9 ms·

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

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...
- ekianjo 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - defrost 4y ago
    Well, I know that I didn't as I haven't spent any time at all in China since 2018. Were you there long enough to have conclusive statistical significant observations? Perhaps you have access to some trove of reliable trustworthy epidemiological data from Wuhan guaranteed untainted by party hands that you can share and provenance?
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  People also rule out significantly higher levels of sedantary activity, coupled with higher obesity and lower physical activity levels. Sitting at home and working all day is really bad for your health, especially if you do it on/off for two years. The group in question - 25-44 year olds - are primary members of the workforce, and most likely saw their work shift to WFH for extended periods of time. Anecdotally, all the people who worked from home within my circle struggled a lot with inactivity and weight gain, coupled with poor diets.
  - soundnote 4y ago
    This works for office rats, but not really athletes, who've also seemed to have an unusually high rate of heart issues.
faeriechangling 4y ago
>why the rush to rule them out? They were just introduced on a broad scale, so rushing to rule them out is only natural, as they are something it would be reasonable to suspect of causing this. You after all rule out likely suspects first. The only thing thing besides the vaccines that come to mind having caused this is widespread lifestyle changes society wide as well as the most overwhelmingly obvious reason this trend might be happening which is that we just got hit by a major pandemic that causes heart attacks.
- nyrulez 4y ago
  I don't fully understand. Are you saying since vaccines were broadly introduced, they are less likely to be the culprit? How is that implied? 30% increase in heart attacks in young age group is pretty broad too. This study doesn't study vaccination cohorts to imply any association either way
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    No, I’m saying vaccines are so plausibly the culprit you would want to immediately subject them to analysis as to if they are the cause of the trend asap, but a natural consequence of any such analysis is you are very likely to do the opposite and rule them out as a cause.
    - kelipso 4y ago
      Okay...I think I sprained a couple of nerves from these gymnastics but has anyone actually explicitly ruled out vaccines as the culprit of this?
      - collyw 4y ago
        Not heart attacks, but Scotland is investigating a rise in neonatal deaths, which correlates with the vaccine rollout, yet has decided that it's definitely not the vaccine. Science at it's finest. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23259523.expert-review-mystery-spike-scots-baby-deaths-begins/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23259523.expert-review-m...
autoexec 4y ago
> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? I don't believe that anyone has completely ruled out vaccines. I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". It's attractive to conspiracy minded people to have secret suppressed information that "they" don't want you know about, but it just isn't real. Wild speculation without evidence intended to spread fear and vaccine hesitancy is what gets suppressed, and for good reason. Meanwhile researchers are carefully keeping an eye on emerging evidence even when it's only preliminary (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051) and the mass media, even the left leaning media, has zero problems reporting on what the research we have shows (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-shot-may-cause-double-to-triple-as-many-heart-problems-as-pfizer-new-study-finds/ar-AA13VZw4 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-shot-may-ca...). What we know is that covid infection itself increases the risk of heart problems and blood clots in everyone and that not taking the vaccine increases the odds of death, severe illness, and overwhelmed hospitals, along with disruptions in society and the economy. Right now, all the evidence we have says getting a covid vaccine is the smart choice, but nobody actually thinks that there's zero chance of unexpected side effects from these vaccines and nobody is ignoring that possibility or forbidding people from "asking questions". Spreading lies and FUD on the other hand isn't and shouldn't be well received.
- briantakita 4y ago
  [flagged]
- nyrulez 4y ago
  I think my biggest issue with the whole thing is lack of data collection at the national level about adults who face cardiovascular issues and their vaccination/covid status. If I was rolling out a new vaccine at the national level, this is the first thing I could collect to be able to make conclusions either way. And it's not a complicated thing to collect too. Blood clots have gone up significantly for younger people in last two years. Is that due to covid or due to vaccination? We can't answer this simple enough question because we refuse to collect data. This is directly from my hematologist btw who is an expert in blood clots at a famous hospital. That itself suggests either bias or complacency to me. Would you be against data collection? It's not implying anything.
l33tbro 4y ago
> why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Are you kidding? The vaccines are the most politicised issue of the last 10 years. With the left and right wing media bating their respective audiences with dehumanising terms like 'antivaxxers' and 'face-diaper people', our society became incredibly tribalised on this issue. Whether the vaccines are or are not to blame, good luck getting any social consensus. This is akin to religion now.
- bboygravity 4y ago
  Yep, more papers isn't going to fix this. This "life saving vaccines are the devil" stuff is indeed just a religion now. Isn't anti-vax generally literally correlated to geographies with more religious people anyway?
  - arghnoname 4y ago
    It's more charitable to acknowledge that each 'side' has been pretty 'religious' on this stuff. Fauci made his was onto Christmas ornaments and so on, after all. There were pro-vaccine dance numbers, and people who went to the beach without being vaccinated or masked were harangued. There were people who 'followed the science' on this stuff, which is more contentious on general covid policy than you might think, and then there were people who took whatever position their tribe took and threw venom and hate at the other side.
