33 ms·

For those who are desperate to draw a link between vaccines and heart attacks, this article essentially says the opposite of that. While the paper itself doesn'

For those who are desperate to draw a link between vaccines and heart attacks, this article essentially says the opposite of that. While the paper itself doesn't differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, it does contain a graph showing a state-by-state breakdown of acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-associated deaths: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/c0aed082-9f81-4a88-92b2-04c7945d5c09/jmv28187-fig-0005-m.jpg https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/c0aed082-9f81-4a88... Dark purple is a higher rate of death, light blue is lower. A state-by-state graph of vaccination percentage is available here: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/12/16/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses-promo-1608170893853/covid-19-vaccine-doses-promo-1608170893853-superJumbo-v381.png https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/12/16/us/covid-19-vacci... These graphs would indicate that the states with the lowest vaccination rates have the highest AMI mortality rates.

nyrulez 4y ago
It's difficult to draw conclusions because first graph is not the delta in deaths, just total deaths. and southern states have always had a high cardiovascular mortality. I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Whenever this discussion comes up, its either complete blame or zero blame. How about investigate it like any other factor with the help of proper data? After all, it's the biggest change that young people have experienced that coincides with what authors note. Has there been any other huge lifestyle or external change for younger people? The other is staying indoors and not spending time outside. That could lead to lower activity levels and more stress. I can't think of many others, apart from covid itself. It would be the right thing to do to explore it as a causal factor with cool heads. It's not impossible is it? What if it actually is leading to huge risk and we refuse to learn about it until 10 years later because we must not talk ill about vaccines? In my own case, I had significant cardiovascular issues at a relatively young age, 1 week after I got my booster. They are simply not collecting this kind of data at a large scale to draw meaningful conclusions either way because the whole vaccine discussion is so charged. My doctor said he doesn't know if it's common enough because they are not instructed to collect this information. For me, even though it's anecdotal, the severity of my incident so close to the booster, without having any other history obviously makes me consider it as the #1 factor, not anything else.
- wazer5 4y ago
  How about exposure to actual coronavirus? Most everyone is exposed at least to small degrees on a daily/weekly basis given the levels in air.
  - nyrulez 4y ago
    Yes, that's definitely possible. All of this would be much easier to decipher if the studies went deeper into cohorts of who got the vaccination and where the heart attack delta is. So if you had 4 cohorts of people and noticed their heart attack delta: covid/no vaccine, no covid/no vaccine, covid/vaccine, no covid/vaccine, that itself would tell you a lot. Because if no covid/vaccine is showing a much higher or similar delta as covid/*, that would be pretty worrisome. I think that seems to be missing in the given study.
    - steve1977 4y ago
      Can we reliably detect if someone was vaccinated but not exposed to the actual virus?
      - michilehr 4y ago
        Yes. I did a test last year to check for antibodies generated through the vaccine and antibodies generated through an infection. Vaccine was positive, infection negative.
        lostlogin 4y ago
        Is the rest reliable? “In participants that had COVID-19 and were tested one week after symptoms developed, antibody tests detected only 27% to 41% of infections. In week 2 after first symptoms, 64% to 79% of infections were detected, rising to 78% to 88% in week 3. Tests that specifically detected IgG or IgM antibodies were the most accurate and, when testing people from 21 days after first symptoms, they detected 93% of people with COVID-19. Tests gave false positive results for 1% of those without COVID-19.” https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-accuracy-antibody-tests-detection-infection-covid-19-virus https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-ac...
chaostheory 4y ago
