7 ms·

> Additionally new research is uncovering serious and significant risks for the vaccine with fairly marginal protection benefits. Could you provide a link to t

> Additionally new research is uncovering serious and significant risks for the vaccine with fairly marginal protection benefits. Could you provide a link to that research ?

alchemist1e9 4y ago
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.0...
- rybosworld 4y ago
  > new research is uncovering serious and significant risks for the vaccine The frequency of the reaction mentioned in this article is around 2 in 100,000 people. The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people. I'll take the vaccine odds. > with fairly marginal protection benefits Your source says nothing about protection benefits being marginal. In fact, one of the author's of this research said: "What the results don’t do, she stressed, is change the fact that the data strongly support getting vaccinated against COVID-19. “Clearly, developing postvaccine myocarditis is much more rare than developing any of the complications of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” she noted." https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-implicated-myocarditis https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-...
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - kuhewa 4y ago
      > Repeated vaccination is likely not going to be a scientifically justified strategy. It is kinda of amazing to me sometimes just how selectively people can parse an evidencebase
      - alchemist1e9 4y ago
        https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-vaers-safety https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-v... It’s more amazing how due to cognitive dissonance people deny something obvious.
        kuhewa 4y ago
        If an interpretation of self reported raw monitoring data seems obvious to you and your favourite criminal justice lecturer on substack, but not to epidemiologists working in the field, well yeah probably just cognitive dissonance on their part. > The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000). Wait, the self report monitoring system that went from virtually unknown to a household name at a time the number of adult vax administrations skyrocketed.. detected an uptick in absolute number of adverse events? Stop traffic! This article is off to a great start.
        jbritton 4y ago
        There is a section in there “RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS” to VAERS data. The CDC is not looking at absolute numbers.
        kuhewa 4y ago
        For good reasons, which is why it is a peculiar choice of highlight for the criminal justice lecturer's substack article. You haven't supported your prior claim by linking it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        moistly 4y ago
        [flagged]
    - rybosworld 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - alchemist1e9 4y ago
        I can’t believe we are still arguing about IFR at this at this point in the pandemic. It’s now well studied and we know the shape as a function of age is a huge hockey stick and the population average is not 1.1%. I suspect you understand well that your information is misleading and disinformation.
        rybosworld 4y ago
        I didn't say the population average was 1.1%. I said 1.1% of covid cases. I even provided a link to my source. The only one arguing with the well studied is you.
        alchemist1e9 4y ago
        > The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people. That’s you. You imply IFR and now admit it is at least 5-10x lower. You are not arguing in good faith.
        rybosworld 4y ago
        I stand by what I originally said. It seems like you are misinterpreting it somewhere along the line but what I said is backed by fact. Again, check the source I linked. It is verifiably true that the death rate of covid is 1.1% in the U.S. Do you have a different definition of "death rate"? > now admit it is at least 5-10x lower Never did I say anything to this effect. So who is really arguing in bad faith?
        alchemist1e9 4y ago
        Come on you don’t even know the definition of IFR? Seriously. You linked to CFR data yet frame it as IFR, this is like an amateur level discussion if we are back to discussion IFR and CFR. I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.
  - cf141q5325 4y ago
    As individuals those averages are looking at too large of a group. There are known subgroups with different risk profiles and grouping them together isnt helpful. You get very different risks from both for for example a healthy <30yo male and an obese >60yo male. We have had that data for a while and simplifications serve no benefit. Its not early 2020 anymore, as always, as we get more accurate data, we get to adapt some strategies based on that. edit: Not to mention the difference in strains (omicron vs delta) as well as the confidence into the different risks (under counting (detection problem) vs over counting(hospitalized/dying from vs with covid)
jbritton 4y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2... https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-vaers-safety https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-v...
- kuhewa 4y ago
  The study certainly doesn't support the claim of marginal benefits outweighing serious side effects.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
parthianshotgun 4y ago
[flagged]
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  Have not ghosted and many links provide by me and others. My observation is that for people who have had covid, like me, I’ve had it twice actually, once early on, so Alpha, and then post vaccination, more recently, so an Omicron variant. For these people like me who experience symptoms described as long covid, the following 3 observations are absolutely true and justified by lots of scientific published research: (1) mRNA vaccinations can actually worsen long covid symptoms for a significant percentage of people. This is a fact. (2) each day we are learning additional risks of vaccination. we even have a study using mice that can explicitly link the exact mechanism of cardiovascular damage caused by mrna vaccine. Also it’s very odd that suddenly anything that mentions VAERS is automatically junk science, especially as the system was created for exactly this problem. Objective analysis that accounts for reporting biases is showing serious and very statistically significant risks. Even CDC is increasingly acknowledging this as we learned this week. (3) the marginal benefits of boosters is extremely small for most of the population, except perhaps some high risk segment. and even worse we now have studies indicating repeat mrna vaccination can have a negative impact on immune system. Why these 3 points are so controversial when they are clearly true is simply evidence that the topic is completely politicized now. Unfortunately.
- moistly 4y ago
  It’s a shame dang doesn’t nuke these disinformation agents from orbit.
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    Without any justification you accuse me of being a disinformation agent, which I absolutely am not, and request the moderator “nuke” me. This approach to this complex problem is really toxic and unhelpful imho. I would also point out another commenter you are implicitly aligning yourself with in this discussion stated the IFR of Covid is 1-2% (or 1,000-2,000 per 100,000 using their notation). That my friend is pure disinformation! I’d be curious if you have any comment of mine that you can point to which is disinformation, especially in comparison the the blatant example of the IFR.