    - bboygravity 4y ago
      My point was that the issue wasn't the quality or lack of science. There's plenty of papers out there addressing most points people worry about (some come out a bit late, but hey... science takes time to do). The issue is with politics and media, which you seem to agree on since you're talking about "both sides", Fauci, tribes, venom and hate etc. All of which are concepts that aren't (or shouldn't be) relevant when doing virology and other related science. In my view this isn't science versus anti-science, it's just media (sponsored by big money) & politicians (sponsored by big money) v.s. the people. More papers or blaming scientists isn't going to fix any of those issues.
fithisux 4y ago
[flagged]
narrator 4y ago
>why the rush to rule them out? Any fact that would lead to the conclusion that there was a deliberate campaign of organized malice by large groups of people especially in government agencies is false because the conclusion is always false. Also, obedience and compliance with government dictates is always rewarded. Any fact leading to the conclusion that that is not the case is always false. The proper way to determine the truth is to determine first what are alway false conclusions and then rule out the facts that would lead to those conclusions regardless of the evidence. /poe's law
- etherael 4y ago
  Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
drblastoff 4y ago
You should report this to VAERS if you’re in the US and it hasn’t been reported already. Indicate the batch number, which should be written on your vaccine card. I’ve had four Pfizer shots. For three shots, the side effects were mild. But after one, I had chest pains for about a week. It turns out that shot was from a batch with many cases of serious illness and several deaths reported on VAERS. The other batches had almost no reports. It could be a coincidence, but the more data they have the better.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  I wish people could talk about real problems like this and not made-up problems like you'd seen being passed around on social media. The politicization (which has lead to a complete jam-up in the public discourse - on one side you have heavy, active censorship and on the other you have totally fabricated hysterical theories with no grounding in reality) and close integration between the manufacturers and the regulators (which is there in every industry sadly) has created an ideal environment for mundane errors in manufacturing through point-of-care administration to creep in undetected, or at least unremarked on. To offer one example, if the person giving you the shot hits a blood vessel, the risk of a clot goes up a lot. Like many injections, it's supposed to go in to muscle tissue. How many overworked nurses are hitting deep blood vessels by accident? Even basic questions about this are not being asked in the public square, as much if not more due to the crowding out by the "they're modifying our DNA" stuff than due to tech companies indiscriminately deranking keywords that a brand wouldn't want to be associated with.
  - dham 4y ago
    Yet, the simple mention of aspiration meant you were conspiracy theorist. So we can't even have the simple conversations, much less the difficult ones.
    - thunky 4y ago
      I asked the person administering boosters at Walgreens about aspiration. She had never heard of it.
tarsinge 4y ago
> In my own case, I had significant cardiovascular issues at a relatively young age, 1 week after I got my booster. The vaccine is only a part of the virus right (the spike protein)? Yes for you it’s likely the cause, your experience regarding data collection might be anecdotal because there are growing evidence regarding myocarditis following the vaccine for example. What is usually missed is that you and people responding like this would have been far worse with the virus alone, because you only got exposed to a fraction of it. The virus is known to cause significant cardiovascular damage (orders of magnitude more than the vaccine in healthy young adults), so it seems not that relevant to focus only on the vaccine at that point in the study.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  The virus is known to cause significant cardiovascular damage (orders of magnitude more than the vaccine in healthy young adults), This is not true. It might be true across all age groups and genders, but when you narrow to young men, the vaccines shows similar rates of heart issues, or much higher in the case of Moderna, than from Covid alone. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbS_AvMaQAEiMCZ?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbS_AvMaQAEiMCZ?format=jpg&name=... 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-... 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. That risk rose with the second dose for all three vaccines studied and was highest for Moderna's, which had an additional 97 myocarditis cases per 1 million. For unvaccinated men under 40 with COVID-19, there were 16 additional myocarditis cases per million.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    I'm cautious about that number. There were about 3000 people, and then cut down into only men, only under 40, must have had the moderna vaccine and must have had two doses (it's broken down even more in the article). The UI is hard to use on the actual article site but I think that's 44 events.
logicchains 4y ago
>My doctor said he doesn't know if it's common enough because they are not instructed to collect this information. Some other countries are collecting this data, and it's not uncommon. Prospective studies (which compare cardiovascular health measurements of a cohort pre- and post-vaccine) show a myocarditis rate of around 0.1-1% in teenagers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36602621/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36602621/ https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196 https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196 . Compared to no observable increase in the rate of myocarditis from covid infection itself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025013/
- jamesblonde 4y ago
  Many european countries stopped Moderna for men under 30 because they saw this early signal - https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sweden-pauses-use-moderna-covid-vaccine-cites-rare-side-effects-2021-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
CydeWeys 4y ago