Let’s pretend there was a statistically significant relation to heart attacks with the mRNA vaccines. I would imagine that the risk of a heart attack would be far greater with worse outcomes if you got infected with COVID unvaccinated. I also understand why the authorities are adamant about there being no link to heart attacks and vaccines given all the pushback against vaccines. However, it also worrying to see science take a backseat to politics. https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-Releases/2022/11/07/18/58/Which-COVID-Vaccine-You-Get-Can-Impact-Myocarditis-Risk https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-Releases/2022/11/07/18/5... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2793555 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 For disclosure, I’m fully vaccinated with booster, and I am a proponent of vaccination. However, I’m not going to ignore research and data just because it doesn’t match my views. It really annoys me that the mainstream media treats the increased likelihood of myocarditis as a conspiracy theory. All this will do is further undermine public trust in public institutions. It wasn’t that long ago when public officials ridiculed the need for masks in order to secretly help preserve PPE supplies for healthcare workers Fauci told CNN, “The thing that has inhibited that a bit is to make sure that we don’t take away the supply of masks from the health care workers who need them,” he continued. “But once we get in a situation where we have enough masks, I believe there will be some very serious consideration about more broadening this recommendation of using masks.” https://khn.org/morning-breakout/cdc-considers-shifting-guidance-on-masks-but-are-wary-of-creating-a-run-on-n95s-that-protect-health-workers/ https://khn.org/morning-breakout/cdc-considers-shifting-guid...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > However, it also worrying to see science take a backseat to politics. It's not politics directly, it's lying and all the "whoopsies". I live in slovenia, so there was no trump vs others here. When I got vaccinated we had four kinds of vaccines (J&J, astrazeneca, pfeizer and moderna... if you got vacicnated abroad, also sputnik). All those vaccines were said to prevent getting a symptomatic covid infection and also prevent the spread. Then slowly three out of those four got cancelled here, because they caused issues here and abroad and in case of J&J, even killed a young girl here. Every time one of them got removed, the rest were "completely safe"... first astrazeneca, but the others were good, then J&J killed a girl, but moderna and pfizer are safe, then moderna went away, but pfeizer was safe... it was just a matter of time when something "safe" was an "whoops, it's not safe, but the others are". Also the "prevent symptomatic infection and spread" was somehing stalined-away and "prevent severe illness" appeared. I understand the need for fast action, but most of the anti-covid measures (limited and forbidden stuff, also stuff that needed you to be vaccinated to do) were targeted towards young people... old people need a local grocery store and a doctor... young people need clubs, bars, restaurants, party locations etc. (not to mention in person schools). So young people, who generally didnt die in any significant numbers (compared to traffic accidents and suicides) got the most of the damage, and old people didn't need to get vaccinated at all, because the measures didn't affect them. Basically, the whole handling of covid, the lies, the wrong priorities, and the "whoopsies" have destroyed the trust in science, scientists and other authorities for many many years.
junofan 4y ago
So why’s this study published in a virology journal?
corbulo 4y ago
[flagged]
upsidesinclude 4y ago
[flagged]
thinking4real 4y ago
[flagged]
- ygggvbbjiuygvf 4y ago
  Not saying it is not happening more often, but how often you see it reported is not a good indicator. It is just how the news works, there is now heightened interest in that sort of thing so it is reported more often. I do remember such cases from before Covid. Another recent example would be „black person killed by cops“ - even here in Germany the latest case made national news, even though it happened in the US.