choices in industry backed by science is not only possible, it's frequent and common. To tell people to listen blindly and ignore all the evidence to the contrary _because_ of statics, popularity and consensus is the definition of anti-science.
        justinjlynn 4y ago
        Your supposition that I endorsed any of these positions you assert I did simply does not follow from my statements. I cannot respond to your rebuttal of an argument I did not make. Please, try to avoid non sequitur, if you wish to discuss our views and opinions confluently. However, to touch upon your point about the recent evidence-based medicine and hospital management movements - yes, they were once sorely lacking, with existing pre-modern medical practices handling quite a bit of load. However, the consensus is that evidence-based practices are already well established for high risk areas of practice and only increasing as time goes on elsewhere. It's important to note that modern versus pre-modern medicine isn't a hard line, but a continuum we're continually shifting to the left. It's very much more like the border between generations instead of the hard line between decades. In any case, new practices/devices/medicines/etc... are held to a much higher standard than legacy approaches. This is a very good thing as they are, generally speaking, much more powerful tools. We've figured out how to understand evidence and understand when we have enough to make good decisions and now we use it. We didn't always, but we're working towards replacing what came before but until then we're often forced to use it because we've nothing better or it hurts worse to do nothing. That's how most things are - that's how medicine is. > To tell people to listen blindly and ignore all the evidence to the contrary _because_ of statics, popularity and consensus is the definition of anti-science. The consensus of experts on the validity of the collection and interpretation of data, relying on the tools of statistical analysis of that data to make sound decisions about the applicability of that data as evidence, in relationship to deciding the answer to question at hand - relying of multiple points of view and power to cross check, reproduce experiments, and systematically eliminate biases - is exactly what science is. Is the process perfect? Absolutely not! Is it better than taking everything in and saying "well, both sides make good points so I guess we'll never know", "look at all this untrustworthy, untested data I don't know how to interpret but with which I agree so the mainstream opinion must be wrong" and "who trusts academics anyway"? You know, actual anti-science? Absolutely, yes.
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    A very large proportion of the population spends 8-10 hours a day, 5-7 days a week, 3/4 to 11/12ths of the year, doing things they don't particularly enjoy, for money. Per Piketty & our dear senator from Vermont, less than 1% of world population controls over half of of the world's wealth. "Conspiracy" is just rhetoric. It's a word to shoo people away who aren't inclined to think things through. Replace "conspiracy" with "paycheck", and you've just explained how the world works. There are chemical plants, with hundreds of employees each, that have been poisoning communities for generations. And most of these employees live in the same communities they've been poisoning! And the situation persists! And you're rolling your eyes at us for doubting that the medical establishment--the 3rd leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer, with its whopping 19.7% of US GDP--couldn't hide their boo-boos (even if they tried!) behind esoteric epidemiologyese?
    - justinjlynn 4y ago
      > "Conspiracy" is just rhetoric. I believe that's at the heart of what we're discussing. There's an important distinction to be made between actual malice and simple ignorance. This is not a Russel Bliss/Times Beach situation, as you seemingly imply. This is many independent actors all working independently on many potential solutions, each of which stand to gain massive financial benefit for exposing malfeasance. I would not confuse that with "looking the other way for a paycheck". It's quite the opposite, in fact.
      - georgia_peach 4y ago
        They aren't independent actors. If you spend any time in the journals, it's all funded by either the government or pharma. Mostly the government. And given regulatory capture, these entities might as well be one-in-the-same. Disagree with either, and kiss your grad students goodbye. There is also an unspoken professional hierarchy. It is simply understood that if you run contrary to the current 800-lb gorilla of the field, your career is going nowhere--look into what's been going on with the beta-amyloid hypothesis for the last 20 years, or recall Planck's remark that "science advances one funeral at a time". Or, to paraphrase Lewis Grizzard: "One boy, one whole brain. Two boys, half a brain. Three boys, no brain at all."
  - logicchains 4y ago
    >It's a hundred countries, thousands and thousands of organisations and experts, and millions and millions of others In most countries it's literally official policy to fire doctors if they question the vaccine or speak out against it.
    - justinjlynn 4y ago
      and yet, for all the countries which don't do that, none have presented independently verifiable incontrovertible evidence of a show-stopping problem the others have not presented or addressed. You know, the thing about silenced people is just that - they're actually silenced. You don't hear from them. So, all these people shouting about being silenced while also shouting about the vaccine not working or not being necessary and posting links to studies and case reports and nonsense? Yeah, they're not being silenced. It's just that the evidence they're posting just isn't good evidence. The studies they're posting just aren't good studies. The case reports they're posting, well, they're just that - single case reports. Case reports do not generalise to populations. That's all.
      - logifail 4y ago
        Just out of interest, why should the burden of proof be the way round you've framed it? "independently verifiable incontrovertible evidence of a show-stopping problem" seems a fairly high bar. The risks from COVID have been fairly well understood for a while now, if you're young and healthy and have no comorbidities the risk of dying from it is quite simply vanishingly small: https://qcovid.org https://qcovid.org EDIT: so a hypothetical 19 year old unvaccinated me has a 1 in 1,000,000 risk of dying after catching COVID according to that University of Oxford model.
        justinjlynn 4y ago
        You do know there are far worse things than death, right? Permanent disability. Heart/lung conditions. Mental illness. Chronic fatigue. All from a young age. This simple focus on death rates misses the mark entirely and it acts like these consequences don't exist or increase the more times you are reinfected. It's sad, really. The burden of proof is on those who are arguing for a specific action or inaction to cause a specific result. So let be the weight of the clear and convincing evidence against the other - all of it.
  - agsamek 4y ago
    It is easy to forget the Snowden moment. Before him releasing the documents, most people in the HN group and in general public would call somebody suggesting such practices of the US goverment as maniac. Sorry - your argument just do not hold whatever the underlaying question is. Goverments and most probably the rich can keep the secrets from us, in particular when the topic is complex.
    - justinjlynn 4y ago
      Oh, no, lol - just about everyone thought the NSA was spying on citizens. We just didn't know exactly how or the precise scale of the operation. Bill Binney and cohorts/whistle blowers were very well known ages before then. Heck, Nixon couldn't even keep Watergate under wraps! Don't distort what "the average person would think" to launder your own opinion into something that a reader might think has more weight than "because I say".
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      "These people did something I don't like, therefore they are guilty of anything I suggest without evidence" does not seem like a reasonable argument in favor of your position

azinman2 4y ago

Every previous study I’ve read that’s looked at this states the opposite.

logicchains 4y ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z this study in Nature shows the risk of heart problems for young men is greater from the vaccine.
- hokkos 4y ago
  At the top of the article : Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this article are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the Editors. A further editorial response will follow once all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.
- korm 4y ago
  This study is written by biased authors [1], and they're simply measuring the emergency calls for cardiovascular events in different age groups over time. They literally don't know if the affected individuals were even vaccinated or if they had covid. We really can't infer that the risk from vaccination is higher from this study. [1] https://concerneddoctors.org/testimony-of-retsef-levi/ https://concerneddoctors.org/testimony-of-retsef-levi/
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  > this study in Nature No, that's been published in Scientific Reports not Nature. Scientific Reports has a vastly higher acceptance rate, engages in pay to play, and published a picture of Donald Trump hidden in baboon feces. You're relying on junk science.