> Additionally new research is uncovering serious and significant risks for the vaccine with fairly marginal protection benefits. Could you provide a link to that research ?

alchemist1e9 4y ago

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.0...

rybosworld 4y ago
> new research is uncovering serious and significant risks for the vaccine The frequency of the reaction mentioned in this article is around 2 in 100,000 people. The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people. I'll take the vaccine odds. > with fairly marginal protection benefits Your source says nothing about protection benefits being marginal. In fact, one of the author's of this research said: "What the results don’t do, she stressed, is change the fact that the data strongly support getting vaccinated against COVID-19. “Clearly, developing postvaccine myocarditis is much more rare than developing any of the complications of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” she noted." https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-implicated-myocarditis https://www.tctmd.com/news/free-spike-protein-mrna-covid-19-...
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    > Repeated vaccination is likely not going to be a scientifically justified strategy. It is kinda of amazing to me sometimes just how selectively people can parse an evidencebase
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-vaers-safety https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-v... It’s more amazing how due to cognitive dissonance people deny something obvious.
      - kuhewa 4y ago
        If an interpretation of self reported raw monitoring data seems obvious to you and your favourite criminal justice lecturer on substack, but not to epidemiologists working in the field, well yeah probably just cognitive dissonance on their part. > The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000). Wait, the self report monitoring system that went from virtually unknown to a household name at a time the number of adult vax administrations skyrocketed.. detected an uptick in absolute number of adverse events? Stop traffic! This article is off to a great start.
        jbritton 4y ago
        There is a section in there “RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS” to VAERS data. The CDC is not looking at absolute numbers.
        kuhewa 4y ago
        For good reasons, which is why it is a peculiar choice of highlight for the criminal justice lecturer's substack article. You haven't supported your prior claim by linking it.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - moistly 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - rybosworld 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      I can’t believe we are still arguing about IFR at this at this point in the pandemic. It’s now well studied and we know the shape as a function of age is a huge hockey stick and the population average is not 1.1%. I suspect you understand well that your information is misleading and disinformation.
      - rybosworld 4y ago
        I didn't say the population average was 1.1%. I said 1.1% of covid cases. I even provided a link to my source. The only one arguing with the well studied is you.
        alchemist1e9 4y ago
        > The frequency of death from covid is somewhere in the range of 1000-2000 in 100,000 people. That’s you. You imply IFR and now admit it is at least 5-10x lower. You are not arguing in good faith.
        rybosworld 4y ago
        I stand by what I originally said. It seems like you are misinterpreting it somewhere along the line but what I said is backed by fact. Again, check the source I linked. It is verifiably true that the death rate of covid is 1.1% in the U.S. Do you have a different definition of "death rate"? > now admit it is at least 5-10x lower Never did I say anything to this effect. So who is really arguing in bad faith?
        alchemist1e9 4y ago
        Come on you don’t even know the definition of IFR? Seriously. You linked to CFR data yet frame it as IFR, this is like an amateur level discussion if we are back to discussion IFR and CFR. I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.
- cf141q5325 4y ago
  As individuals those averages are looking at too large of a group. There are known subgroups with different risk profiles and grouping them together isnt helpful. You get very different risks from both for for example a healthy <30yo male and an obese >60yo male. We have had that data for a while and simplifications serve no benefit. Its not early 2020 anymore, as always, as we get more accurate data, we get to adapt some strategies based on that. edit: Not to mention the difference in strains (omicron vs delta) as well as the confidence into the different risks (under counting (detection problem) vs over counting(hospitalized/dying from vs with covid)

jbritton 4y ago

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2... https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-vaers-safety https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-v...

kuhewa 4y ago
The study certainly doesn't support the claim of marginal benefits outweighing serious side effects.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

parthianshotgun 4y ago

[flagged]

alchemist1e9 4y ago
Have not ghosted and many links provide by me and others. My observation is that for people who have had covid, like me, I’ve had it twice actually, once early on, so Alpha, and then post vaccination, more recently, so an Omicron variant. For these people like me who experience symptoms described as long covid, the following 3 observations are absolutely true and justified by lots of scientific published research: (1) mRNA vaccinations can actually worsen long covid symptoms for a significant percentage of people. This is a fact. (2) each day we are learning additional risks of vaccination. we even have a study using mice that can explicitly link the exact mechanism of cardiovascular damage caused by mrna vaccine. Also it’s very odd that suddenly anything that mentions VAERS is automatically junk science, especially as the system was created for exactly this problem. Objective analysis that accounts for reporting biases is showing serious and very statistically significant risks. Even CDC is increasingly acknowledging this as we learned this week. (3) the marginal benefits of boosters is extremely small for most of the population, except perhaps some high risk segment. and even worse we now have studies indicating repeat mrna vaccination can have a negative impact on immune system. Why these 3 points are so controversial when they are clearly true is simply evidence that the topic is completely politicized now. Unfortunately.
moistly 4y ago
It’s a shame dang doesn’t nuke these disinformation agents from orbit.
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  Without any justification you accuse me of being a disinformation agent, which I absolutely am not, and request the moderator “nuke” me. This approach to this complex problem is really toxic and unhelpful imho. I would also point out another commenter you are implicitly aligning yourself with in this discussion stated the IFR of Covid is 1-2% (or 1,000-2,000 per 100,000 using their notation). That my friend is pure disinformation! I’d be curious if you have any comment of mine that you can point to which is disinformation, especially in comparison the the blatant example of the IFR.