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  This is what confirmation bias looks like. You weren't looking for it before, and people weren't incentivized to sensationalize athletes' medical problems in the past. Sudden cardiac problems tend to rear their heads when you're overexerting yourself, no matter how healthy you perceive yourself to be[1]. There's a reason gyms have defibrillators, it's because strenuous exercise increases your risks of sudden cardiac events. Here's an article from 2012, titled "Why do sports stars collapse in action?", that examines the collapse of athletes while playing sports[2]: > Professional sports players are generally in prime physical condition, especially with today’s advanced physiological, nutritional and medical knowledge. > However, Fabrice Muamba is the latest in a growing list of athletes around the world who have suffered heart problems – seemingly out of nowhere. Weird how this sudden trend goes all the way back to 2012. [1] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/can-too-much-extreme-exercise-damage-your-heart/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/can-too-much-extreme-exer... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/sport/health-muamba-heart-problems/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/sport/health-muamba-heart-pro...
  - z7 4y ago
    I agree the phenomenon isn't new.[1] But that doesn't mean that number of cases hasn't changed. I think what started the recent 'sudden cardiac death of athletes' speculation is more the perceived incidence than the phenomenon itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_cardiac_death_of_athletes#Notable_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_cardiac_death_of_athlet...
joaorico 4y ago
Simpson’s paradox should be taken into account. If you group the population into only 2 groups: all of the vaccinated and all the unvaccinated, regardless of age; then the vaccinated had a higher death toll. But age is a hidden factor. The older have more risks and are more vaccinated. If you group by vaccination AND by age bracket, the opposite happens. For example, the 60 to 65 vaccinated have a lower death rate than the 60 to 65 unvaccinated.
- petodo 4y ago
  The study is about age group 25-44 where you should really not expect heart attack (very rare).
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  Just so I understand what you're saying, it sounds to me like covid is killing old people and something else is killing everyone else at a higher rate, correlating with vaccination status? So only old people and high risk individuals should've gotten the vaccine?
  - vasco 4y ago
    That much was obvious. Young people weren't asked to take the vaccine to protect themselves but to protect the herd.
    - unvaxxed_sperm 4y ago
      And by „asked“ you mean (in many cases) forced. Not to mention, the emergency auth clearly stated (in europe at least) that it was unknown if the serum prevented spread. Lookup the documents, it‘s right there. So the reality is that young people were forced to take untested gene therapy for no medical reason at all.
    - linuxftw 4y ago
      Despite the fact that the clinical trials didn't test for ability to stop transmission and infection. So the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer outright lied to the public. And when that lie fell apart, it was so 'you don't overrun the hospitals' despite the fact that young people weren't being hospitalized at any rate more than the seasonal flu.
JacksonGariety 4y ago
Comparing states is fallacious because there are so many confounding factors. The lowest vaccinated states, in the Bible Belt, are highest for almost all health conditions. People in those states are less healthy period. One cannot draw conclusions that way.
sMarsIntruder 4y ago
Yes, that’s definitely caused by the Climate Change.
6nf 4y ago
[flagged]
Sakos 4y ago
It's disturbing how eager people here are to jump on "vaccines are bad" or "why isn't anybody talking about vaccines bad sides". The side effects of vaccines and Covid have been under heavy scrutiny from the very first day. Where in the fuck are you people getting your news and what are you doing on HN?
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  There is going to be selection bias for articles like this. Who is more interested in the cause of increased heart attacks in the young? Who will most likely comment on their concern. Once you adjust your priors things start making more sense :)
- detrites 4y ago
  Under scrutiny where exactly? VAERS? I get my "news" on vaccines from PubMed, the Lancet, the BMJ, etc. All such sources show at best disagreement over safety, at worst, unsafe. It's not hyperbolic, deranged, or lacking in intellect to be concerned by this. For example, a recently submitted study out of NZ, done by the NZ Ministry of Health, exhibited a clear indication of yet another side effect: kidney disease, along with reconfirming myocarditis etc. The rates again suggested that younger people and repeated boosting is likely a bad idea.
