5 ms·

This paper doesn't claim that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, it investigates through autopsy 35 people in a region of Germany who died within 20 days of vaccinati

by mrtksn 4y ago

This paper doesn't claim that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, it investigates through autopsy 35 people in a region of Germany who died within 20 days of vaccination and only 5 of the deaths are found to show myocarditis of which only 3 somewhat might be attributed to the vaccine. This is not an expose of big Pharma or anything like that, I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims. If you look into the statistics, it actually might be the case that those 35 deaths were attributed to the vaccine. They found for fact that 10 of those died actually died of something else. This is also why it takes an expert in a field to evaluate the content and make conclusions. Despite the tone in the HN comments, this actually might suggest that the deaths attributed to the vaccine side effect might be significantly higher than the reality but it would take a research to say of this is the case.

bena 4y ago
Tell that to this guy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is enough to proclaim victory.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  If I'm going to read anti vaxxer content I need to be paid, I'm so done finding misrepresentations and statistical hackery in propaganda articles. They cherry pick data, resort in fallacies and all kinds of trickery. They give you a shocking graph where you can see that young people are dying en masse only to find out that this graph is achieved through visual or statistical BS. Hours spend to dig out lies, completely avoidable by avoiding that content.
  - bena 4y ago
    I'm a little confused here. I'm not trying to convince you of the anti-vaxxer side. You said: > "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims." To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users know the pattern. They know why this was posted. It was posted specifically as "vindication" for anti-vaxxers. Those comments to point out that this study does not in any way vindicate anti-vaxxers are needed and the people who made them were right to make those comments.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Oh I wasn't directing my comments to you. My apologies, I just tried to express my reluctance of looking at anti-vaxxer content. Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't referring to that comment anyway.
      - bena 4y ago
        All good then, I just didn't want you to think I was advocating for the anti-vaxxer position. So if that wasn't your intention, apologies to you as well. And I understand your reluctance. After the nth time, the eyes sort of glaze over as you get slapped with the same bad faith arguments supported by bad logic and supported by abused statistics.
- emmelaich 4y ago
  You're inferring a lot from a someone's brief summary of the paper under discussion. If you disagree with the summary, maybe address it? I despise anti-vaxxer lunatics, I still found that comment interesting.
  - bena 4y ago
    It's not one comment. The guy has a string of them across multiple threads. And you are going to critique me for "inferring a lot" while ignoring his comment is not only sprinkled with evidence he's a conclusion looking for justification ("lethal jab-associated myocarditis"), but is nothing but inference itself. It's not interesting, it's just old.
nulld3v 4y ago
Yeah, I also currently believe that the statistics work out in favor of the vaccine. I am curious though, on how those 3 people died. My biggest concern is in long-term effects. I understand that it is difficult to study them but that is why I am advocating for continued research. So basically: - I understand that in a pandemic situation, you can't wait for research into long-term effects to come out. - Hence, in a pandemic situation, immediate vaccination should still be recommended. - Research into long-term effects should continue after the pandemic.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Is there anything make you believe that the research doesn't continue?
  - nulld3v 4y ago
    I am worried how the discussion around the vaccine has turned political and how there are a lot of strong opinions around it. I worry it might affect funding and also "politically taint" people who publish research about it.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      Fair enough but this doesn't mean that the research is finished, just the reporting on it is getting harder. People who actually work with these things instead of pushing their agenda are not really influenced by the politics because what they find is not political. They will not find out that bug Pharma was lying, they will find out how many people actually had myocarditis under what conditions for example.
jgalt212 4y ago
Fair enough, but everyone was compelled to get the vaccine (regardless of age or risk factors). Given that, the vaccine makers and proponents leave themselves open to such criticisms that would not be valid if the vaccine was not compelled on my 7 year old.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  If everyone was compelled how the vaccination rates are so low?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Where do you live that COVID vaccination is compulsory for a seven year old? In the US, the 5-11 age range has only 38% having had even the first dose. https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends/ https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...

by mrtksn 4y ago

bena 4y ago

Tell that to this guy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is enough to proclaim victory.

mrtksn 4y ago
If I'm going to read anti vaxxer content I need to be paid, I'm so done finding misrepresentations and statistical hackery in propaganda articles. They cherry pick data, resort in fallacies and all kinds of trickery. They give you a shocking graph where you can see that young people are dying en masse only to find out that this graph is achieved through visual or statistical BS. Hours spend to dig out lies, completely avoidable by avoiding that content.
- bena 4y ago
  I'm a little confused here. I'm not trying to convince you of the anti-vaxxer side. You said: > "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims." To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users know the pattern. They know why this was posted. It was posted specifically as "vindication" for anti-vaxxers. Those comments to point out that this study does not in any way vindicate anti-vaxxers are needed and the people who made them were right to make those comments.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Oh I wasn't directing my comments to you. My apologies, I just tried to express my reluctance of looking at anti-vaxxer content. Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't referring to that comment anyway.
    - bena 4y ago
      All good then, I just didn't want you to think I was advocating for the anti-vaxxer position. So if that wasn't your intention, apologies to you as well. And I understand your reluctance. After the nth time, the eyes sort of glaze over as you get slapped with the same bad faith arguments supported by bad logic and supported by abused statistics.
emmelaich 4y ago
You're inferring a lot from a someone's brief summary of the paper under discussion. If you disagree with the summary, maybe address it? I despise anti-vaxxer lunatics, I still found that comment interesting.
- bena 4y ago
  It's not one comment. The guy has a string of them across multiple threads. And you are going to critique me for "inferring a lot" while ignoring his comment is not only sprinkled with evidence he's a conclusion looking for justification ("lethal jab-associated myocarditis"), but is nothing but inference itself. It's not interesting, it's just old.

nulld3v 4y ago

Yeah, I also currently believe that the statistics work out in favor of the vaccine. I am curious though, on how those 3 people died. My biggest concern is in long-term effects. I understand that it is difficult to study them but that is why I am advocating for continued research. So basically: - I understand that in a pandemic situation, you can't wait for research into long-term effects to come out. - Hence, in a pandemic situation, immediate vaccination should still be recommended. - Research into long-term effects should continue after the pandemic.

mrtksn 4y ago
Is there anything make you believe that the research doesn't continue?
- nulld3v 4y ago
  I am worried how the discussion around the vaccine has turned political and how there are a lot of strong opinions around it. I worry it might affect funding and also "politically taint" people who publish research about it.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Fair enough but this doesn't mean that the research is finished, just the reporting on it is getting harder. People who actually work with these things instead of pushing their agenda are not really influenced by the politics because what they find is not political. They will not find out that bug Pharma was lying, they will find out how many people actually had myocarditis under what conditions for example.

jgalt212 4y ago

Fair enough, but everyone was compelled to get the vaccine (regardless of age or risk factors). Given that, the vaccine makers and proponents leave themselves open to such criticisms that would not be valid if the vaccine was not compelled on my 7 year old.

mrtksn 4y ago
If everyone was compelled how the vaccination rates are so low?
ceejayoz 4y ago
Where do you live that COVID vaccination is compulsory for a seven year old? In the US, the 5-11 age range has only 38% having had even the first dose. https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-vaccination-trends/ https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...