> 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. All the evidence I've seen is that the adverse cardiovascular issues seen rarely as a side effect of the vaccine are a direct result of circulating coronavirus spike protein in the blood stream. You know what causes way more spike protein to circulate in the blood stream, literally by several orders of magnitude over the course of an entire infection? Getting COVID, of course. So if you're a mountain hermit who's never going to be exposed to COVID, then you shouldn't get the vaccine. Anyone else who even occasionally goes out in society and sees people face to face benefits from it though.
- incrudible 4y ago
  If this hypothesis is true, why are only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines associated with substantially higher risk of Myocarditis? Why is COVID not associated with Myocarditis in this study? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/
troydavis 4y ago
It’s worth reading the full text yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9839603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9839603/ . As usual, the study provides much more information than the linked-to summary. In this study, the authors analyzed 4 time periods, the first 2 of which were before vaccines were even available. For different age groups, the increase was identified in all 4 periods: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=9839603_nihms-1861427-f0001.jpg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...
headsoup 4y ago
Exactly, it's not 'desperate to link them to vaccines,' but that it is 'desperate to find any reason at all before even looking at vaccines.' Considering the distrust of both Pharma and government (both sides) that preceded the vaccines and the 'heart attack' issue, it is quite astonishing the level of support seen for dismissal of them possibly causing anything. And especially as they're a novel vaccine. I don't mean to accept it's the cause here, I mean even the thought of genuinely investigating it.
- newsclues 4y ago
  It seems as though if people were desperate to prove the vaccines were safe and effective, there would be more open and exhaustive research into any and all potential harms from the vaccines. If something is safe and I am confident in the safety, I will do any and all testing to prove so and request others do the same.
  - absentmoon 4y ago
    "any and all testing?". Are you aware of the flat earth movement? For some of their members, no amount of evidence is enough. The goal posts always move. I suspect the same applies here.
    - atdixon 4y ago
      Bad analogy. The flat earth theory isn’t novel.
- roundandround 4y ago
  It seems to me like a lot of people want to start with a positive intervention being to blame. I can sort of see the logic with vaccines for diseases not everyone would catch without the intervention but in general there's a disregard for what mistakes you are making when your choice is a bad one instead of a vaccine. Obviously the timing is wrong here for a vaccine to cause things before roll out. Novel virus causing a subject heart damage is a known thing. Other interventions were bad for heart health. The states with less vaccination had more exposure to vaccine alternatives and more heart events. The argument then becomes that pharma suspicious states just always have worse heart health. So the suspicion is overblown or heart health doesn't really matter? We just want vaccines to be better than moms cooking because we like mom more than big pharma?
tomohawk 4y ago
Not being curious has become a joke. https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-say-they-dont-know-what-thing-is-causing-everyone-to-suddenly-collapse-but-its-definitely-not-that-one-thing https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-say-they-dont-know-what-...
kosherhurricane 4y ago
> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Because antivaxxers don't want to have a nuanced discussion of pro and cons of any vaccine. This iteration is "mRNA is new so it's bad". But it's always been the same and ends with "vaccine is bad" for them. It's not possible to bring a reasonable discussion to someone who will happily throw out reason to accept their own preconceived conclusions. > In my own case, I had significant cardiovascular issues at a relatively young age, 1 week after I got my booster. Even before the vaccine, it was clear that covid triggers cardio events in some people, even young. Even three years in, it's not clear why that is. So it's plausible that a vaccine's spike protine could trigger an event, above the background level. The question then is, does the vaccine trigger cardio events at a higher or lower rate than getting covid?
- Izkata 4y ago
  > Because antivaxxers don't want to have a nuanced discussion of pro and cons of any vaccine. This iteration is "mRNA is new so it's bad". But it's always been the same and ends with "vaccine is bad" for them. It's not possible to bring a reasonable discussion to someone who will happily throw out reason to accept their own preconceived conclusions. This is a common viewpoint of someone who hasn't actually seen their arguments. It started off as a more generic "we've never successfully made a vaccine against coronaviruses before, this needs more testing to be sure we don't have the same problems as those old attempts". Then they started noticing patterns no one else was willing to address, like in 2021 countries kept having massive covid waves after reaching high vaccination rates. It was obvious they weren't doing what they were sold on, yet this never got addressed. Instead they were just called "anti-vaxxers" and ignored. Around the same time they noticed the spike in myocarditis in young men, and only now, over a year later, are people talking about it. They refer to research and public numbers, they use archive sites to keep things available from official websites that get deleted, and yet are constantly dismissed as "anti-vax" when they have evidence no one wants to look at and actually try to debunk. They just get ignored through ad-hominims instead.
  - kosherhurricane 4y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Because it's a distraction from (in the deliberately misleading sense) the more relevant question: rule in or rule out the role of actual COVID-19.
Izkata 4y ago
> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? > 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. I think you partially answered your own question: if a causative link is found, they're scared about what may happen to themselves/people who pushed the vaccines, given how many people have taken them.