kossTKR 4y ago
Vaccines in general is probably one of the most important discoveries of modern science but i find it quite bizarre that people put so much trust into a very unique fasttracked process and pharma companies that have a very visible history of deception and fraud. 7 pharma companies got "reprimanded" by the EU after the last 2010 flu pandemic because of astroturfing and "using a crisis to profit from vaccines" that the EU didn't need. Personally, though double vaxxed, i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop.
- unvaxxed_sperm 4y ago
  [dead]
- chimprich 4y ago
  > especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats Right, I'm going to call bullshit on this. If you're going to make incredible claims like this on HN against all scientific orthodoxy, you have to show your workings. What is the risk of myocarditis from the vaccines in under-60s? What was the unvaccinated fatality rate for under-60s? Cite your sources.
  - mikem170 4y ago
    Somebody elsewhere posted this reference: > But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination. [0] [0] https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
    - chimprich 4y ago
      That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite: "The overall risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus, a large new study in England shows." The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
I don't understand the rush to defend vaccines. I've been vaccinated and don't regret that because in those circumstances, they were a positive health choice. But it's impossible to know the long-term impact of any medicine unless you've actually studied it, well, long-term. In 5 years, the vaccines might be death in a vial. Or they might be completely benign. You'll only know after 5 years.
- World177 4y ago
  The vaccine is just unrelated to the article. It's about the people who have had Covid-19, not the vaccine.
- neuronic 4y ago
  Stop spreading these right wing anti-vaxxer lies, my god. "Death in a vial". Dont you feel ashamed and ridiculous posting this insane over-the-top inflammatory rhetoric? People are already discussing the science and long term effects and few people just take the vaccines at face value. And to add to your harmful, conscious spread of disinformation, you thinly veil it in "I am vaccinated myself, but..."
  - spaceman_2020 4y ago
    Way to miss the point. Absolutely hysterical.
    - chimprich 4y ago
      No, "death in a vial" is hysterical nonsense.
    - neuronic 4y ago
      You very clearly wrote what you wrote. It was inflammatory language and you are well aware. Nothing hysterical about it.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I have to say that's a pretty good trick to never have to do anything. Like I should probably take out the trash, but who knows, I might get killed by a car veering off the road while I put it out. Or sure I'd go to the gym, but I might get killed by a weight falling off a machine or something; better not to risk it. I'll probably be using this is in the future.
unvaxxed_sperm 4y ago
Tho whole pandemic was founded on the base of death count, where every death of a person who tested positive for covid was counted as covid death. That is a fact. To level the field, we should count every death of a person who took the experimental gene therapy as death due to the said therapy. The only difference is the propaganda machine, sorry, media, was spreading the unjustified panic about the former and is dead silent about the latter.
stuaxo 4y ago
This started before the vaccines, so it's COVID. Although the vaccine may well docthis, just to a much much lesser extent.
sampo 4y ago
> For those who are desperate to draw a link between vaccines and heart attacks I have problems with that argument. If the claim is that the coronavirus spike protein from vaccines causes heart attacks, then surely the coronavirus spike protein from an actual coronavirus infection will cause even more heart attacks. How have they been able to bypass this logical problem?
- mgalgs 4y ago
  According to my neighbor who is an ER doc, the spike protein stays in your system a lot longer than it does after natural infection. Unfortunately I can't find a reference for this claim, and the worst part is that I don't know if that's because my Google fu is lacking or if this information is being suppressed...
RickJWagner 4y ago
I'm wondering about Maine....
candiodari 4y ago
I think the disease does draw a link. I don't find it particularly surprising that after 2 years of a stay-at-home order infarcts of all kinds are going up.

nyrulez 4y ago

It's difficult to draw conclusions because first graph is not the delta in deaths, just total deaths. and southern states have always had a high cardiovascular mortality. I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Whenever this discussion comes up, its either complete blame or zero blame. How about investigate it like any other factor with the help of proper data? After all, it's the biggest change that young people have experienced that coincides with what authors note. Has there been any other huge lifestyle or external change for younger people? The other is staying indoors and not spending time outside. That could lead to lower activity levels and more stress. I can't think of many others, apart from covid itself. It would be the right thing to do to explore it as a causal factor with cool heads. It's not impossible is it? What if it actually is leading to huge risk and we refuse to learn about it until 10 years later because we must not talk ill about vaccines? In my own case, I had significant cardiovascular issues at a relatively young age, 1 week after I got my booster. They are simply not collecting this kind of data at a large scale to draw meaningful conclusions either way because the whole vaccine discussion is so charged. My doctor said he doesn't know if it's common enough because they are not instructed to collect this information. For me, even though it's anecdotal, the severity of my incident so close to the booster, without having any other history obviously makes me consider it as the #1 factor, not anything else.

wazer5 4y ago
How about exposure to actual coronavirus? Most everyone is exposed at least to small degrees on a daily/weekly basis given the levels in air.
- nyrulez 4y ago
  Yes, that's definitely possible. All of this would be much easier to decipher if the studies went deeper into cohorts of who got the vaccination and where the heart attack delta is. So if you had 4 cohorts of people and noticed their heart attack delta: covid/no vaccine, no covid/no vaccine, covid/vaccine, no covid/vaccine, that itself would tell you a lot. Because if no covid/vaccine is showing a much higher or similar delta as covid/*, that would be pretty worrisome. I think that seems to be missing in the given study.
  - steve1977 4y ago
    Can we reliably detect if someone was vaccinated but not exposed to the actual virus?
    - michilehr 4y ago
      Yes. I did a test last year to check for antibodies generated through the vaccine and antibodies generated through an infection. Vaccine was positive, infection negative.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        Is the rest reliable? “In participants that had COVID-19 and were tested one week after symptoms developed, antibody tests detected only 27% to 41% of infections. In week 2 after first symptoms, 64% to 79% of infections were detected, rising to 78% to 88% in week 3. Tests that specifically detected IgG or IgM antibodies were the most accurate and, when testing people from 21 days after first symptoms, they detected 93% of people with COVID-19. Tests gave false positive results for 1% of those without COVID-19.” https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-accuracy-antibody-tests-detection-infection-covid-19-virus https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-ac...

chaostheory 4y ago

Let’s pretend there was a statistically significant relation to heart attacks with the mRNA vaccines. I would imagine that the risk of a heart attack would be far greater with worse outcomes if you got infected with COVID unvaccinated. I also understand why the authorities are adamant about there being no link to heart attacks and vaccines given all the pushback against vaccines. However, it also worrying to see science take a backseat to politics. https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-Releases/2022/11/07/18/58/Which-COVID-Vaccine-You-Get-Can-Impact-Myocarditis-Risk https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-Releases/2022/11/07/18/5... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2793555 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 For disclosure, I’m fully vaccinated with booster, and I am a proponent of vaccination. However, I’m not going to ignore research and data just because it doesn’t match my views. It really annoys me that the mainstream media treats the increased likelihood of myocarditis as a conspiracy theory. All this will do is further undermine public trust in public institutions. It wasn’t that long ago when public officials ridiculed the need for masks in order to secretly help preserve PPE supplies for healthcare workers Fauci told CNN, “The thing that has inhibited that a bit is to make sure that we don’t take away the supply of masks from the health care workers who need them,” he continued. “But once we get in a situation where we have enough masks, I believe there will be some very serious consideration about more broadening this recommendation of using masks.” https://khn.org/morning-breakout/cdc-considers-shifting-guidance-on-masks-but-are-wary-of-creating-a-run-on-n95s-that-protect-health-workers/ https://khn.org/morning-breakout/cdc-considers-shifting-guid...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> However, it also worrying to see science take a backseat to politics. It's not politics directly, it's lying and all the "whoopsies". I live in slovenia, so there was no trump vs others here. When I got vaccinated we had four kinds of vaccines (J&J, astrazeneca, pfeizer and moderna... if you got vacicnated abroad, also sputnik). All those vaccines were said to prevent getting a symptomatic covid infection and also prevent the spread. Then slowly three out of those four got cancelled here, because they caused issues here and abroad and in case of J&J, even killed a young girl here. Every time one of them got removed, the rest were "completely safe"... first astrazeneca, but the others were good, then J&J killed a girl, but moderna and pfizer are safe, then moderna went away, but pfeizer was safe... it was just a matter of time when something "safe" was an "whoops, it's not safe, but the others are". Also the "prevent symptomatic infection and spread" was somehing stalined-away and "prevent severe illness" appeared. I understand the need for fast action, but most of the anti-covid measures (limited and forbidden stuff, also stuff that needed you to be vaccinated to do) were targeted towards young people... old people need a local grocery store and a doctor... young people need clubs, bars, restaurants, party locations etc. (not to mention in person schools). So young people, who generally didnt die in any significant numbers (compared to traffic accidents and suicides) got the most of the damage, and old people didn't need to get vaccinated at all, because the measures didn't affect them. Basically, the whole handling of covid, the lies, the wrong priorities, and the "whoopsies" have destroyed the trust in science, scientists and other authorities for many many years.

junofan 4y ago

So why’s this study published in a virology journal?