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...
ekianjo 4y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 4y ago
  Well, I know that I didn't as I haven't spent any time at all in China since 2018. Were you there long enough to have conclusive statistical significant observations? Perhaps you have access to some trove of reliable trustworthy epidemiological data from Wuhan guaranteed untainted by party hands that you can share and provenance?
spaceman_2020 4y ago
People also rule out significantly higher levels of sedantary activity, coupled with higher obesity and lower physical activity levels. Sitting at home and working all day is really bad for your health, especially if you do it on/off for two years. The group in question - 25-44 year olds - are primary members of the workforce, and most likely saw their work shift to WFH for extended periods of time. Anecdotally, all the people who worked from home within my circle struggled a lot with inactivity and weight gain, coupled with poor diets.
- soundnote 4y ago
  This works for office rats, but not really athletes, who've also seemed to have an unusually high rate of heart issues.

faeriechangling 4y ago

>why the rush to rule them out? They were just introduced on a broad scale, so rushing to rule them out is only natural, as they are something it would be reasonable to suspect of causing this. You after all rule out likely suspects first. The only thing thing besides the vaccines that come to mind having caused this is widespread lifestyle changes society wide as well as the most overwhelmingly obvious reason this trend might be happening which is that we just got hit by a major pandemic that causes heart attacks.

nyrulez 4y ago
I don't fully understand. Are you saying since vaccines were broadly introduced, they are less likely to be the culprit? How is that implied? 30% increase in heart attacks in young age group is pretty broad too. This study doesn't study vaccination cohorts to imply any association either way
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  No, I’m saying vaccines are so plausibly the culprit you would want to immediately subject them to analysis as to if they are the cause of the trend asap, but a natural consequence of any such analysis is you are very likely to do the opposite and rule them out as a cause.
  - kelipso 4y ago
    Okay...I think I sprained a couple of nerves from these gymnastics but has anyone actually explicitly ruled out vaccines as the culprit of this?
    - collyw 4y ago
      Not heart attacks, but Scotland is investigating a rise in neonatal deaths, which correlates with the vaccine rollout, yet has decided that it's definitely not the vaccine. Science at it's finest. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23259523.expert-review-mystery-spike-scots-baby-deaths-begins/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23259523.expert-review-m...