corbulo 4y ago

[flagged]

upsidesinclude 4y ago

[flagged]

thinking4real 4y ago

[flagged]

ygggvbbjiuygvf 4y ago
Not saying it is not happening more often, but how often you see it reported is not a good indicator. It is just how the news works, there is now heightened interest in that sort of thing so it is reported more often. I do remember such cases from before Covid. Another recent example would be „black person killed by cops“ - even here in Germany the latest case made national news, even though it happened in the US.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
heavyset_go 4y ago
This is what confirmation bias looks like. You weren't looking for it before, and people weren't incentivized to sensationalize athletes' medical problems in the past. Sudden cardiac problems tend to rear their heads when you're overexerting yourself, no matter how healthy you perceive yourself to be[1]. There's a reason gyms have defibrillators, it's because strenuous exercise increases your risks of sudden cardiac events. Here's an article from 2012, titled "Why do sports stars collapse in action?", that examines the collapse of athletes while playing sports[2]: > Professional sports players are generally in prime physical condition, especially with today’s advanced physiological, nutritional and medical knowledge. > However, Fabrice Muamba is the latest in a growing list of athletes around the world who have suffered heart problems – seemingly out of nowhere. Weird how this sudden trend goes all the way back to 2012. [1] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/can-too-much-extreme-exercise-damage-your-heart/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/can-too-much-extreme-exer... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/sport/health-muamba-heart-problems/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/03/19/sport/health-muamba-heart-pro...
- z7 4y ago
  I agree the phenomenon isn't new.[1] But that doesn't mean that number of cases hasn't changed. I think what started the recent 'sudden cardiac death of athletes' speculation is more the perceived incidence than the phenomenon itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_cardiac_death_of_athletes#Notable_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_cardiac_death_of_athlet...

joaorico 4y ago

Simpson’s paradox should be taken into account. If you group the population into only 2 groups: all of the vaccinated and all the unvaccinated, regardless of age; then the vaccinated had a higher death toll. But age is a hidden factor. The older have more risks and are more vaccinated. If you group by vaccination AND by age bracket, the opposite happens. For example, the 60 to 65 vaccinated have a lower death rate than the 60 to 65 unvaccinated.

petodo 4y ago
The study is about age group 25-44 where you should really not expect heart attack (very rare).
friend_and_foe 4y ago
Just so I understand what you're saying, it sounds to me like covid is killing old people and something else is killing everyone else at a higher rate, correlating with vaccination status? So only old people and high risk individuals should've gotten the vaccine?
- vasco 4y ago
  That much was obvious. Young people weren't asked to take the vaccine to protect themselves but to protect the herd.
  - unvaxxed_sperm 4y ago
    And by „asked“ you mean (in many cases) forced. Not to mention, the emergency auth clearly stated (in europe at least) that it was unknown if the serum prevented spread. Lookup the documents, it‘s right there. So the reality is that young people were forced to take untested gene therapy for no medical reason at all.
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    Despite the fact that the clinical trials didn't test for ability to stop transmission and infection. So the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer outright lied to the public. And when that lie fell apart, it was so 'you don't overrun the hospitals' despite the fact that young people weren't being hospitalized at any rate more than the seasonal flu.

JacksonGariety 4y ago

Comparing states is fallacious because there are so many confounding factors. The lowest vaccinated states, in the Bible Belt, are highest for almost all health conditions. People in those states are less healthy period. One cannot draw conclusions that way.

sMarsIntruder 4y ago

Yes, that’s definitely caused by the Climate Change.

6nf 4y ago

[flagged]

Sakos 4y ago

It's disturbing how eager people here are to jump on "vaccines are bad" or "why isn't anybody talking about vaccines bad sides". The side effects of vaccines and Covid have been under heavy scrutiny from the very first day. Where in the fuck are you people getting your news and what are you doing on HN?

mensetmanusman 4y ago
There is going to be selection bias for articles like this. Who is more interested in the cause of increased heart attacks in the young? Who will most likely comment on their concern. Once you adjust your priors things start making more sense :)
detrites 4y ago
Under scrutiny where exactly? VAERS? I get my "news" on vaccines from PubMed, the Lancet, the BMJ, etc. All such sources show at best disagreement over safety, at worst, unsafe. It's not hyperbolic, deranged, or lacking in intellect to be concerned by this. For example, a recently submitted study out of NZ, done by the NZ Ministry of Health, exhibited a clear indication of yet another side effect: kidney disease, along with reconfirming myocarditis etc. The rates again suggested that younger people and repeated boosting is likely a bad idea.