autoexec 4y ago

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? I don't believe that anyone has completely ruled out vaccines. I think that's a boogeyman conspiracy theorists tell each other "The possible risks from vaccines are forbidden from being considered or talked about!". It's attractive to conspiracy minded people to have secret suppressed information that "they" don't want you know about, but it just isn't real. Wild speculation without evidence intended to spread fear and vaccine hesitancy is what gets suppressed, and for good reason. Meanwhile researchers are carefully keeping an eye on emerging evidence even when it's only preliminary (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001051) and the mass media, even the left leaning media, has zero problems reporting on what the research we have shows (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-shot-may-cause-double-to-triple-as-many-heart-problems-as-pfizer-new-study-finds/ar-AA13VZw4 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-shot-may-ca...). What we know is that covid infection itself increases the risk of heart problems and blood clots in everyone and that not taking the vaccine increases the odds of death, severe illness, and overwhelmed hospitals, along with disruptions in society and the economy. Right now, all the evidence we have says getting a covid vaccine is the smart choice, but nobody actually thinks that there's zero chance of unexpected side effects from these vaccines and nobody is ignoring that possibility or forbidding people from "asking questions". Spreading lies and FUD on the other hand isn't and shouldn't be well received.

briantakita 4y ago
[flagged]
nyrulez 4y ago
I think my biggest issue with the whole thing is lack of data collection at the national level about adults who face cardiovascular issues and their vaccination/covid status. If I was rolling out a new vaccine at the national level, this is the first thing I could collect to be able to make conclusions either way. And it's not a complicated thing to collect too. Blood clots have gone up significantly for younger people in last two years. Is that due to covid or due to vaccination? We can't answer this simple enough question because we refuse to collect data. This is directly from my hematologist btw who is an expert in blood clots at a famous hospital. That itself suggests either bias or complacency to me. Would you be against data collection? It's not implying anything.

l33tbro 4y ago

> why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Are you kidding? The vaccines are the most politicised issue of the last 10 years. With the left and right wing media bating their respective audiences with dehumanising terms like 'antivaxxers' and 'face-diaper people', our society became incredibly tribalised on this issue. Whether the vaccines are or are not to blame, good luck getting any social consensus. This is akin to religion now.

bboygravity 4y ago
Yep, more papers isn't going to fix this. This "life saving vaccines are the devil" stuff is indeed just a religion now. Isn't anti-vax generally literally correlated to geographies with more religious people anyway?
- arghnoname 4y ago
  It's more charitable to acknowledge that each 'side' has been pretty 'religious' on this stuff. Fauci made his was onto Christmas ornaments and so on, after all. There were pro-vaccine dance numbers, and people who went to the beach without being vaccinated or masked were harangued. There were people who 'followed the science' on this stuff, which is more contentious on general covid policy than you might think, and then there were people who took whatever position their tribe took and threw venom and hate at the other side.
  - bboygravity 4y ago
    My point was that the issue wasn't the quality or lack of science. There's plenty of papers out there addressing most points people worry about (some come out a bit late, but hey... science takes time to do). The issue is with politics and media, which you seem to agree on since you're talking about "both sides", Fauci, tribes, venom and hate etc. All of which are concepts that aren't (or shouldn't be) relevant when doing virology and other related science. In my view this isn't science versus anti-science, it's just media (sponsored by big money) & politicians (sponsored by big money) v.s. the people. More papers or blaming scientists isn't going to fix any of those issues.

fithisux 4y ago

[flagged]

narrator 4y ago

>why the rush to rule them out? Any fact that would lead to the conclusion that there was a deliberate campaign of organized malice by large groups of people especially in government agencies is false because the conclusion is always false. Also, obedience and compliance with government dictates is always rewarded. Any fact leading to the conclusion that that is not the case is always false. The proper way to determine the truth is to determine first what are alway false conclusions and then rule out the facts that would lead to those conclusions regardless of the evidence. /poe's law

etherael 4y ago
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

drblastoff 4y ago

You should report this to VAERS if you’re in the US and it hasn’t been reported already. Indicate the batch number, which should be written on your vaccine card. I’ve had four Pfizer shots. For three shots, the side effects were mild. But after one, I had chest pains for about a week. It turns out that shot was from a batch with many cases of serious illness and several deaths reported on VAERS. The other batches had almost no reports. It could be a coincidence, but the more data they have the better.