kossTKR 4y ago

Vaccines in general is probably one of the most important discoveries of modern science but i find it quite bizarre that people put so much trust into a very unique fasttracked process and pharma companies that have a very visible history of deception and fraud. 7 pharma companies got "reprimanded" by the EU after the last 2010 flu pandemic because of astroturfing and "using a crisis to profit from vaccines" that the EU didn't need. Personally, though double vaxxed, i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop.

unvaxxed_sperm 4y ago
[dead]
chimprich 4y ago
> especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats Right, I'm going to call bullshit on this. If you're going to make incredible claims like this on HN against all scientific orthodoxy, you have to show your workings. What is the risk of myocarditis from the vaccines in under-60s? What was the unvaccinated fatality rate for under-60s? Cite your sources.
- mikem170 4y ago
  Somebody elsewhere posted this reference: > But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination. [0] [0] https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...
  - chimprich 4y ago
    That's a very different statistic: under 40s, and only in men, and only for one vaccine, after a second dose. It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite: "The overall risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus, a large new study in England shows." The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine.

spaceman_2020 4y ago

I don't understand the rush to defend vaccines. I've been vaccinated and don't regret that because in those circumstances, they were a positive health choice. But it's impossible to know the long-term impact of any medicine unless you've actually studied it, well, long-term. In 5 years, the vaccines might be death in a vial. Or they might be completely benign. You'll only know after 5 years.

World177 4y ago
The vaccine is just unrelated to the article. It's about the people who have had Covid-19, not the vaccine.
neuronic 4y ago
Stop spreading these right wing anti-vaxxer lies, my god. "Death in a vial". Dont you feel ashamed and ridiculous posting this insane over-the-top inflammatory rhetoric? People are already discussing the science and long term effects and few people just take the vaccines at face value. And to add to your harmful, conscious spread of disinformation, you thinly veil it in "I am vaccinated myself, but..."
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  Way to miss the point. Absolutely hysterical.
  - chimprich 4y ago
    No, "death in a vial" is hysterical nonsense.
  - neuronic 4y ago
    You very clearly wrote what you wrote. It was inflammatory language and you are well aware. Nothing hysterical about it.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I have to say that's a pretty good trick to never have to do anything. Like I should probably take out the trash, but who knows, I might get killed by a car veering off the road while I put it out. Or sure I'd go to the gym, but I might get killed by a weight falling off a machine or something; better not to risk it. I'll probably be using this is in the future.

unvaxxed_sperm 4y ago

Tho whole pandemic was founded on the base of death count, where every death of a person who tested positive for covid was counted as covid death. That is a fact. To level the field, we should count every death of a person who took the experimental gene therapy as death due to the said therapy. The only difference is the propaganda machine, sorry, media, was spreading the unjustified panic about the former and is dead silent about the latter.

stuaxo 4y ago

This started before the vaccines, so it's COVID. Although the vaccine may well docthis, just to a much much lesser extent.

sampo 4y ago

> For those who are desperate to draw a link between vaccines and heart attacks I have problems with that argument. If the claim is that the coronavirus spike protein from vaccines causes heart attacks, then surely the coronavirus spike protein from an actual coronavirus infection will cause even more heart attacks. How have they been able to bypass this logical problem?

mgalgs 4y ago
According to my neighbor who is an ER doc, the spike protein stays in your system a lot longer than it does after natural infection. Unfortunately I can't find a reference for this claim, and the worst part is that I don't know if that's because my Google fu is lacking or if this information is being suppressed...

RickJWagner 4y ago

I'm wondering about Maine....

candiodari 4y ago

I think the disease does draw a link. I don't find it particularly surprising that after 2 years of a stay-at-home order infarcts of all kinds are going up.