whatshisface 4y ago
I wish people could talk about real problems like this and not made-up problems like you'd seen being passed around on social media. The politicization (which has lead to a complete jam-up in the public discourse - on one side you have heavy, active censorship and on the other you have totally fabricated hysterical theories with no grounding in reality) and close integration between the manufacturers and the regulators (which is there in every industry sadly) has created an ideal environment for mundane errors in manufacturing through point-of-care administration to creep in undetected, or at least unremarked on. To offer one example, if the person giving you the shot hits a blood vessel, the risk of a clot goes up a lot. Like many injections, it's supposed to go in to muscle tissue. How many overworked nurses are hitting deep blood vessels by accident? Even basic questions about this are not being asked in the public square, as much if not more due to the crowding out by the "they're modifying our DNA" stuff than due to tech companies indiscriminately deranking keywords that a brand wouldn't want to be associated with.
- dham 4y ago
  Yet, the simple mention of aspiration meant you were conspiracy theorist. So we can't even have the simple conversations, much less the difficult ones.
  - thunky 4y ago
    I asked the person administering boosters at Walgreens about aspiration. She had never heard of it.

tarsinge 4y ago

> In my own case, I had significant cardiovascular issues at a relatively young age, 1 week after I got my booster. The vaccine is only a part of the virus right (the spike protein)? Yes for you it’s likely the cause, your experience regarding data collection might be anecdotal because there are growing evidence regarding myocarditis following the vaccine for example. What is usually missed is that you and people responding like this would have been far worse with the virus alone, because you only got exposed to a fraction of it. The virus is known to cause significant cardiovascular damage (orders of magnitude more than the vaccine in healthy young adults), so it seems not that relevant to focus only on the vaccine at that point in the study.

WillPostForFood 4y ago
The virus is known to cause significant cardiovascular damage (orders of magnitude more than the vaccine in healthy young adults), This is not true. It might be true across all age groups and genders, but when you narrow to young men, the vaccines shows similar rates of heart issues, or much higher in the case of Moderna, than from Covid alone. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbS_AvMaQAEiMCZ?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbS_AvMaQAEiMCZ?format=jpg&name=... 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-... 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. That risk rose with the second dose for all three vaccines studied and was highest for Moderna's, which had an additional 97 myocarditis cases per 1 million. For unvaccinated men under 40 with COVID-19, there were 16 additional myocarditis cases per million.
- IanCal 4y ago
  I'm cautious about that number. There were about 3000 people, and then cut down into only men, only under 40, must have had the moderna vaccine and must have had two doses (it's broken down even more in the article). The UI is hard to use on the actual article site but I think that's 44 events.

logicchains 4y ago

>My doctor said he doesn't know if it's common enough because they are not instructed to collect this information. Some other countries are collecting this data, and it's not uncommon. Prospective studies (which compare cardiovascular health measurements of a cohort pre- and post-vaccine) show a myocarditis rate of around 0.1-1% in teenagers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36602621/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36602621/ https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196 https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196 . Compared to no observable increase in the rate of myocarditis from covid infection itself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9025013/

jamesblonde 4y ago
Many european countries stopped Moderna for men under 30 because they saw this early signal - https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sweden-pauses-use-moderna-covid-vaccine-cites-rare-side-effects-2021-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

CydeWeys 4y ago

> 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. All the evidence I've seen is that the adverse cardiovascular issues seen rarely as a side effect of the vaccine are a direct result of circulating coronavirus spike protein in the blood stream. You know what causes way more spike protein to circulate in the blood stream, literally by several orders of magnitude over the course of an entire infection? Getting COVID, of course. So if you're a mountain hermit who's never going to be exposed to COVID, then you shouldn't get the vaccine. Anyone else who even occasionally goes out in society and sees people face to face benefits from it though.

incrudible 4y ago
If this hypothesis is true, why are only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines associated with substantially higher risk of Myocarditis? Why is COVID not associated with Myocarditis in this study? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35456309/

troydavis 4y ago

It’s worth reading the full text yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9839603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9839603/ . As usual, the study provides much more information than the linked-to summary. In this study, the authors analyzed 4 time periods, the first 2 of which were before vaccines were even available. For different age groups, the increase was identified in all 4 periods: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=9839603_nihms-1861427-f0001.jpg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...

headsoup 4y ago

Exactly, it's not 'desperate to link them to vaccines,' but that it is 'desperate to find any reason at all before even looking at vaccines.' Considering the distrust of both Pharma and government (both sides) that preceded the vaccines and the 'heart attack' issue, it is quite astonishing the level of support seen for dismissal of them possibly causing anything. And especially as they're a novel vaccine. I don't mean to accept it's the cause here, I mean even the thought of genuinely investigating it.

newsclues 4y ago
It seems as though if people were desperate to prove the vaccines were safe and effective, there would be more open and exhaustive research into any and all potential harms from the vaccines. If something is safe and I am confident in the safety, I will do any and all testing to prove so and request others do the same.
- absentmoon 4y ago
  "any and all testing?". Are you aware of the flat earth movement? For some of their members, no amount of evidence is enough. The goal posts always move. I suspect the same applies here.
  - atdixon 4y ago
    Bad analogy. The flat earth theory isn’t novel.
roundandround 4y ago
It seems to me like a lot of people want to start with a positive intervention being to blame. I can sort of see the logic with vaccines for diseases not everyone would catch without the intervention but in general there's a disregard for what mistakes you are making when your choice is a bad one instead of a vaccine. Obviously the timing is wrong here for a vaccine to cause things before roll out. Novel virus causing a subject heart damage is a known thing. Other interventions were bad for heart health. The states with less vaccination had more exposure to vaccine alternatives and more heart events. The argument then becomes that pharma suspicious states just always have worse heart health. So the suspicion is overblown or heart health doesn't really matter? We just want vaccines to be better than moms cooking because we like mom more than big pharma?

tomohawk 4y ago

Not being curious has become a joke. https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-say-they-dont-know-what-thing-is-causing-everyone-to-suddenly-collapse-but-its-definitely-not-that-one-thing https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-say-they-dont-know-what-...

kosherhurricane 4y ago

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Because antivaxxers don't want to have a nuanced discussion of pro and cons of any vaccine. This iteration is "mRNA is new so it's bad". But it's always been the same and ends with "vaccine is bad" for them. It's not possible to bring a reasonable discussion to someone who will happily throw out reason to accept their own preconceived conclusions. > In my own case, I had significant cardiovascular issues at a relatively young age, 1 week after I got my booster. Even before the vaccine, it was clear that covid triggers cardio events in some people, even young. Even three years in, it's not clear why that is. So it's plausible that a vaccine's spike protine could trigger an event, above the background level. The question then is, does the vaccine trigger cardio events at a higher or lower rate than getting covid?

Izkata 4y ago
> Because antivaxxers don't want to have a nuanced discussion of pro and cons of any vaccine. This iteration is "mRNA is new so it's bad". But it's always been the same and ends with "vaccine is bad" for them. It's not possible to bring a reasonable discussion to someone who will happily throw out reason to accept their own preconceived conclusions. This is a common viewpoint of someone who hasn't actually seen their arguments. It started off as a more generic "we've never successfully made a vaccine against coronaviruses before, this needs more testing to be sure we don't have the same problems as those old attempts". Then they started noticing patterns no one else was willing to address, like in 2021 countries kept having massive covid waves after reaching high vaccination rates. It was obvious they weren't doing what they were sold on, yet this never got addressed. Instead they were just called "anti-vaxxers" and ignored. Around the same time they noticed the spike in myocarditis in young men, and only now, over a year later, are people talking about it. They refer to research and public numbers, they use archive sites to keep things available from official websites that get deleted, and yet are constantly dismissed as "anti-vax" when they have evidence no one wants to look at and actually try to debunk. They just get ignored through ad-hominims instead.
- kosherhurricane 4y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Because it's a distraction from (in the deliberately misleading sense) the more relevant question: rule in or rule out the role of actual COVID-19.

Izkata 4y ago

> I guess the bigger question that I often have is why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? > 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. I think you partially answered your own question: if a causative link is found, they're scared about what may happen to themselves/people who pushed the vaccines, given how many people have taken them.